Sitting of 12 March 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Middlesex County Council Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Paisley Burgh Extension Bill (by Order),
Rutherglen Burgh Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS BILL,
Ordered, That, in the case of the Isle of Wight Highways Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    MR. T. W. Moon, HEREFORD.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. T. W. Moor, of Colva, Withington, Hereford, was awarded a final weekly allowance of 7s. 6d. a week for 104 weeks, plus a terminal gratuity of £20; that, on appeal on the 31st August, 1923, the Ministry's award was confirmed; that, at the latter end of September, 1924, he under-
    1480
    went an operation at Birmingham with regard to the said wound; and that, as a result of this operation, he has lost a large amount of muscle, with a consequential serious loss of grip of the right hand; what was the assessment of the medical officer of the Ministry who examined him in Hereford after the operation and the finding of the medical board who examined him in Birmingham; and whether in view of the difference between his present permanent disability and the minor disability for which he was given a final award three years ago, he will allow a reopening of the case?
    Captain Viscount CURZON(for Major TRYON): My right hon. Friend understands that in the case referred to, following a course of treatment which involved a minor surgical operation, the question of the correctness of the assessment of the final award was, in accordance with the usual arrangements, considered by the Ministry. Following medical examination and consideration of the case however, it was found that no material increase of disablement of a permanent nature had resulted and that the man's condition would materially improve. In these circumstances there was no ground for regarding the final award as having been made in error. Should the prognosis of the case, however, not materialise in the manner expected, it will, of course, be open to further consideration.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Will the Noble Lord be good enough to answer that part of the question which asks what was the assessment of the medical officer of the Ministry who examined him in Hereford after the operation?
    Viscount CURZON: I am afraid I am not able to answer that part of the question, but I will convey the matter to my right hon. Friend.

    CONVALESCENT TREATMENT AND TRAINING CENTRES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions what convalescent treatment and training centres have been closed in the past 12 months, and where they were situated; whether it is proposed to close the remaining treatment and training centres; and, if so, on what date each institution will be closed?
    Viscount CURZON: The centres at Barry and Blackpool were closed during 1924. The centre at Epsom is being closed this month. The remaining centre at Birmingham is still required, and no date can at present be assigned for its closing.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the relative stability of the cost of living during the past three years, he will consider the desirability of fixing the rates for disability pensions as those laid down in the warrants and Orders in Council for 1919 and 1920 and so relieve pensioners of any anxiety with regard to a prospective reduction of pension on the review due to take place in 1926?
    Viscount CURZON: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the rates of pension at present payable under the Royal Warrants were fixed at a time when the cost of living was considerably higher than it is now. My right hon. Friend sympathises, however, with the object to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in the last part of his question, and it is the intention of the Government to secure, if practicable, a measure of stabilisation of the rates of pension and other benefits provided by the Warrants on equitable lines.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in cases where the man prior to discharge is found by the military medical board to be suffering from a permanent disability as the result of aggravation caused by service, a permanent pension is awarded if the assessment is more than 20 per cent.; and, if not, whether he will state the practice of the Ministry of Pensions in these cases?
    Viscount CURZON: A man in such a case would not necessarily be given a pension for life. The worsening by service of the man's pre-existing ailment or injury might be temporary only and if it were not found to persist pension could not, under the terms of the Warrant, be continued.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Is the Noble Lord aware that in a good many cases where the condition of the men is described as only temporary, it is only temporary from the point of view of advantage to the Ministry?
    Viscount CURZON: I will convey those views to my right hon. Friend.

    INSTITUTION FOR NEURASTHENICS, SALTASH.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions the total cost per head, including establishment, medical attendance, and food, of the patients in the institution for neurasthenics at Saltash, Cornwall; and whether, if the cost be higher than would be the case if the men were given 100 per cent. pensions, he will, seeing that most of the men have been under treatment and away from their homes the greater part of the time that has elapsed since their discharge from the Forces of the Crown, consider the desirability of awarding life pensions and permit the men to be restored to their families?
    Viscount CURZON: The total cost of the treatment given in the institution referred to is 34s. a week per head, exclusive of the personal allowances payable to the men and their families. If such allowances are included in the cost, the amount would, on an average, be in excess, and necessarily so, of the average amount that would be drawn by a pensioner on a pension for total disablement. The patients in this institution are admitted for the purpose of undergoing a specific course of treatment, and it would, therefore, not be in the interests of many of the cases to adopt the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, even if it were otherwise practicable. It is not, however, the intention of the Ministry that cases should remain indefinitely or unnecessarily in this or any other institution, and where they can suitably be dealt with by discharge to their homes with an appropriate rate of pension, this course is adopted.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that cases in this institution are chronic cases, in which there is no hope of recovery, and will he, in those circumstances, consider the advisability of getting the men returned to their homes?
    Viscount CURZON: I am not in a, position to answer that question, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member states.

    REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has under con-

    1483
    sideration the closing of the regional headquarters in Birmingham; if so, about what date is it proposed to close; and will provision be made for the further employment by the Ministry of the temporary civil servants at present employed there?
    Viscount CURZON: The question of recentralising the pension work of the Midlands Region now done at Birmingham is not at the present moment under consideration. When the time conies for recentralisation, however, every effort will, in accordance with the usual practice of the Ministry, be made to provide alternative employment either in the Ministry of Pensions or other 'Government Departments for all efficient members of the clerical and supervising staff who may be displaced.

    CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions, in view of the fact that the amount of constant attendance allowance paid to a man who has lost both legs as a result of war service depends upon the extent of the personal assistance ascertained to be required, whether the amount is decided on the recommendation of his medical advisers or upon the Report of the local war pensions committee?
    Viscount CURZON: The judgment on which a grant of constant attendance allowance is made is, in the main, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Minister under the terms of the Royal Warrant, that of his medical advisers.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps, in those cases where pensioners through their disability are incapable of adequately presenting their cases before the appeals tribunal, to authorise local pension committees to pay the railway fare of anyone who is prepared to assist an appellant in stating his case?
    Viscount CURZON: My right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the answers which he gave to the hon. Member on the same point on the 18th December last and on the 5th instant.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the Noble Lord make representations to the Minister that he should approach the Lord Chancellor, to see if he will move in this direction?
    Viscount CURZON: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    PARTIAL DISABLEMENT (TRAINING).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there are a considerable number of partially disabled men whose actual physical disability only entitles them to a small pension, yet is of such a nature as to make it almost impossible for them to find employment; and if he will consider the question of providing special training for men in this category
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The industrial training scheme was closed to ordinary applicants on 30th September, 1921, but I am still prepared to consider applications in very special circumstances from men who are prevented by their war disability from following either their pre-War or their post-War occupation and are capable of being trained for a new skilled trade in which there is a likelihood of their finding employment after training.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. W. C. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions what was the amount spent by the Ministry in the year 1919–20; what was the number of employs in the finance branch in that year; and whether he can furnish approximate figures for the year ending 31st March next?
    Viscount CURZON: The net expenditure for the year 1919–1920 was £98,919,662, and the staff attached to the finance division at the headquarters of the Ministry was 426. The corresponding figures for 1924–1925 are £69,000,000 (approximately) and 516. The increase in the staff at headquarters is due to the closing down of certain regions and to the transfer of accounting functions, including audit, with the necessary staff to headquarters

    1485
    from the provinces. The staff in the finance division, notwithstanding the additional functions mentioned, has been reduced by 51 during the past year.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the grant of a bonus to ex-service medical officers now in the employ of the Ministry and under notice of discharge in cases where these officers have five years' service or more under the Ministry, seeing that those fortunate enough to be retained are to receive a rise of pay of £50 per annum in lieu of a bonus based on the number of years served?
    Viscount CURZON: It is not customary for temporary civil servants to be paid a bonus on discharge, and my right hon. Friend would not feel justified in urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the temporary medical officers of the Ministry of Pensions should be specially privileged in this respect. The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the increase referred to in the last part of his question is being granted in lieu of any such bonus. It has been decided upon as part of a general scheme for the future remuneration of the medical officers of the Ministry, which has been framed after consultation with their staff association.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is this the result of dictation by a trade union?
    Viscount CURZON: I shall have to ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Is the Noble Lord aware that many of these medical officers have given many years' efficient medical service to the Ministry, and does he consider it fair or reasonable, when their services are dispensed with because of decreased work, to throw them out of employment and give them no bonus or gratuity to enable them to find other work?
    Mr. SPENCER: Is the Noble Lord aware that some other men who have served other Departments for many years are thrown out of work without any consideration whatever?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Minister of Pensions what is the present establishment of the finance branch of the Ministry of Pensions; what was the establishment in 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924; and what proportion have reductions in the establishment of this branch in the last three years borne to reductions in the other branches of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Viscount CURZON: As the answer is a long one, comprising a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The staff attached to the Finance Division, Headquarters, on the 1st March. 1925, was 516.
    Corresponding figures for the year 1917 are not available; those for the years 1918–1919 are as follows:

    Year.

    Staff.

    1918

    106

    1919

    407

    1920

    426

    1921

    481

    1922

    506

    1923

    585

    1924

    561

    A direct comparison of this staff with other branches cannot easily be made because, owing to changes in organisation consequent upon the War Pensions Act, 1921, and the closing down of Regional Offices, there has been, and is still proceeding, a gradual concentration at headquarters of finance work formerly performed in the regions. The decrease in staff engaged on finance duties throughout the Ministry, including provincial staff, has, during the last three years, been greater proportionately than that in the staff of the Ministry as a whole.

    SUPERANNUATION.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements are in existence for dealing with or discussing superannuation questions affecting civil servants and ex-civil servants not represented upon the National Whitley Council?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The discussion of superannuation questions is within the scope of the Civil Service

    1487
    National Whitley Council or the various Departmental Councils. Civil servants who are not represented on those councils and ex-civil servants are free to make representations, should they so desire, through the head of their Department.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, geeing that any broken period of service is proportionately reckonable in calculating an airman's pension, he will apply the same practice with regard to the pensions of civil servants?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 18th December last. I am not prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Superannuation Acts in the direction suggested in the question.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is exceedingly unfair to deprive pensioners of a sum of money which they have earned?

    MONEYLENDERS.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of the Registrar at Liverpool Bankruptcy Court on Tuesday, 3rd March, complaining that the practice of accepting pension papers or drafts as security against loans was prevalent in the Liverpool area, and whether he will institute inquiries with a view to the prosecution of the offenders in the case of pension drafts or papers issued by his Department?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall) on Monday last.

    TOY PISTOLS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of a boy through the accidental firing of a toy pistol which had the barrel stopped up but the end filed off; that a grave view is taken by the police of the dangers of these so-called toy pistols; and whether he will consider the desirability of consulting the proof masters and
    1488
    gun manufacturers in this country with a view to the limitation of the sale of these pistols?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I do not think this accident affords any sufficient ground for legislation in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HANNON: Has not my right hon. Friend received reports from the police in various parts of the country that these so-called toy pistols can be converted into very dangerous lethal weapons, _and wilt he consult the Commissioner of Police in this city and consider what action he can take to prevent these weapons being broadcast all over the country?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be open to the hon. Member to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule to prohibit all toys
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a o matter for Mr. Speaker's consideration rather than my own. Answering my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), I have not received any reports from the police authorities in this connection, but if he can tell me of any police authority under whom this trouble with toy pistols has occurred, I will communicate with them.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the very unsatisfactory character of my right hon. Friend's reply, I propose to call attention to this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

  EDUCATION.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet considered the resolution of the Durham County Council passed a month ago establishing free secondary education by 1926; and whether he intends to give the necessary sanction of the Board of Education?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The council's application was received at the Board on the 28th February. I have not yet had time to consider it fully, and I should prefer not to make any statement until I have communicated with the council.
    Mr. LEES SMITH (for Mr. MACKINDER)asked the President of the Board of Education whether Plymouth has resolved to make its secondary school system entirely free, and by what date it proposes to do so; and whether the Board of Education have given the necessary sanction?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have received from the Plymouth authority a proposal to abolish fees, as from the 31st July next, in all the secondary schools in their area working under the Secondary School Regulations. I have informed the authority that I cannot give proper consideration to this proposal until I have before me a full programme of the work, in the sphere of elementary as well as higher education, which they propose to undertake in the next few years, and I have offered to discuss the position with them.

    TEACHERS (UNIVERSITY DEGREES).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of men and women teachers, respectively, in elementary schools who are in possession of a University degree; and what proportions of the total numbers of men and women teachers in these schools do these numbers, respectively, represent?
    Lord E. PERCY: According to the latest information in my possession, which refers to the date 31st March. 1921, the number of teachers in public elementary schools who stated that they held University degrees was 1,227 men and 685 women, representing, respectively, 3·2 per cent. of the men teachers and ·53 per cent. of the women teachers.
    Major CRAWFURD: Will the Noble Lord bear in mind the extreme importance

    —

    Number of Schools.

    Number of students who attended at any time during the year.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    London

    …

    …

    …

    20

    5,454

    5,561

    11,015

    County Boroughs

    …

    …

    …

    29

    4,452

    4,633

    9,085

    Boroughs

    …

    …

    …

    10

    742

    173

    915

    Urban Districts

    …

    …

    …

    14

    891

    550

    1,441

    Other parts of Counties

    …

    …

    …

    1

    19

    —

    19

    74

    11,558

    10,917

    22,475

    of increasing this extraordinary small percentage?
    Lord E. PERCY: I shall certainly bear it in mind.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Can the Noble Lord tell us the proportion of these with degrees in the London service?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, I do not think I can. I must ask for notice of that.

    VOLUNTARY DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of voluntary day continuation schools working in accordance with the Board's Regulations in London, in county boroughs, in boroughs, in urban districts, and in administrative counties other than London, respectively; what is the number of boys and of girls in average attendance, respectively; and how many of the girls receive at least two hours' instruction weekly in domestic subjects?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The answer is as follows:
    The number of voluntary day continuation schools recognised as such by the Board of Education for the school year 1923–24, and the number of students who attended at any time during the year are shown in the following table. These figures do not include day classes at technical institutes and other similar institutions.
    The particular circumstances. of this type of education preclude the compilation of figures of average attendance.
    I have not the information asked for in the last part of the question, but it may be of interest to the hon. Member to learn that 36 of the 74 schools were attended by girls, and that in 27 of the schools instruction in domestic subjects was provided.

    STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Major CRAWFURDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that considerable hardship is sometimes caused to recipients of State scholarships by the payment of the terminal instalment in the middle instead of at the beginning of the term; and whether he will consider the desirability of altering the existing practice in this matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: The terminal instalments of the Board's grants for maintenance are normally paid to State scholars in November, February and June. I have no reason to think that any particular hardship is caused by the existing practice, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which he considers that hardship has arisen, I will certainly cause inquiries to be made and consider the matter further.

    VILLAGE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
    Mr. KENYONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum drawn up by the secretary to the Cambridgeshire education authority on the subject of the village college; and whether the suggestions contained therein are receiving the attention of the Board?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have read the memorandum, and I am quite prepared to consider, on their merits, any proposals which may be made to me by the authority.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (ARMTHORPE).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education what number of places there are in the elementary school at Armthorpe, near Doncaster; and the number of children of school age resident in the same area
    Lord E. PERCY: The Armthorpe Church of England School is recognised by the Board as providing 133 places. The number of children of school age now resident in the district may be estimated at about 250, and I understand that in
    1492
    consequence of colliery developments the population is increasing considerably. The local authority have issued public notice of their intention to provide a new school for about 1,000 children, and are endeavouring to obtain a site, upon which they propose, in the first instance, to make immediate temporary provision pending the erection of the permanent school. The Board have expressed their willingness to give immediate consideration to these proposals.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the Noble Lord aware that in all these South York shire mining areas the school accommodation problem is very acute, and that the local authorities are always years behind in anticipating requirements? Will he use his influence to see that in future mining districts are not in the same position as Armthorpe is in to-day?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am very anxious to secure that in any planning of future mining developments proper provision shall be made for schools, but I am afraid it is hardly fair to blame local education authorities if housing outruns the provision of schools, in view of the great difficulty of securing sites and the very great difficulty of getting labour and materials for them.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Was it not known for 10 years that this colliery was going to be put down; and is the Noble Lord not aware that another colliery village, equally large, within a few miles, will be in a few years' time in an exactly similar position to Armthorpe?

    FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Education whether a viva voce examination in French, or whatever other modern foreign language be taken, is included in the regular pass for the first schools examination; and whether he is satisfied that the students are equipped with a good colloquial knowledge of that language?
    Lord E. PERCY: An oral test is always provided, though it is not always a compulsory part of the examination in the subject. While there is doubtless room for improvement in the teaching of this, as of other subjects, I am confident that substantial improvement has taken, and is taking, place.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the Noble Lord satisfied that the children of this country receive the same opportunities in this direction as the children of practically every other country on the Continent?
    Lord E. PERCY: In educational matters I am satisfied with nothing.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I am referring to a colloquial knowledge of foreign tongues, which are taught in all the countries abroad. Are the children of this country getting similar opportunities?
    Lord E. PERCY: May I repeat that I am satisfied with nothing in educational affairs.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (BOYS AND GIRLS).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has any information as to the rate of unemployment amongst boys and girls leaving the elementary schools at 14 years of age?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. I explained in my statement on 24th February that, though the London County Council had conducted a fairly close inquiry in London, similar figures for the country as a whole were not available.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would the Noble Lord make representations to the education authorities to endeavour to collect information of this character which would be most valuable, both from an educational and employment point of view?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am impressing upon the local authorities the necessity of considering and taking action in respect to this question of juvenile employment, but I rather hesitate to ask them to collect statistics, though I agree with my hon. Friend that statistics are a very useful thing indeed.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that hardship is caused in many instances under the Workmen's Compensation Act when the full amount in total dependency cases, fatal, has been paid into Court owing to the length of time that elapses between
    1494
    one Court day and another; and will he cause inquiries Lo be made and, if satisfied that such hardship exists, give power to the Registrar to make a small grant out of the money paid in until such time as the Judge can make the allocation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that in cases of urgency the Registrar generally communicates with the Judge and obtains his authority to make an advance payment. The matter is not one in which I have any power to issue instructions, but it could be dealt with by rules of Court, and I am informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department that it has been referred to the County Court Rules Committee for consideration.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these sums that are paid into Court for the benefit of the wife and family are only allowed to be invested in 2½ per cent. Post Office Stock instead of general Trustee Stocks?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. J. GUEST)asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the amount received in premiums by the various insurance and indemnity societies for the purpose of insurance against employers' risks under the Workmen's Compensation and Employers' Liability Acts, for the period commencing 1909 to 1923, inclusive, and the amount paid in compensation to injured workpeople or their dependants for the same period?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The returns made by the insurance companies to the Board of Trade show that the total amount of the premiums paid to the companies during the period mentioned was £70,175,730, and that the total amount paid out under policies was £31,996,049. Payments under policies, however, include legal and medical expenses in connection with claims. I regret that corresponding figures are nor available for the mutual indemnity societies.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the amount received by workmen amounts to less than 50 per cent. of the total, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of abolishing these insurances altogether?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not see how that would benefit anybody at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Why not establish a central compensation depot where people would receive 100 per cent. of the premiums paid?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly I am not prepared to embark on any Socialist legislation.

    BURIAL GROUND (PENMACHNO).
    Major OWENasked the Home Secretary what is the cause of the delay in the transfer by the Welsh Church Commissioners of the local burial ground at Penmachno to the parish council, as requested by that body?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by the Commissioners that they have already issued a public notice in this case intimating their intention to transfer this burial ground to the parish council forthwith, and allowing a calendar month for any objections or observations to be made to them on the draft order and plans which have been deposited locally for inspection.

    FACTORIES BILL.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state when the Factories Bill will be introduced?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I regret I am not yet in a position to fix any date.

    NIGHT CLUBS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state when the Bill for the regulation of so-called night clubs will be brought in; and whether it is proposed to make it applicable to the whole country or only to the Metropolitan police area?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can add nothing to my answer to the hon. and gallant Member on the 19th February as to the date of the introduction of this Bill. I propose that its provisions shall extend to the whole of England and Wales.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (WINTER GLOVES).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary when the black winter gloves are likely to be issued to the Metropolitan police; and the reasons for the delay
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: More than one half the issue has been made, and it is hoped to complete it within a month. The delay is due to failure of the contractor to make deliveries according to the contract.
    Mr. HAYES: Is this due to the contractors having more orders than they can cope with? If so, is it possible for contracts to be handed over to those places where there is unemployment?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly satisfied when I say that I have been breathing fire and slaughter amongst the contractors.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to wait till spring or summer before issuing these winter gloves?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the weather of to-day, I think they will be in good time. I do not think it can be described as either spring or summer!

    LUNACY LAW.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent remarks of Judge in the High Court reprobating the tendency of medical experts to set up arbitrary standards of insanity under which almost anybody may be certified insane; and will he introduce legislation entitling a prisoner in regard to whom the issue of sanity has not been raised at his trial, but who is declared by medical experts to be insane shortly after his conviction, to a trial of the issue of his sanity in open Court under the same conditions that the prosecution would have enjoyed had that issue been raised by the defence and contested by the prosecution?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a lady, T. C., against whose soundness of mind, memory, and understanding no reliable evidence has been adduced, was detained in Hanwell Asylum from 19th December, 1919, until 1st September, 1924; that 35s. per week was stated to have been levied on the ratepayers for the maintenance of this person; that on application for the restoration of her belongings left in their charge she was told that they had been broken up, and was sent clothing, bedding, etc., belonging to another inmate, which she refused to accept; and, in view of the objectionable character of interchanges of this description, will he see that inquiry is made into the circumstances, and take necessary measures to put a stop to such practices whereby boards of guardians are in the habit of evading pecuniary responsibility for property of individuals which the union has refused to hand over to relatives on committal of the inmate to an asylum?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. N. Chamberlain): I am informed that there is, in the opinion of the Board of Control, clear evidence that during the time the lady in question was detained at Hanwell she was of unsound mind. With regard to the other matters referred to by the hon. Member the necessary inquiries are baying made, and I will inform him in due course of the result.

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUSES (USED TICKETS).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to keep the streets in a cleaner condition, he will consider the desirability of enforcing on motor omnibus proprietors the necessity of providing receptacles for used tickets, and make it an offence for passengers to throw them on the highways?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would be almost impossible to enforce any prohibition against depositing tickets on the highway, and it would be undesirable to enact legislation which cannot be enforced.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the streets of London have been described as the dirtiest of any city in the world? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all tramways in Scotland there is always a receptacle in which people can put their used tickets, and the citizens are tidy enough to do it on their own account. Is it not possible that London citizens should be educated up to the same standard?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will arrange for a few Scotsmen to come South to teach the people here.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I intend to do my best.
    An HON. MEMBER: I hope they will take a return ticket!

    LONDON TRAFFIC (RESTRICTED STREETS) ORDER.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Home Secretary whether, prior to the issue of Regulations regarding restricted streets, made under the Traffic Act, 1924, his Department made any representations or gave any, and, if so, what, information to the Minister of Transport?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware, however, that both the Home Office and the Commissioner of Police are represented on the statutory committee which is responsible for advising the Minister of Transport on the subject.

    ROADS (WHITE DIVIDING LINE).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport to extent the white dividing line in the centre of roads for the purpose of guiding motor and other traffic is being made use of; how many local authorities have already adopted it; whether it has the approval of the Ministry; and whether any material has yet been discovered which is impervious to rain?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Isolated experiments have been made in many parts of the country, but I have no exact information regarding the number of local authorities who have adopted the practice. I am inclined to think that, in certain circumstances, the use of the white dividing line tends to facilitate the flow of traffic and to diminish the risk of accident. I am

    1499
    of opinion, however, that the greatest care should be exercised to limit the use of these signs, as their indiscriminate use will only defeat the object in view. I am informed that experiments are now being carried out with lines consisting of white stone setts, but I understand that the results on the road surface have not been altogether satisfactory.

    RURAL ROADS (MAINTENANCE).
    Sir ROBERT SANDERSasked the Minister of Transport what sum has, during the last two years, been contributed by the Road Fund towards the maintenance, as distinguished from the improvement, of rural roads not classified as first or second class?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No contributions have been made from the Road Fund towards the ordinary maintenance, as distinguished from improvement, of any roads which are not included either in Class I or Class II. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, recognise that the grants made to the reconstruction and improvement of important roads in rural areas must have the effect of reducing the future burden of maintenance which falls on the local authorities concerned.
    Sir R. SANDERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman lay it down that no grant shall come out of this fund for the maintenance of roads that are damaged by motors?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not lay clown anything for all time, but that has been the practice in the past.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 140,000 miles of unclassified roads used by motors which get no grant from the Road Fund, and will he give them something out of it
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but I have no more money to distribute.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Transport the total amount received during the last financial year from the taxation of all kinds of motor transport; the amount contributed from the Road Fund to the county councils for the upkeep and repair of county roads; the amount contributed to district councils for the repair
    1500
    of local roads; the amount contributed to employment schemes; and the amount contributed to roads by the State from other sources other than the Road Fund
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the answer is somewhat long and contains figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total amount received during the financial year 1923–24 from the taxation of all kinds of motor vehicles was, in round figures, £14,526,000. As the hon. Member is aware, however, this sum is subject to certain prior statutory charges and does not represent the amount available for grants. The grants made during the same year to county councils in Great Britain for the upkeep and repair of county roads amounted, again in round figures, to £6,206,000, and to district councils in England and Wales to £870,000. The grants to road schemes expedited for the relief of unemployment in Great Britain during the same period, including arterial road works carried out directly by my Department, were £5,645,000. I am unable to state the amount contributed to roads by the State from sources other than the Road Fund.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS (THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE).
    Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the number of people injured by motor traffic who are unable to secure any compensation from the car-owner responsible: and whether he will consider the possibility of making third-party insurance a necessary condition of motor ownership?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am not in possession of the statistics for which the hon. Member asks in the first part of his question. So far as my information goes, however, cases of this nature are comparatively rare. I am carefully considering the point raised in the last part of the question.

    EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary whether the facts upon which ex-Inspector Syme has been declared by medical experts to be insane are

    1501
    substantially the same facts as those upon which he was recently convicted of an offence in law; if not, will he state whether the symptoms of mental disorder discovered by these experts are symptoms which have arisen since his conviction, or symptoms which existed before and during his trial, but were only pronounced to be certifiable when his situation became such that his medical examiners could not be cross-examined and their evidence rebutted; and will he order a full investigation of the circumstances of this certification?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the discussion of this case that took place in this House on the 10th December last. Since that date further observation and an independent examination of Mr. Syme's mental condition has made it more than ever clear that he was rightly certified insane. The second part of the question does not arise, as he was not examined before his conviction.

    HOSPITALS (EMPLOYES' CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the management of a company in the hands of the Receiver is unable to hand over to a hospital money held by it as employés' contributions to a joint hospital fund, and that in some cases money deducted from wages for the purpose of payment to hospitals has been held up nearly two years; and whether, having regard to the fact that such money cannot under any circumstances be regarded as part of the assets of a company, he can arrange for it to be paid over to hospitals without unnecessary delay?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. If my Noble Friend will give me particulars of any specific case which he has in mind, I will have it looked into.

    SHIPWRECKED SEAMEN (WAGES).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to intro-
    1502
    duce legislation to secure payment of wages to shipwrecked seamen?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. A Bill dealing with this question has been introduced in another place and has made considerable progress.

    IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee exclude from its purview the consideration of improved methods of marketing British home produce in British markets; and what means the Government propose to adopt in order to extend to this Home produce an encouragement at least equivalent to that given to overseas produce in the proposed State grant of a million sterling?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee do not contemplate the consideration of improved methods of marketing British home produce. As my hon. Friend is aware, funds have already been provided for assisting by way of loan cooperative enterprises for the marketing of home produce, and the Ministry of Agriculture is carrying out a series of investigations into the marketing problem as a whole. The first Report will shortly be published, and it will then be possible to estimate what further assistance may be considered necessary in this direction.
    Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. a colleague of his, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking on 10th February, declared that this Committee might, by organisation and many other ways, do a great deal to help to secure British markets for Empire goods: and when I say "Empire goods," I should like to make it clear that. I do not exclude this part of the Empire, and least of all the produce of its agriculture?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That seems to be a very complete statement of Government policy.
    Major WHELER: Before any decisions are come to shall we have an opportunity of discussing the various aspects of the ease?
    Mr. LAMB: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that financial arrangement is made so that any action which may be found necessary in the interest of British agriculture will not be precluded on financial grounds?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We seem to be going beyond the scope of any answer that I have been authorised by the Government to give to-day.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government still recognise the Soviet Government; and whether the Government's policy is to cultivate peaceful relations with that Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was meant by the Home Secretary on Monday when he said that the war between Russia and the world was definite?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time is not open to that.

    TRADE UNIONS (CONTROL OF FUNDS).
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the management of trade unions and their control of their funds?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate of Friday last.

    CONTRACTS PLACED ABROAD.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the number of contracts placed abroad recently owing to the inability of home firms to compete in countries where lower wages are paid and longer hours worked; and whether the Government will consider what steps, if any, can be taken in the interests of the unemployed
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday in reply to questions raising similar matters.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that longer hours do not always mean a greater output?

    FOOD PRICES.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the sustained rise in many food prices, he will represent to the Royal Commission on Food Prices the desirability of expediting their first Report?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The chairman of the Royal Commission has assured me that the first Report will be presented at the earliest possible moment.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has been the case for the last three or four months, ever since the Commission was started, and that those who expected great things are now becoming disheartened and disillusioned?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not responsible for the sentiments of the hon. and gallant Member, but it is true that from the moment the Commission started they have worked at the highest possible pressure, in order to report as soon as posible, and the result will be seen in an early Report.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: is the Commission working overtime?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, and without extra pay.

  HOUSING.

    DIRECT LABOUR.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Middlesbrough Corporation, under their direct labour scheme for house building, secured an output of over 1,000 bricks laid per day; and will he encourage local authorities to employ direct labour in their building schemes so as to obtain a more rapid production of houses?
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to a report in the Press on the direct labour housing scheme carried out by the Middlesbrough Corporation, in which it is stated that 1,000 bricks per day were laid by bricklayers on straightforward work. I am quite prepared to authorise local authorities to undertake building by direct labour if satisfied that the authority can make efficient arrangements for the supervision of the work, and that the method is likely to prove financially advantageous to the ratepayers.

    DECONTROLLED HOUSES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if ho is aware of the high rents being charged in some cases for houses decontrolled under the Mortgage and Rent Restrictions Act, 1923; and will he include in his proposed amending Act provisions which will prevent the same?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made yesterday.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been decontrolled since the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, came into operation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

    STEEL HOUSES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health if he can state how many steel houses made by Messrs. J. and G. Weir, Messrs. Braithwaite and Company, and Messrs. James Wild have been authorised to be erected for demonstration purposes, with the help of contributions from the Exchequer, and in what districts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will send the Noble Lady a list of the local authorities which have been invited to take part in the experiment for the erection of these demonstration houses.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to give special facilities to small groups of workers, under the Housing Acts, which would enable them jointly to erect Weir steel houses for their own occupation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Housing Acts already provide very considerable facilities, which are being taken advantage of to a large extent, to enable persons to provide houses for their own occupation. These facilities are applicable in the case of steel houses, and I do not think that any special provision is at present required.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to provide any special facilities to enable Members of this House to inspect one of the Weir steel houses somewhere in this neighbourhood?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the pair of demonstration houses, of the system referred to, to be erected by the London County Council. will probably be put up at Millbank, and will be available for inspection by anybody interested. In the meantime, I observe that a pair of Weir houses are being erected in Grosvenor Gardens just opposite. Victoria Station.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether the Nissen steel houses erected at Yeovil have been approved for subsidy; and whether this type of house has been considered by the Moir Committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The type of house referred to has been considered by the Committee on New Methods of Hours Construction, and at the request of the Yeovil Town Council I approved of their proposal to erect two houses of this type as an experiment. I have agreed that these houses may rank for subsidy

    PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health the total amount of the loans granted up to the present date to assist the development of the Welwyn garden city; under which Acts loans are being granted to the Welwyn Public Utility Society; and what are the other public utility societies that are using the facilities offered by Section 5 of the 1923 Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the total amount of the loans advanced up to the present by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Welwyn Garden City Company is £234,970. The Welwyn Rural District Council has been authorised to advance

    1507
    loans to the Welwyn Public Utility Society under Section 5 of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923. My Department is not necessarily informed by local authorities of the names of societies and others to whom advances are made under that section, and information is not available which would enable me to answer the last part of the question.

    NON-BRICK HOUSES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health if he will give the names of all the promoters of alternative methods of house construction, approved by his Department as eligible for Government assistance, that are not prepared 10 conform to the conditions prevailing in the building industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not generally in possession of information as to the intentions of promoters of new methods of construction with regard to the conditions of employment which they propose to observe in operating their systems, and I am, therefore, unable to supply the information which my Noble Friend desires.

    SPARE TIME BUILDING.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he can arrange, for a moderate charge. to place at the disposal of individuals desirous of building houses in their spare time plans of suitable houses, together with a statement of quantities of materials and the approximate market cost of the same
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A large number of type plans have already been issued in manuals, reports and booklets of plans by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture. I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a list of these publications. The materials used in different localities and the prices at which they can be obtained vary so much that any general statement would be of doubtful utility.

    STAMPED METAL CEILINGS (GATESHEAD).
    Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the disadvantage or otherwise of stamped metal ceilings; whether he is aware that these ceilings permit water to ooze through from one floor to another; that the dripping from the condensation upon
    1508
    them is unhealthy and unpleasant; and that the Gateshead Town Council, after having one trial ceiling fitted, decided lo revert to plaster ceilings; and whether he will issue advice to local authorities considering housing schemes with regard to their utility.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that, stamped metal ceilings have been criticised on the grounds stated in the question; but I understand that the Gateshead Town Council abandoned the experiment of using them because the local plasterers threatened to strike if it was continued. In answer to the last part of the question, I am quite prepared to give advice where desired to any local authorities in respect of methods of new construction experiments, which I desire to encourage as much as possible.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that a previous answer to that question gave reasons why the local plasterers threatened to go on strike?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that arises out of this question.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I ask for what reason, if any, the Plasterers' Union protested, and whether there was a strike or not?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that they threatened to strike, and that in consequence of that the Gateshead Town Council did not go on with the experiment they were trying.
    Mr. BECKETT: But why?

    BRICKS.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Auditor-General for New South Wales for the year ending 30th June last, showing that the State brickworks, which had sold 44,763,581 bricks at a price approximately Is. per thousand less than that charged by private firms, made a profit of £27,511; and whether, in view of this example and the shortage of houses and high price of bricks in this country, he will consider the advisability of establishing State brickworks here?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been called to the Report in question, but full information

    1509
    as to local circumstances would be required before one could safely draw any deduction from the results referred to. In answer to the latter part of the question, it is not the present intention of the Government to establish State brickworks in this country.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the comparative prices of bricks; and whether, seeing that on the 27th February the price of bricks per 1,000 was first hard stocks, 97s., second hard stocks, 92s., and Flettons, 55s. 9d., and on the 6th March was first hard stocks, 105s., second hard stocks, 100s., and Flettons 59s. 6d., in London, he proposes to take any action to prevent profiteering in bricks and other building materials?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reports which I have received do not confirm any general increase in the price of bricks for this month. The prices quoted in "The Builder" both for 27th February and 6th March, are as follow:
    Stocks per 1,000 alongside in River Thames up to London Bridge:

    s.

    d.

    Best

    83

    6

    Second hard stocks

    78

    6

    Flettons per 1,000 at King's Cross, 53s. 3d.

    —

    Rotherham Rural District.

    Doncaster Rural District.

    Local Authority Schemes.

    Private Enterprise Schemes.

    Local Authority Schemes.

    Private Enterprise Schemes.

    1, Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919:

    Houses completed

    436

    —

    60

    172

    2. Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919:

    Houses completed

    —

    322

    —

    614

    3. Housing, Etc. Act, 1923

    (a) Houses completed

    106

    175

    —

    1,127

    (b) Houses under construction

    166

    175

    —

    191

    (c) Houses authorised but not yet started

    152

    1,119

    46

    659

    During the 18 months ended 30th September, 1924, there were erected without subsidy 215 houses in Rotherham Rural District and 339 in Doncaster Rural District;
    The question of any increases in the price of bricks or other building materials will be investigated by the Prices of Building Materials Committee.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I took my figures from the last issue of the "Carpenter and Builder"?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the hon. Member suggests that the figures in the "Builder" this week are quite different from the figures published last week. I think he must have taken the figures for an entirely different year.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not suggest anything of the kind. The figures I quoted were those given in the last issue of the "Carpenter and Builder."

    ROTHERHAM AND DONCASTER.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been erected since 1913 under the various Housing Acts by the Rotherham Rural District Council and by the Doncaster Rural District Council; and the number sanctioned and the number in course of erection under these two authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement supplied:
    and six unsubsidised houses were in course of construction in Rotherham Rural District and 75 in Doncaster Rural District on 1st October last.

    ALNWICK URBAN COUNCIL.
    Mrs. PHILIPSONasked the Minister of Health why the Ministry has not sanctioned the request of the Ainwick Urban Council for sanction for 16 subsidies under the 1923 Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to correspondence which has taken place between my Department and the Alnwick Urban District Council regarding the sale to private persons of 16 plots of land owned by the council. It has been found necessary to suggest a slight modification of the proposed arrangements, but I understand that revised proposals are being submitted by the council, and I anticipate that it will be possible to give approval at an early date.

    BUILDING PROFITS.
    Mr. WRIGHT (for Mr. CECIL WILSON)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are cases in which, under the 1923 Act, plans for houses and bungalows have been put forward in which, on the figures submitted by the builders and including the subsidy, profits were shown of from 22 to 34 per cent. on cost; and whether he has any means of dealing with such cases?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Individual applications for subsidy under the Housing Acts are made to local authorities, and I have, therefore, no knowledge of the eases referred to by the hon. Member it is for the local authorities administering approved schemes to satisfy themselves that subsidy can properly be granted in a particular case.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making known to local authorities in areas where excessive prices are charged by builders of subsidy houses the checks devised by other local authorities who have succeeded in keeping the prices of houses for sale at a reasonable level by the conditions imposed on the granting of the subsidy
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the general practice of my Department.

    BROADCASTING (FOOD LECTURE).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Health whether the proposed
    1512
    Ministry of Health broadcast talk by Dr. McFadden, a permanent paid official of the Crown, on questions relating to food is to be free of controversial matter; is Dr. McFadden being paid for this lecture by the British Broadcasting Company or by anyone else; and, in view of the Departmental rule against officials of the Crown engaging in publicity, will he inquire into the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The answer to the third part is that officers of the Ministry who provide information by this means do so by my direction and on my authority.

    INSANITARY CONDITIONS (WEDNESBURY).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report of the inspectors of his Department recently submitted to the West Bromwich Board of Guardians as to the insanitary conditions prevailing in the union of parishes concerned, particularly in the parish of Wednesbury; and, if so, what steps he proposes taking?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been in communication with the Wednesbury Corporation on the subject of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. The council have undertaken that they will use every endeavour within their statutory powers to remedy such defects as exist in the borough and they are endeavouring to arrange for sites for the erection of further houses.

    COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS (POLLING HOURS).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the low percentage of electors voting at county council elections; and whether, in view of the fact that large numbers of electors are unable to return to their homes from their work before eight o'clock in the evening, he will introduce legislation allowing for the extension of the hours of poll at the request of candidates, similar to that prevailing for Parliamentary elections?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply, but I have no details as to the percentage of electors who voted at the county council elections, and I am not aware of any general demand for legislation such as the hon. Member suggests

    ABLE-BODIED PARENTS (MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many boards of guardians require children who are at work but living at home to contribute towards the cost of maintaining able-bodied parents, although there is no legal liability upon them so to do; and whether he will issue instructions to boards of guardians informing them that the only income which can be taken into account is the amount contributed by the children to the support of the home, and not the full amount of the children's earnings, as is the present practice in many cases?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 26th February to the hon. Member for Stratford, in reply to a similar question.

    GALE DAMAGE, WESTWARD HO.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the damage that has been done by recent gales to the foreshore at Westward Ho and the quay at Appledore; and whether any grant can be made to local authorities towards meeting the heavy charge that is thrown upon the ratepayers and assisting to employ men who are out of work in making good the damage?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A grant could be made by the Unemployment Grants Committee if a satisfactory scheme for the protection of public property were submitted, and if the conditions on which they may make grants are satisfied.

    ANIMALS (HUMANE KILLER).
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce a Bill to provide for the use in
    1514
    every slaughter-house in the country of the mechanically-operated humane killer, and to prohibit slaughter by any other means?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see my way to introduce the suggested legislation. Local authorities already possess the power to make bye-laws requiring the use of a humane killer.

    POOR RATE, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the average amount of the poor rate levied in the Middlesbrough Poor Law Union for the three years ending 30th September, 1914, and for the three years ending 30th September, 1924?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information in my possession relates to financial years ending in March. It shows that the average amount in the pound of the rates required by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians for their common fund purposes was for the three years ending 31st March, 1914, 1s. 4½d.; and for the three years ending 31st March, 1924, 5s. 8½d.
    Mr. THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that these figures indicate a special need for areas of this sort to have extra assistance, and will the Minister make representations to the Government on this question
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already told the hon. Member a good many times, these areas have received special assistance.

    RATING OF MACHINERY.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Health the number of authorities in Great Britain which levy rates upon machinery and the number which do not levy rates upon machinery?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member a fortnight ago in reply to a similar question.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are districts side by side where rates are levied upon machinery and where they are not, and as a consequence of that a severe handicap is placed upon manufacturers in one

    1515
    district as compared with another? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce legislation on this subject?
    Major CRAWFURD: In the forthcoming Bill in regard to rating, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the standardisation of the system in regard to rating of similar machinery all over the country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of the rating of machinery has been the subject of investigation by a Committee. The recommendations of that Committee are now under consideration by the Government, and I hope to be able to introduce legislation dealing with the matter in the course of the present Session.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of widows with dependent children in England, Scotland, and Wales, and the number in receipt of Poor Law relief; and whether, after making due allowance for war widows in receipt of pension, he can state what is the estimated sum required to pay a pension of 15s. a week to each widow, other than a war widow, and 5s. a week for each child under the age of 16, other than those receiving pension owing to the death of their father from a war disability?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the last Census the number of widows in England and Wales stated to have dependent children is 306,000. There were 301,000 widows in respect of whom no statement was made as to dependent children. The number of widows with dependent children in receipt of Poor Law relief is approximately 55,000. I must refer the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland for the corresponding figures in that country. Inquiries are being made as to the cost of pensions for widows, but I am not in a position to supply any estimates.

    MENTAL HOSPITALS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health how many persons are at present confined in mental
    1516
    hospitals; and how many of these are maintained solely at the public expense?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 1st January, 1925, there were 111,200 persons confined in institutions for the insane in England and Wales. 102,313 were maintained at the public expense, but in many of the rate-aided cases contributions are recovered from the relatives.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how many of those persons were Liberals and Free Traders?

    COINAGE (DESIGNS)
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Standing Committee, appointed to act in an advisory capacity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the artistic side of the currency of the Realm, has ever expressed to him or to his predecessors its dissatisfaction with the present designs of the silver coinage and suggested changes; and whether such changes, by means of the procuring of an Order in Council, have ever been taken into consideration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Advisory Committee some time ago expressed a dislike on artistic grounds for certain of the existing designs. But they are not yet in a position to make positive recommendations for new designs.
    Sir C. OMAN: Does this declaration mean that the Advisory Committee are extremely discontented with the present designs?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is not a great deal more dissatisfaction with the present distribution of such coinage as now exists?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman submit the medal which he received to this Committee?

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have been received in payment of debts incurred during the War, to date, from Allied and Dominion Governments, respectively; and whether

    1517
    any repayments of loans to foreign Governments made since the Armistice have been made to this country
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer involves many figures, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, which only calls for an affirmative or a negative reply?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that information is furnished in the figures I am going to send to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any payments at all from our Allies have been received in respect of loans?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. There have been payments received, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find, if he studies the answer which I am going to circulate, that one-half of the answer is taken up describing certain repayments which we have received.
    Following is the answer:
    1. Apart from various accounting adjustments, no sums in repayment of debts incurred by Allied Governments during the War period have been received by His Majesty's Government,
    2. The following amounts in round figures have been received from Dominion and Colonial Governments under funding arrangements or otherwise:

    Australia

    9,550,000

    South Africa

    3,070,000

    New Zealand

    940,000

    Newfoundland

    393,000

    Crown Colonies

    2,492,000

    War advances to Canada, amounting to approximately 179 million have been repaid by set-off against loans by Canada to this country.
    3. The following repayments of loans to foreign Governments made since the Armistice have been effected:
    Belgium.—£6½ millions (Post-Armistice Debt).
    Austria.—£2½ millions, repaid in connection with the issue of the League of Nations Reconstruction Loan.
    Czechoslovakia.—£2 millions (advance by Wheat Commission for purchase of flour).
    Repayment has also been made in full of the Relief Loans to Lithuania and Latvia amounting to £16,812 and £20,170 respectively.
    Arrangements have been made for the repayment by annual instalments (with interest) of the Relief Debts of Poland, Rumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Esthonia.

    SURPLUS WAR STORES (SALES).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of firms who purchased surplus war stores from the Disposal Board and who have not yet settled their accounts; the amount due to the Government under these contracts; the reasons advanced by the contractors For their non-compliance with the terms of payment; and what steps he is taking to secure payment?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of firms or individuals who have not yet settled is 51, including some cases overseas. The amount involved is approximately £1,000,000. As regards the third part of the question, the reasons put forward for non-payment are various and include legal questions, fall in markets, disputes as to quality of goods, insolvency, etc. Legal steps are being taken in all cases to secure payment.
    Mr. HAYES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what firms have entered counter-actions against the Government, and what sums are involved?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.

    BANK RATE.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the amount of American money in this country, the retention of which was one of the reasons for the recent rise in the bank rate?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that it is not possible to form any definite estimate of American balances in this country. The fixing of bank rate is, as I have already informed the House, a matter for the Court of the Bank of

    1519
    England. I do not doubt that the possibility of the withdrawal of foreign balances was one of the factors present in their minds. There are, however, many other factors to be considered, such as the call for foreign loans in competition with our own internal needs and in excess of our resources, the danger of a pronounced rise in prices, and, of course, the maintenance of the exchange value of sterling in relation to all other countries, and particularly to the United States of America. This last aspect affects not only the price we pay for our purchases from America of food and raw materials and the payment of our debt obligations to that country; it, also affects the returns which we receive from our still very large volume of foreign investments; and all these factors in their turn influence in an important manner the balance of trade.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bank of England raised the bank rate without conferring with him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Entirely independent action is taken in these matters by the Bank of England.

    FRENCH AIR FORCE.
    Captain BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in conversations with the French Government relative to debts, he has raised the question of the expenditure on the French Air Force?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. A question of that character would lie beyond the special sphere of a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very hard that we should be forced to spend money on an Air Force in competition with an Air Force built with money owing to us?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply to his Note to France of three months ago?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not received any official reply.
    Captain JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any unofficial reply?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will confine myself exactly to the terms of the answer which I have just given.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENCES).
    Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of licences which were granted for motor vehicles in January of this year; as compared with January of last year; and what percentage of these were for vehicles of foreign or partial-foreign manufacture?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. The returns of motor vehicle licences issued during January are not available. Quarterly statements are issued to the Press giving the number of motor vehicle licences issued under the various taxation categories. I am forwarding to my hon. Friend the four quarterly statements relating to the licensing year 1924. The quarterly statement for the three months ended 28th February last will he issued shortly, and I will furnish my hon. Friend with a copy as soon as it is available. I have no information on the point referred to in the last part of the question.

    LICENSED HOTELS, SCOTLAND (DECONTROL).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any steps have been taken, or are to be taken, to decontrol the licensed hotels in Scotland, particularly in the neighbourhood of the Moray Firth?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I have been asked to reply. The hotels in the two Scottish State Management Districts specified in the Licensing Act, 1921, are at present under the management of my right hon. Friend the-Secretary for Scotland, and no steps are being taken to modify that arrangement.

    FISHING VESSELS, SOUTH DEVON (LOST GEAR).
    Commander CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of vessels which have lost their gear off the South Coast of Devon; and the estimated loss to these men?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): The only information I have on the subject is contained in a statement furnished by the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, which I think refers to losses incurred by Brixham fishermen only. According to that statement, 42 vessels lost trawling gear of an estimated value of £5,464 during the year ended April, 1924.

    AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of financial assistance contributed by the State to agricultural drainage schemes in Great Britain: the amount contributed by the owners of land to such schemes for the last financial year; and the number of scheme dealt with?
    Mr. WOOD: The drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment are conducted

    SCHEMES OF LAND DRAINAGE for the Relief of Unemployment carried out in England and Wales during the period, 1921–24.

    —

    1921–22.

    1922–23.

    1923–24.

    No. of Schemes.

    Cost of State.

    Cost to Owners, etc.

    No. of Schemes.

    Cost of State.

    Cost to Owners, etc.

    No. of Schemes.

    Cost of State.

    Cost to Owners, etc.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Agricultural Committees.

    174

    51,949

    27,322

    250

    56,147

    28,521

    216

    54,800*

    27,400*

    Drainage Authorities.

    144

    169,507

    69,724

    183

    185,838

    62,908

    173

    137,301

    45,767

    Water supply

    46

    10,136

    18,696

    99

    11,213

    26,783

    71

    10,929

    30,670

    Total

    364

    231,582

    115,742

    532

    1253,198

    118,212

    460

    203,030

    103,837

    EXPORT OF HORSES.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that some 8,000 horses per annum are being shipped from this country for butchery abroad, he will consider the suggestion of discontinuing this traffic pending the decision of the Departmental Committee?
    during the autumn and winter, and consequently each winter's programme covers a part of two financial years. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full tabular statement covering the whole sequence of my Department's operations in England and Wales and this will, I hope, afford the hon. Member the information he desires. For particulars relating to Scotland, I would refer him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any arrangement by which the advances by the State in connection with these schemes are repaid by the owners of the land?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes. I am not prepared at the moment to state what are the arrangements, but there are such arrangements.
    Following is the statement promised:
    Mr. WOOD: All horses exported from this country must pass a strict veterinary examination as to fitness to work and to travel without suffering, and I fear therefore that I cannot sec my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: As this question has been before the House for a considerable time, and the traffic is very repugnant to

    1523
    the great majority of our countrymen, cannot the right hon. Gentleman put some limit upon it?
    Mr. WOOD: I am well aware of what all the lovers of horses feel as regards this traffic, and it was entirely with the object of putting the House and the country in possession of the exact facts, that I have just appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question. To take the action suggested by the hon. Member would be to prejudge their inquiries.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Will witnesses be called before the Committee, and will the sittings be held in public?
    Mr. WOOD: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice. I am almost sure that the Committee will call witnesses, but that is for them to decide.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Minister of Labour if he will supply the numbers of workpeople employed in the manufacture of motor cars, motor commercial vehicles, motor cycles, and parts thereof, respectively for 1915 and the ears following, giving particulars relating to employment in the manufacture of these goods for the month of January in 1924 and 1925 separately?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): There are no statistics available showing separately the number of workpeople employed in the manufacture of motor cars, motor commercial vehicles, motor cycles and parts thereof. The only available figures relate to workpeople insured against unemployment in a group of trades covering the construction and repair of motor cars, motor lorries, motor omnibuses, motor cycles, pedal cycles and aircraft. These workpeople numbered approximately 193,000 in Great Britain in July, 1923, and 201,800 in July, 1924. Comparable figures for this group of trades for years prior to 1923 are not available. The number of workpeople in this group who were recorded on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as unemployed at 28th January, 1924, was 18,562, this being 9·6 per cent. of the total number insured.
    1524
    The corresponding figure for 26th January, 1925, was 15,029, or 7·4 per cent. of the total.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then there has been a reduction in unemployment of 3,000 people since the McKenna Duties were taken off.

    POLICE STRIKERS (DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY).
    Mr. HAYES (for Mr. BROAD)asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state the Government's intentions as to making cash payments to the police strikers, following on the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir William Mackenzie?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The recommendation of the Committee was that police authorities should be authorised, in their discretion, to apply the whole, or any part., of the rateable deductions made from the pay of the policemen who went on strike in 1919 in such manner as they may think fit for the benefit of the men's wives or children (if any). I am at present in consultation with the police authorities concerned in the matter.

    GENEVA PROTOCOL.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in regard to the statement to be made at Geneva by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Geneva Protocol.
    Mr. McNEILL: The text of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs this morning at Geneva is now available in the Vote Office.

    KENYA (LAND SALES).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that some 62,000 acres of land in Kenya are advertised for sale by auction by the Government on 23rd March; whether this sale has his approval; and whether, in

    1525
    view of the present acute shortage of labour for the development of existing properties, he will cable instructions to the Kenya Government that the sale be postponed
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Secretary of State has only recently received a copy of the "Kenya Gazette" of 14th January, containing a notice of sale on 23rd March of leases of 43 lots in different parts of the Colony. The large lots are chiefly grazing areas, amounting to about half of the whole area. The rest chiefly in small lots, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to interfere at this late stage with a sale already gazetted. He has under consideration the question of inviting the Acting Governor to postpone future sales unless for special reasons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicate what will he the business for next week?
Mr. CHURCHILL: On Monday we shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates and consider Vote A and Vote on Account in Committee.
Tuesday: We shall take the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, Report stage, and Committee stage of the necessary Supplementary Estimate; Army Votes, Report stage; and Trade Facilities Bill, Committee. At 8.15 p.m. there will be a Private Member's Motion.
Wednesday: We shall take the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, Third Reading; the Former Enemy Allens Bill, Second Reading; the Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates; the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Money Resolution, Report stage. At 8.15 p.m. there will be a Private Member's Motion.
Thursday: We shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates, and consider Votes A, 1, 10, and 2 in Committee.
If time permit, on Tuesday and Wednesday, we shall take other Orders on the Paper.
1526
It may be necessary occasionally to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, to ensure that the necessary Supply and other business shall be obtained before the 31st of March.
Mr. MACPHERSON: In reference to Monday, there is an Amendment by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), which is supported by hon. Members of all parties, dealing with pensions to ex-ranker officers. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government intend to leave the decision on that question to the free vote of the House
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should put that question at this moment without notice.
Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Government time can be given to the discussion of the London Traffic (Restricted Streets) Order, which is the first Order made under the London Traffic Act? It is retrospective in character, dating back to January, and affects a great number of interests besides the interest of the travelling public. Is it not sufficiently important to warrant a discussion in Government time so that proper publicity may be given to the discussion?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid it is not possible to alter the present arrangements.
Mr. HARRIS: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter to-night.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any further Estimates to-night except the Report stage of the Air Estimates?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, it is not proposed to take any further Estimates to-night.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Proceedings on Report of Supply may be taken this day after Eleven of the Clock, and be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Churchill.]
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 114.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[3.52 p.m.

Albery, Irving James

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Nuttall, Ellis

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Owen, Major G.

Astor, Viscountess

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Pease, William Edwin

Atholl, Duchess of

Hammersley, S. S.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Atkinson, C.

Hanbury, C.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Balniel, Lord

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Phillpson, Mabel

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Berry, Sir George

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bethell, A.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Radford, E. A.

Betterton, Henry B.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Raine, W.

Blundell, F. N.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Ramsden, E.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Hilton, Cecil

Remnant, Sir James

Brass, Captain W.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Homan, C. W. J.

Salmon, Major I.

Bullock, Captain M.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Burman, J. B.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Horlick, Lieut. Colonel J. N.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Savery, S. S.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Calne, Gordon Hall

Hume, Sir G. H.

Shaw, Lt.-Col, A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

Campbell, E. T.

Huntingfield, Lord

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hurd, Percy A.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Skelton, A. N.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Christie, J. A.

Jacob, A. E.

Smithers, Waldron

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Jephcott, A. R.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Clarry, Reginald George

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cooper, A. Duff

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Cope, Major William

Lamb, J. Q.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Templeton, W. P.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Sir G.(E Sussex, E'stb'ne)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Crook, C. W.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Loder, J. de V.

Tinne, J. A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Looker, Herbert William

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lumley, L. R.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Macintyre, Ian

Warrender, Sir Victor

Drewe, C.

McLean, Major A.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Eden, Captain Anthony

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Wells, S. R.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macquisten, F. A.

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Ellis, R. G.

Margesson, Captain D.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Elveden, Viscount

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Meller, R. J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Wolmor, Viscount

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Fermoy, Lord

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Finburgh, S.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Forrest, W.

Neville, R. J.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas

Hacking.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Barnes, A.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Barr, J.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Batey, Joseph

1528

1529

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, G. H.

Salter, Dr, Alfred

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scrymgeour, E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Scurr, John

Bromfield, William

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Cluse, W. S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, J. J. (West Hans, Silvertown)

Snell, Harry

Connally, M.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Crawfurd, H. E.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kelly, W. T.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Day, Colonel Harry

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Taylor, R. A.

Dennison, R.

Kenyon, Barnet

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Duncan, C.

Lansbury, George

Thurtle, E.

Dunnico, H.

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)

Livingstone, A. M.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lowth, T.

Varley, Frank B.

Fisher, Rt. Hen. Herbert A. L.

Lunn, William

Viant, S. P.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Gillett, George M.

MacLaren, Andrew

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Greenall, T.

Maxton, James

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

Montague, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Groves, T.

Murnin, H.

Whiteley, W.

Grundy, T. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Wignall, James

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Palin, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Paling, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hardie, George D.

Potts, John S.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Harney, E. A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Harris, Percy A.

Riley, Ben

Wright, W.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Ritson, J.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hayes, John Henry

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Rose, Frank H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Warne.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

IMPORTATION OF PEDIGREE ANIMALS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS) BILL,
"to provide for the insertion in certain contracts and sub-contracts of a fair-wage Clause; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. WALLREAD; supported by Mr. John Jones, Mr. Montague, Mr. Wignall, Mr. Compton, and Mr. Wright; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Town Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought. up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 56.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (TOWN PLANNING BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Town Planning Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (HOUSING BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Housing Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Anglo-Italian Treaty (East African Territories) Bill.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment
That they have passed a Bill, intituled. "An Act to give effect to certain drag Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference relating, respectively, to an unemployment indemnity for seamen in the case of loss or foundering of their ship, the minimum age for Hi, admission of young persons to employment as trimmers and stokers, and the compulsory medical examination children and young persons employed at sea." [Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords].

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to, be printed. [Bill 104.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [26th February].
  Resolutions reported,

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1925–26.
  1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 36,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,412,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,572,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,459,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,650,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before the Debate begins, may I ask, for the guidance of the House, whether you, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to allow a general Debate upon Votes A and 1, upon the assumption, of course, that the general Debate is not continued when the actual Votes come on afterwards, but that on Vote A a general Debate should be allowed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House will remember that the rule is that on the Report stage of Supply, discussion should be confined strictly to the matter contained in the Vote. The general discussion on Vote A, according to the practice of the House, is really confined to
  1568
  the Committee stage, but the point was put to me when these Votes were under consideration a short time ago—and I recognised it to be reasonable—that if the Votes were disposed of by the Committee on the same day on which the Speaker was moved out of the Chair, I should allow the general discussion to be continued on the Report of Vote A, and that is the course I propose to follow on the present occasion.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I presume your ruling does not preclude questions of policy being raised on the Air Minister's salary, which is not one of the Votes being taken to-day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Oh, no. The salary is, I think, in all the Services kept open till a later period in the Session, in order that there may be future opportunities of discussing questions of general policy.
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, to leave out "36,000," and to insert instead thereof "35,900."
  When these Estimates were under discussion on the Committee stage, the Debate centred mainly round the question of disarmament, and, again, when the Foreign Office Estimates were discussed on the Vote on Account last week, several of my hon. Friends and I myself dwelt again upon the urgent need for disarmament. I do not, therefore, propose to traverse again ground which has already been covered, but I would make this my point of departure, that we cannot approve Estimates of the Fighting Services which, in all, amount to an increase of 50 or 60 per cent. over pre-War figures, when the dangers of foreign aggression, to protect us against which the Fighting Services exist., are less formidable than in 1913, and when the financial, economic and social needs of tile country are greater. The Government are always referring to the Estimates of 1913, as though they were the irreducible minimum. There are risks which have to he taken, but there are greater social, financial and economic risks involved in heavy expenditure on the Fighting Services.
  I confess it is not on the Air Estimates that it is possible to take these serious risks, and my reasons for this are twofold. It is quite true that in 1914 to 1918 the Navy was still our sure shield.

  1569
  Aeroplanes could come over London and drop bombs, and cause a great deal of alarm, inconvenience and damage. How much alarm and damage, it is dangerously easy to minimise at this distance of time, but, still, so long as the Navy held the mastery of the seas, our vitals were protected. To-day that is no longer true. To-day the Navy holds supreme command of the seas, and yet London can be destroyed without the Navy being able to fire a shot. It is quite possible, within a few hours of the declaration of war, for a fleet of aeroplanes to appear over London, to drop high explosives and incendiary bombs 10 times as many in one visitation as were dropped by the Germans in the worst month of the War, and the Navy, although it held command of the seas, could do nothing to prevent that. And every one of our great cities would be liable to similar visitations.
  Therefore, I think there is no hon. Member in any quarter of the House who will dispute this statement, that it is quite possible for our industries to be entirely deranged, our great cities to be shattered by incendiary and high explosive bombs, our people demoralised by incessant bombardments and the terrors of gas, and reduced to the verge of starvation by the destruction of communications, our Government paralysed, and all this while the Navy still holds command of the seas and yet incapable of firing a shot in our defence. Therefore, I say that the only possible defence against such formidable contingencies as I have ventured briefly to describe, is that which can be provided by the Air Force, and by no other fighting service. In the second place, there are few Members who will not agree that the relative value of the three factors, the Air Force, the Army and the Navy in the strategic equation: s constantly changing, and that the Air Service is gaining rapidly at the expense of the other two Services.
  I daresay hon. Members have follower the controversy in the United States of America, which seems to have reached its. climax when the Chief of the Air Force offered to drop bombs from a single aeroplane and sink one of the United States warships, even although the other ships of the Fleet brought anti-aircraft batteries to bear while he was carrying this out. The challenge was met by the Secretary to the United States Navy,
  1570
  who said he would gladly stand like Casabianca alone on the deck of the battleship while the Chief of the Air Staff was trying to bomb it. Unhappily, I am afraid there is very little chance of this interesting experiment being permitted to take place, but undoubtedly the United States ship "Washington" was sunk by aircraft bombs, and although it is not possible to say how far one can go with the inference, the time is inevitably coming when aeroplanes will be able to dominate operations by sea, at any rate in the narrow seas, and will be able to make it impossible for surface ships to exist within their radius of action a radius which is constantly increasing.
  I do not contend that that is what would happen, if by any misfortune we were to be engaged in war in the near future. I do not suppose if we were fighting a great Air Power in Europe, that sinking battleships would be the principal task of aeroplanes. Aeroplanes would strike the first blow. They would come over the docks and bases, the stores and communications, and the main fleets at sea would find themselves paralysed and incapable of effective action, on account of aeroplane bombardments of their bases, docks and stores without their being able to fire a shot, or without their having seen a hostile aeroplane. These are the contentions upon which I base my belief, not only that the Air Force is gaining rapidly and enormously at the expense of the other two Services, but that it is one of the duties of the Government to make it clear that it is even now our first line of defence. It follows from that. that it is of paramount importance that the development of the Air Force should not be cramped or hindered, or in any degree obstructed by the conservative tendencies and prejudices of the chiefs of the other two fighting Services, and that control over the expenditure of any money we may vote to-night should not be entrusted to officers of the other Services, whose view of the Air Force is merely that it should be ancillary to these older Services, and that the officers responsible for the training, promotion and discipline of Air Force units and of the officers and men composing them. should not be men who are soldiers and sailors, who, in my hon. and gallant Friend's phrase, do a little flying in their spare time, but they should be keen

  1571
  airmen—airmen first, last and all the time—who look to the Air Service for their careers, and are determined to make it play a preponderating role in any war. No naval officer who does an air course like he would a gunnery course or submarine course is going to accept the Air Force point of view on these questions. He is only interested in the ancillary services which the Air Force can render to the Fleet, and if the admirals have anything to do with promotion, they will naturally prefer the man who is interested in that Service rather than the man who is determined to seek means to destroy the huge, formidable and costly, but happily obsolescent battleships which it is their pride to command.
  It is for these reasons that I, and many of my hon. Friends, have been alarmed at the new departure which we see in the form of the Estimates. It appears that the Admiralty is going to be responsible for the expenditure on the Fleet Air arm, and that the Air Ministry is to receive an Appropriation-in-Aid in respect of the expenditure. The First Lord of the Admiralty does not even attend the Air Estimates Debate, or if ho looks in for a moment or two as on the last occasion we were discussing these Estimates in Committee, he remains lurking in the gloomy recesses of the Tory back-benches. I would, therefore, put to the right hon. Baronet who, I understand, is going to reply, these questions on the relations between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty: First, whether the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which considered the relations between the Air Service and the Admiralty have been carried out in full: secondly. whether the relations between the Navy and the Air Service, as explained by the Sub-Committee in Part 2 of their Report, have been altered in any respect other than in accordance with their published recommendations; thirdly, whether the Admiralty accept without, reservation, except as to the tactical control of Air Force units at sea, the principle of the absolute and unified control of the Air Force by the Air Ministry; and fourthly, are the Ministry free to develop the Fleet Air arm without hindrance or interference from naval authorities, and in such directions, for example, as in the attack upon ships at sea by aeroplane?
  1572
  Believing, as we do, that the true line of development in the organisation of our national defence will be something in the nature of a Ministry of Defence, with the Air Ministry as the dominant partner, rather than in the absorption of the Air Ministry by the other two fighting Services, we have observed this departure in the form of the Estimates with some apprehension, and I hope the Government will be able to allay our anxiety. When we are asked to vote this very large sum of money, the first question that arises is, Are we going to get security? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in one of the most eloquent, earnest and moving speeches I have heard even from his lips, when we were discussing this matter in Committee, made it clear that he was against armaments altogether. He said that the only logical alternative to complete disarmament was efficiency, and, therefore, he was not going to move a reduction of so many thousand pounds or so many hundreds of men; he went the whole hog, and declared for the complete abolition of the Air Force. We who disagree with him in thinking that it is possible, in the existing state of the world, to do without armaments altogether, agree with him, however, that the logical alternative is that you must have efficiency in your armaments, and, therefore, we want to be more satisfied than we were from the extremely interesting, informative and valuable, but necessarily discursive speech of the Secretary of State in introducing the Estimates, that we shall obtain efficiency and relative security in the air.
  Speaking in this House nearly two years ago on the same stage of these Estimates, I referred to the fact that a great deal of the French Air Force is ancillary to the French Army. The French have an enormous army, and, naturally, have to have the ancillary services which aeroplanes can afford them in proportion to the size of their army. A very large part of this French Air Force is, therefore, tied up with the French Army on the Eastern front. It is out of the question for those machines to be moved en mass from the Eastern Frontier to the West, nor could they form an effective striking aerial force if that were done. To a very large extent they are composed of scouts, artillery spotting machines and reconnaissance machines, and they would be

  1573
  quite unsuited to form part of an independent air striking force. Therefore, I would ask whether it is not possible to suggest to us, as a standard of air strength, some standard which would be more exact than that of the total number of aeroplanes at the disposal of the French Government. Speaking in this House two years ago, the Secretary of State for Air said that he welcomed the inquiry that was going to be conducted by the Committee of Imperial Defence into the whole problem of national defence. He said he would look to that Committee for guidance as to the duties of the Air Force, and he put to them the following questions.
  "What Imperial responsibility is the Air Force to undertake? Is there some standard likely to be the one standard at which we should aim?"
  Has the Secretary of State received answers to those questions, and, if so, will he communicate them to the House? We know that this Committee has reported, because it is upon their recommendation that this expansion scheme has been decided upon; but these questions which were put by the Secretary of State go to the very root of our Air policy. They have never been answered, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us the answers now.
  In his introductory speech he referred frequently to the strength of the French Air Force, not because he feared the incalculably remote contingency of war with France, but because the French have the strongest air force in Europe, and, therefore, it is the natural standard by which the air forces of other Powers must be measured. It should not, however, be regarded as a proportion of three to one, because that involves calculating all the aeroplanes at the disposal of the French Government; but some effort should be made to ascertain the maximum striking force at the disposal of the strongest air Power, and our comparison should be with that striking force. Then the question arises: If we can attain to the strength of the strongest air force in Europe, what means of defence have we, and what is our best means of defence? On this I would ask the Secretary of State, firstly, whether research is proceeding on measures of defence from the ground? I confess I have not very much faith in these methods
  1574
  of defence, but I would gladly be converted. I was a little puzzled by a passage in the right hon. Baronet's speech in introducing the Estimates, and I have read it since without much further enlightenment. After speaking of the various means of defence, and the control of ground defence units by the Air Ministry, he said:
  "I am aware that a number of people say that in the way of air operations defensive operations ale of little use, and that the air is essentially an offensive arm. I agree; but that does not mean that a system of defence such as I have just outlined cannot be very effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1925, col. 2200, Vol. 180.]
  Can it be effective? I think we are entitled to a clear answer to that question. I would, therefore, further ask, is there any prospect that an effective defence against air attack can be organised by the Air Ministry, with aeroplanes and ground defence units under its control, or must we rely almost entirely on the offensive power of our striking force—on being able to inflict reprisals upon the enemy by seeking out and bombing the enemy's air base? If so, think the fact should be clearly stated. and the issues squarely faced, and I think they would help to mobilise public opinion in every country of the world in favour of a great measure of disarmament which would save civilisation from the great risks to which it is exposed by the growth of air armaments. After all, France is by far the largest Air Power in Europe. She is bound to us by many ties of common interest and sentiment, and she has many uses to which she might be devoting the money which she is spending on building up this great Air Force. For example, she might be restoring her own national credit. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that in these circumstances it must be possible, to come to some arrangement with the French nation, by which the necessary standard of equality can be attained between the Air Forces of the two nations, and at the same time a halt called to that wasteful and unproductive expenditure.
  There is one other point, on the military side, and that is the strength of the Air Force reserves. Figures have been given as to the strength of these reserves in previous Debates, and I think it is a very important point, bemuse our Air Force is comparatively small, and

  1575
  we shall rely on a great power of expansion. If war came, it would be vital to have some power of expansion, and, therefore, I would ask the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, to let us know how we stand in respect of reserves—not the reserve units, but reserves to supply wastage of personnel in war and to provide the means of expansion. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about research. With our small force, it is vital that we should proceed as fast as we can with research and experiment, so as to aim at the highest standard of quality, and in this connection I should like to ask as to two lines of research to which the Secretary of State did not refer in his introductory speech—in the first place, with regard to research on aeroplanes controlled by wireless without pilots, and, secondly, with regard to helicopters. I remember, in 1919 and 1920, hearing about a helicopter down at Farnborough, to the expenditure on which the Treasury was constantly contributing, and, as some hon. Members will recollect, it came before the Estimates Committee of this House about two years ago. We found that even then the Treasury had been giving for three or four months final instalments of grants to enable those experiments to continue. Since then, I understand, at regular intervals these final instalments have been continued to he handed out to the inventor of the helicopter at Farnborough. I should like to know whether any result is in prospect from these experiments.
  Now I come to civil aviation. This is surely the most important of all the activities of the Air Ministry but nevertheless, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes), on the Committee stage, only 2 per cent. of the expenditure of the Air Ministry is devoted to civil aviation. Civil aviation is not only vital to our economic interests, but is the foundation upon which our air power must be based, just as the Mercantile Marine and the fishermen round our coasts are the foundation of our sea power. Of course, there are great natural difficulties in this country. In our small country, with its highly developed system of communications and its foggy and uncertain climate, it is very difficult to get civil aviation, in the phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to fly by itself. There-
  1576
  fore, it is all the more important for the Air Ministry to foster and encourage and stimulate it, by every means in its power.
  The Secretary of State, speaking on this question a year ago, said that under the agreement with the Imperial Airways Company there was every chance of British civil aviation taking the lead in Europe. Does he still adhere to that statement? Can he say that this agreement is enabling British aviation to take the lead among the countries in Europe, and overtake its rivals who were earlier in the field? The Under-Secretary, in his all too brief but most interesting speech at the close of the Debate on the Committee stage, referred to the enterprise of certain ex-air officers who were going round with aeroplanes of their own and giving people trips. That is obviously of great importance in developing the air defence of the country and getting people to understand and take an interest in the air. What help and encouragement does the Air Ministry give to these ex-officers? I think it is obviously a thing which every Member of the House would like to see encouraged. Then, what prospect is there that the Imperial Airways Company, with the encouragement and stimulus of the Air Ministry, will open up more lines in this country? I know the long-distance lines are more economical, and, from many points of view, more important. At home it is difficult to get support, but if we are to get the people into the air, and get them really interested in aviation, it is of tremendous importance to get these air lines, connecting up the pleasure resorts on the coast, the Highlands of Scotland, and so on, started, and to get the largest possible number of people interested in them.
  I would ask, how is it possible to justify the comparative neglect of civil aviation in this country compared with the large sums that are spent on it in foreign countries? In the current year we only propose to spend £357,000, while France is spending the equivalent in sterling of £1,758,000. Again, on air line subsidies we are only spending £137,000, in spite of our much greater difficulties as compared with other countries. Even Germany is spending £244,000, and France, £652,000. As has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam,

  1577
  civil aviation is too likely to be the Cinderella of the Air Ministry. We should like to know how the matter of the negotiations with Germany stands, so that we can get the air line to Prague. Several of my hon. Friends have raised that question before, and it has been hanging fire for years—indeed, ever since the Armistice, ever since civil aviation was seriously tackled. It is high time now that we got some satisfaction, so that the whole of the vast area of Central Europe should not be practically blocked against the enterprise of British air lines.
  Finally, I would ask, is anything being done to encourage a scheme of which I have heard, but to which there may be many objections of which I am quite ignorant—a scheme to encourage cooperation between the French and ourselves in carrying the mails by air to India? I do not in the least press this point, but I think we are entitled to mention it. I do not know what objections there may be to the scheme, but the mere fact that it involves co-operation with France is, I suggest, by no means a disadvantage, but rather a most attractive feature of the scheme. In the development of civil aviation there will be many instances of co-operation between different countries in regard to the services which civil aviation can render to humanity. It seems to me that there are three principal tasks confronting the Air Ministry at the present time. The first is to build up a Service which should not be numerically stronger than the total aeroplane strength of any other foreign Power, but which must be not less powerful than the striking force of the strongest Air Power in Europe. The second is by no means less important; indeed, it is far more important, in my view, though, perhaps, it less directly concerns the Air Ministry, and may be said to be within the purview of the Foreign Office. It is to seek by every possible means disarmament, so as to avert the frightful perils to which civilisation is exposed from the growth of armaments. The third task is to promote by all possible means the growth and development of civil aviation. It is this last task which the Air Ministry has seemed to me to have been sometimes inclined to neglect, although I do not wish to disparage what the Secretary of
  1578
  State himself has done, following on the Report of the Hambling Committee, to encourage civil aviation in this country. I think, however, that far more should be done than the wretched 2 per cent. of the whole expenditure of the Air Ministry. If this task is effectively performed, I think it will be the most fruitful, the most enduring, and the most renowned task with which any Secretary of State for Air could be charged.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: We have had a very interesting Debate on the Air Estimates, in which we have wandered all over the compass and have dealt chiefly with disarmament. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley ((Mr. Lansbury) gave us a very interesting speech, going back to Tudor times, then proceeding to the Napoleonic Wars and the late War, and, finally, threatening us with the Yellow Peril. I submit that the hon. Member quite forgot to tell us that the Roman Empire was lost because the efficiency of its legions was not kept up, and that, therefore, it would be more prudent for us to have a really efficient Air Force. Is our Air Force really efficient or not? I am one of the few Members of this House who think that these Estimates are not adequate, and that we should not be so far behind France. I think the Secretary of State for Air should dig his heels in and demand more of the money that is available for the defence forces. He ought to get at least a third of the money that is available for defence, and should not he whittled down as he is at present. He told us that the French have three times as many aeroplanes as we have. I submit that that is a very unsatisfactory position, and that we ought to increase our Air Estimates.
  No one in these Debates has gone into the details of the Air Estimates. and I should like just to probe them a little. In the first, place, I think the White Paper issued by the Air Ministry is the most muddling document I have ever seen. I do not know which bright brain under the Gallery is responsible for this Memorandum, but it starts by dealing with the Fleet Air Arm, then it goes on to the regular squadrons for home defence, then to the Fleet Air Arm again,

  1579
  and then to squadrons for home defence work. I submit that in this White Paper we ought to have a clear policy of the Air Minister laid down, on the lines of his speech, and then he ought to say what is required for home defence and what is required for the Fleet Air Arm, the India Office and the Colonial Office. Then we should be able to understand a little more what he is driving at. What is the test of an efficient Air Service? It is whether the organisation is ready to expand quickly, whether it has the very best material, and whether enough money has been devoted to research. The number of men provided in Vote A is quite inadequate for a really first-class Air Force. I think it ought to be increased.
  The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Manchester criticised the number of flying men as compared with the number of non-flying men—the number of fighters as compared with the number of people on the ground. He cannot have studied the air question very deeply, because if you had 1,000 men looking after the machine, and that machine brought in the right information at the right time, they would not be wasted. You have only to consider the Battle of Jutland. If Lord Jellicoe had only had proper aerial reconnaissance to bring in the proper information where the German Fleet were a day or two after the battle it would not have mattered if 1,000 men had looked after the machines. We can well leave that to the Air Minister. He is not likely to overload We Air Force. I should like to ask the Air Minister to go into the question of accelerating the promotion of the younger men. The people at the head of the list are rather blocking promotion, and the young men feel that 'hey have not a good career. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to give us some assurance that he will put the older men on a reserve list and so help the younger ones. Under Vote 2 I see large sums down for barrack services, fuel and light, which come to nearly £250,000. I think the Air Minister should put the axe into those items and go into them thoroughly to see if all that expenditure is necessary, because I believe he should put as much money into the air machine and try to save as much as possible of
  1580
  these items which are not really of great value.
  Now I come to Vote 3, under the heading of aeroplanes, seaplanes, etc. I cannot ask the number of machines he, is going to purchase because that is confidential. But I should like to ask how much of that money is to go to the Fleet Air Arm and whether any old type machines have been purchased under these Estimates and whether any machines are being re-conditioned, because I think everyone will agree it is time the old machines were wiped off the list. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the seaplanes of the Boat type. Are they being developed? Is he responsible for that, or is the Admiralty responsible now, and is the torpedo aeroplane being developed properly? Whose responsibility is it, the Air Ministry or the Admiralty? If he will give me a little information on that I shall be very much obliged.
  I should like to say a word about the Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough, for which there is an item of £37,000, but if you turn over the page you find it is £439,000 all together. I have taken the trouble to look up the Estimates for the last few years. In 1923–24 it was £380,500; in 1922–23 £424,000; in 1921–22, £364,000; in 1920–21. £342,000. So in the last five years the factory at Farnborough has had £2,000,000. I ask hon. Members to look into this figure. They do not produce any machines. What have they produced for £2,000,000? I ask the Secretary of State to look carefully into that because the Naval Air Service would not have anything to do with Farnborough. We did not believe in their work, and we got better results by going to private firms. May I remind the House that we hold no records of any description in this country. We have no world trophies. What is the reason of that? It is either that our industry is inefficient or too much hampered. It is not inefficient, because in the War we produced the best machines in the world with our aircraft industry, and therefore I submit that the industry is too much hampered. At Farnborough they produce all sorts of rules and regulations. These are passed on to the industry and they cannot turn out as efficient machines as they should. I think the money goes in the wrong direction, and I would ask the Air

  1581
  Minister to look into that carefully to see whether Farnborough is not hampering the efficiency of our machines too much. I heard a case of an official arriving at a firm with a dynamo, and he wanted to put it into one of the new machines under construction. The official of the firm said, "We have already got two dynamos in that machine." He was asked, "Cannot you put a switch and a little wiring and use this?" The official said, "No, that is not my department." We are overloading our machines with too many gewgaws, and they are not efficient. I ask the Air Minister to look into that. May I say a word about the Aeronautical Inspection Department. They are very efficient, hut I think they tie the firms up too much, and they ought to be given a freer hand. We gave our inspectors in the Royal Naval Air Service a free hand, and they could do as they liked.
  Last year I raised the question of accidents with the Under-Secretary, but he had only just got into office and did not know very much about it. During the year, we have had a very large number of accidents. They had a. Debate the other night about accidents, and it came out that we have a great number. When we first started the Naval Air Service we had fewer accidents than the military had. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) will agree with me that the reason we always thought we had fewer accidents was because we drew very skilled artificers from the Navy. We had torpedo artificers, hydraulic artificers and engine-room artificers, and they were skilled in handling different types of mechanism, and we soon taught them to handle new engines and new aero-engines. I ask the Minister if he could not introduce into the Air Service a pure engineering branch—men given a much higher training, not hauled out for every parade that happens to be wanted at the aerodrome, but these men should be selected and well trained, and I guarantee you could reduce the accidents 50 per cent. if you trained a real engineering personnel inside the Air Force.
  I should also like to ask the Minister, what does he do to help the trade to sell their air machines'? We cannot sell battleships or cruisers nowadays, but we could sell aircraft. The French encourage their firms to sell as much as possible abroad,
  1582
  and I should like to know if the Air Ministry do the same.
  I come now to the Aeronautical Research Committee, £5,000 and £2,500. Do the experts on this Committee give enough of their attention to the requirements of the trade? I should like the Air Minister to look into that point, whether they really help the trade or are they always going in for research with machines that are out of date and not looking far enough ahead. I think the gentlemen on these Committees should really try to improve the machines which are going to be built and not carry out research work with machines which are passed away and finished. Have the firms any representatives on that Committee? If the Air Minister will look into that I should be very much obliged. I was struck by a. remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Brigadier-General Warner), that you ought to standardise machines. That is the very last thing you ought to do. Improvements are coining along every day. They tried to standardise the BE2C before the War, and the Army officials got into difficulties over that. The last thing we want to do is to standardise machines in the present state of aeronautics.
  I should like to pass to airships. I went to Cardington the other day, and I congratulate the Air Minister on what we saw there. It is a very efficient station, They have got rid of all the muddle they had before, and R.33 was covered with her outer cover and looked very efficient. I have never seen an outer cover put on an airship more efficiently. It was like a kid glove, and the staff who put it on and the officers responsible for it ought to be congratulated. One thing I was disappointed about was the experiment I saw on girders. I only say one experiment on a box-shaped girder under compression. I ask the Air Minister to give more money to carrying out experiment on girders. These are very frail structures—these rigids—and when a rigid is in the air and is going at speed and her rudder is put hard over you may get torsional stresses on the girders, and if they are at all weak you may get a fracture and an accident. That happened with 37 rigid, due to the faulty design of the Admiralty constructors. I hope the Air Minister will

  1583
  not allow them to have anything to do with the design of these ships in the future. They failed in that respect. My point is that if you get heavy torsional stresses you may get an accident, and I ask the Air Minister to devote more money to that, to give the officer in charge of these experiments more money, and he can carry out proper experiments with torsional stresses these girders may have on them in the air.
  I should like to say a word about fabrics. I hope the Air Minister is sending samples of the outer cover, and perhaps a whole gas-bag, out to India or Egypt. You want to test them out there by experiments on the inflated gas-bag. I think he could do that better by sending these ships out to India or Egypt. I should like to ask him what he is doing about having a substitute for the skin lining on the gas-bag. Is he carrying out research work to get a better lining, a better and more efficient lining than skin? If you could get a good substitute it would save a tremendous amount of work in putting the skin on such a huge surface as the gas-bag of a rigid. I am glad to see the Minister is going to have a shed and mooring mast at Kurachi. That is a very good position if we develop an air station in India. There is level ground there, and it ought to he a good place for running an airship. I should like to ask the Minister whether any research work is being done with helium. The Americans have developed a supply of helium, but we cannot get it from there We get a little from Canada, but has he tried any other part of the Empire to find out if he can get it? With regard to the training of pilots, would it not be advisable to have two or three flexible airships of 400,000 cubic feet or so, simply to get their spare crews up in the air for training? They have not had any training in this country in the airships for some three or four years, and I think the spare crews ought to be sent up in the air. It is not necessary to risk a rigid every time, but we could have two or three flexible airships.
  May I make a remark about the airship that is associated with the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). I saw in the Press the other day that he had got
  1584
  out a very fine design with the navigating chamber in the keel, very much on the lines of the Formalini that we experimented with in Milan in 1913. I would ask him to consider this. Before he goes in for a departure like that, will he consider whether in getting a greater speed of two knots or more, as he will in this design, he will be able to control the airship as well as if the navigating gondola was further aft. It is an important point, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend values it as much as I do, because he is an old sailor. Are the pilots who are responsible for these airships in the air going to have any say or to be allowed to make helpful criticism of the design of the Airship Guarantee Company, because these men have to take the airship in the air. They are responsible for her safety and for the lives of the crew. I do not mean that. they should criticise it destructively, but if they see that she is not as manageable as she might be, looking through the design, they ought to be allowed to say so. I would ask the Air Minister if he would look into that point. I agree with every word my hon. Friend behind me said about civil aviation. I do not think we are devoting enough money to it, and I should like to ask the Minister has he any check over this million miles supposed to be flown by Imperial Airways Limited, and also whether he has any check as to whether they fly their latest machines? Do they go on flying old machines, or are they compelled under the subsidy scheme to provide new ones every few years? That is a point that ought to be looked into, because otherwise the airmen and the passengers may he unduly risked by not having up-to-date machines.
  May I make a remark about the Fleet air arm. It is a hardy annual, always coming up on every Estimate, as to whether the Admiralty should have control over their air arm. The Admiralty used to have an Air Service, and what did they do with it.? They smothered it in its infancy and then threw it overboard. We are never told in these Debates that the Admiralty had an air arm. But they did, and they blocked it at every turn. Then we had an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester coming here at the last Debate and saying:
  "The point I want to put is that just as the Navy has found that an independent

  1585
  Air Ministry has absolutely failed to deliver the goods, 60 an independent Air Ministry is absolutely failing to provide for the air requirements of the Army and I venture to suggest that if the Admiralty were made completely and entirely responsible for the Naval Air Service it would be able to adjust and create that service to meet requirements."
  I challenge the hon. Member to justify those statements. He did not tell the House that the Admiralty had an air service and blocked its development from start to finish. They would not allow us to have Zeppelins at the battle of Jutland. They blocked the creation of the torpedo machine, and they blocked the creation of aircraft carriers. Lord Graham came to the Admiralty in 1913 with the design of a seaplane carrier. Of course it was turned down. Everything the air service tried to do was blocked by the Sea Lords of the Admiralty. Then they get people to come to the House and demand that they should have a naval Air Service again. I submit that the Air Minister should resist that all he possibly can. Do not let the Admiralty have a single thing to do with the control of the Air Service. Keep them out of the rigids all you can, and simply supply their requirements. I know some of my comrades of the Navy do not agree with me in all this, but I ask them this. There is my brother Admiral there, who is a great gunnery expert. Before the war, right up to 1914, did any of the captains of the "Excellent" ever try to help the Air Service to develop aerial spotting to spot for the shooting of the guns to make it inure accurate? I notice that. Admiral Bacon, in his book, says the shooting of the cruiser squadron was deplorable. I should like to know if the First Sea Lord, Lord Beatty, ever did a single thing to try to help to improve the shooting of his squadron by developing aerial spotting. I apologise for having occupied so much time, but I am very interested in this air work, and have devoted a good deal of my life to it.
  5.0 P.M.
  Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I want to touch on one aspect. of this question which has not been sufficiently dealt with and that is the aspect of Imperial defence. We had a very interesting statement from the Ail Minister a fortnight ago on the subject of home defence and the establishment and expansion of the Air Service at home.
  1586
  But while I think this statement was very satisfactory, I cannot help agreeing with the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) that construction should proceed at a quicker pace if possible so as to bring us up to a standard of equality with any European Power. It is rather with the question of Imperial Defence that want to deal to-day. The Secretary of State made one very important remark in his speech on 26th February, and I would like to read a sentence of it:
  "I would ask lion. Members to keep constantly in their minds the potentialities of air power for Empire defence. if we could make our Empire defence more mobile than it is now, might we not save large numbers of men and great sums of money."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th February, 1925; col. 2199, Vol. 180.]
  I wish that the Minister had had time or opportunity to develop that statement, and his theory and ideas. It is on that line that I want to speak briefly this afternoon. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Air Service in Imperial defence is not getting proper recognition either from this House or from the public, or, what is perhaps more important, from the two Services, the Army and Navy. I do not think that it will ever get that proper recognition from the Army and the Navy until we have a much more effective system of co-ordination. I am very glad to hear in all these Debates hon. Members mention this question of co-ordination between the three Services, because it is of vital importance. We see quite clearly the Navy and the Air Service, as represented in this House. still taking views opposed to each other.
  Co-ordination of the three Services has been the subject of Debate in this House for the last five years, and many of us have pressed the Government to do some thing in this direction, with the result that in 1923 a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was set up to consider the whole question. It made its report and certain recommendations, which go a long way to assist in getting the desired result. I would like to remind the House of what those recommendations were. They were, in the first place, that the Committee of Imperial Defence, instead of being a nebulous body consisting of no recognised members, should have a proper membership, that the three Chiefs of Staff of the

  1587
  three Services should he members of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and, what is more important still, that each Chief of Staff of each Service should be not only individually responsible for his own arm of the Service, but that also he should have collective responsibility for what is required in regard to defence in all three Services together. I would like to read to the House one paragraph, because I think it is of great importance:
  "In addition to the functions of the Chiefs of Staff as advisers on questions of sea, land, or air policy, respectively, to their own Board or Council, each of the throe Chiefs of Staff will have an individual and collective responsibility for advising on defence policy as a whole, the three constituting. as it were, a Super-Chief of a War Staff in Commission."
  That is what I and many of us want to see—a real super Chief of War Staff in Commission, with power to co-ordinate the work of the three Services. Although that recommendation has been made, I doubt whether this collective responsibility is more than imaginary; I doubt whether it is real. I do not want to deal with the great questions of establishment for war or plans for war, but, I do want to deal for a moment with what I consider to be the basis of Imperial Defence, and that is the system of defence of those many points which we hold, scattered all over the. world—coaling or oiling stations, defended ports, bases, strategic points and so on. Personally I feel very strongly that we are defending those points in a wrong way, in an expensive way, and in an inadequate and inefficient way. Let me take an example to illustrate what I have in my mind. We have in the Mediterranean three points which have been hitherto of very great importance in the shape of Gibraltar. Malta and Egypt. The Mediterranean, so far as I gather—I hope my naval friends will correct me if I am wrong—is the centre of gravity of the Navy at the present moment. It is in a central position, and it is, in fact, the centre of gravity of the Navy. The Mediterranean, therefore, of great importance, and the defence of those three points, Gibraltar, Malta and Egypt, is of equal importance.
  Take Gibraltar. We have certain fixed defences there. I think it is of very little value, because we can neither get aircraft on it nor off it. I doubt very
  1588
  much whether the armaments there are of any great value. But it is quite certain to me that if there were any modern howitzers on the mainland, it would be utterly impossible for any of our ships to go into the port of Gibraltar. I also think it is very improbable that they could make use of that station, if there was a considerable aircraft force opposed to them. Take Malta. There we have fixed defences; we have guns and fortifications, and searchlights and minefields, and submarines. I want to know from the Minister why we have no aircraft there. I believe I am wrong in saying that we have none at all; we have four or five machines. Surely, if the Mediterranean is the centre of gravity of the Navy, we ought to have a strong force of aircraft stationed at. Malta? What is the use of these fixed armaments? Take, for instance, the long-range gun, the heavy gun. It has to fire at an object which cannot be seen or which can be seen only from the air. The gun has a limited range, and it cannot be shifted from one place to another, whereas if we had aircraft there, reducing part of those fixed defences, we could co-operate with the Fleet, operating 250 miles distant from that base, and that would form a mobile defence, which could be shifted elsewhere.
  Let us imagine, for example, that the theatre of operations was not in the Mediterranean at all, but Eastward. What is the use of our fixed armaments in places like Malta and Gibraltar? I am not suggesting that we should do without. those fixed armaments altogether, but I think we have adopted them too much in the past, and that it is time that we kept up to date with scientific development by encouraging aircraft defence rather than fixed armament defence. Take the case of Egypt. We have all realised the importance of the defence of the Suez Canal, but here, again, I think aircraft ought to play a much more important part in defence. We are told that the defence of the Suez Canal is a question for the Army primarily. I doubt that very much. I think it is primarily a question for the Navy and the Air Force. You have a wide desert in front of the Canal, and it is most important that the defence should be met as far as possible in front of the Canal. The Air Force can do that better than anyone else. I

  1589
  am not, again, suggesting that we can do without the infantry battalions and the cavalry that would be required for defence. I do suggest, however, that there should be a proper balance between the three Services in the defence of these important places abroad, that there is not that proper balance now, and that we shall not get it until we have co-ordination between the three Services. I believe that we could get that co-ordination sufficiently for the moment if real responsibility, collective responsibility, were put on the three Chiefs of Staff. That is not so now. Collective responsibility is not real. I hope that the Air Minister will do his best to see that it is made so. We would then get that greater measure of efficiency and economy which we so greatly require.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): Sympathetic recollection of the events of the Debate of a fortnight ago will no doubt have prepared hon. Members for my intervening in this Debate at the earliest possible moment. The very admirable speeches to which we have just listened give me an opportunity of which I can fairly avail myself, for many interesting points have been raised, to which, no doubt, the House will desire an early reply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who proposes to speak later in the evening, will deal with any other points that may arise, or any with which I have not dealt adequately. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sutter) that the Air Minister is fully alive to the importance of doing everything he can to foster and stimulate—I believe those were the words used—civil aviation in this country. It is a definite part of our policy. We look to a healthy civilian service to act as a ground-work for our military air service, and we look forward hopefully to the time when civil flying will occupy the same relative position towards the Air Force as the mercantile marine now occupies towards the Navy. So that from every point of view civilian flying is hound to take a leading place in the general air policy, and, indeed, in the life of this country.
  But when comparisons are made between what we are actually spending on civil aviation, and especially when
  1590
  comparisons are made between the subsidies we propose and the subsidies spent. by other countries, there are certain important considerations that should be taken into account. After all, there are limits to the amount that even the most enthusiastic and determined Air Minister can ask this House to vote. We are engaged upon a progressive scheme for the expansion of our defence forces. Therefore, the greater part. of the money which is voted annually in these Estimates must be devoted to the completion of that scheme. It. follows that the moneys that are available for the development of commercial aviation roust be strictly controlled by the prior claims of home defence. In France, on the other hand, the development of the military Air Force of our Allies has progressed at such a pace during the last few years that the necessity for the development of defence does not exist in such an imperative fashion. It follows, therefore, that more money is available for commercial flying. Therefore, it is not quite fair, I think, to compare the £135,000 that we spend a year on civilian flying with the £600,000 or thereabouts that is spent in France on it.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness referred to the amount of money that is being spent. in Germany. There, I will say that the restrictions that are imposed by the Allies on the military development of German aviation make far more money available for civil aviation. We in this country are, in so far as civil aviation is concerned, paying the penalty for the neglect of air defence which took place in the years immediately following the War. I might here say, in passing, that although we spend £135,000 a year in the encouragement of civil aviation, I believe that there is only a sum of about £400,000 on the Navy Vote, which amounts to over £50,000,000, for the assistance of the Mercantile Marine. I understand that the Secretary of State proposes to deal with the speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) at a later stage, and, therefore, I will not refer to any of the remarks he made about the cost of the Air Force. in future years, but what I should like to emphasise specially is the great capital expenditure with which we are faced at the present moment. This capital expenditure is bound to swell the Air Esti-

  1591
  mates annually until the home defence expansion scheme is completed, but we hope that when that is completed these large sums will not recur. Meanwhile, we ere compelled to cut down expenditure rigorously in every other direction.
  I think that this consideration wilt supply an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam (Major-General Sir F. Sykes), who put many pertinent questions to us in the course of his speech a fortnight ago. It is obvious that, in the initial stages of this home defence expansion scheme, there should be a very disproportional ratio and relationship between the figures for work on the ground—aerodromes, land and buildings—and the figures for petrol consumption and matters of that kind. I think this same consideration will answer the complaint that nearly three-fourths of the personnel under the Chief of the Air Staff are concerned with works and buildings. For administrative convenience the Directorate of Works and Buildings is under the Chief of the Air Staff, but the greater part of the personnel employed by that Department are employed temporarily on work during the expansion scheme. At the same time, it is only fair to point out that, whereas in 1918 81 men were required to keep one machine in a service unit, in 1923 that figure had dropped to 65, and in 1924 it had dropped to 51. The same gratifying improvement is noted in the number of hours flown per machine during the last four years, and if you take the figures throughout all the units of the Royal Air Force, including the training schools, you will find that the figures for hours of flying are two-and-a-half times greater than the corresponding figures for 1921.
  Commander BELLAIRS: How much are they?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I hope the House will not press me on that matter, because it is a figure which, after all, is a variable figure, and it is not one which it is to the public advantage for me to give. I will turn for a moment to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, in which he pressed the claims of civil aviation, and reaffirm the intention of the Air Ministry to do everything they can for civil aviation, having due regard to the large financial expenses that we are put to in other directions. We are
  1592
  fully alive to the importance of establishing and encouraging commercial air routes, and of not letting this country fall behind its neighbours.
  Captain W. BENN: Could the hon. Baronet say a word about the suggestion made in the "imes" this morning that Imperial Airways is to take over the Cairo-Bagdad service?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to say, from that point of view, that the Air Ministry have a very watchful and a very friendly eye to developing all the services in the Near East, and not only that, but—the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend—schemes of co-operation with our neighbours in other parts of the world, such as Syria and the route to India. All these schemes are having the consideration of the Director of Civil Aviation, who, as the House knows, is studying the whole matter actually from the air, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend would not press me to give any reply upon that matter until the Director has returned which will be in the course of a very days, when we can hear what he has to report on the whole matter. Another criticism that my hon. and gallant Friend made was to the effect that the statement of three to one as the relative strength of the French and British air defence is not a fair one, as leaving out of consideration the military demands of the French land and naval forces. I can re-assure my hon. and gallant Friend there. Exclusive of overseas aircraft—and I might say that the overseas aircraft of our French allies are far more available for service in Europe than are our own—exclusive of that, the figure of three to one is arrived at after making full allow ante for all the demands that may be made upon the Air Service, whether naval or military, and including the reserves. Therefore the figure of three to one is an absolute like-to-like figure.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the hon. Member mean to say that, after deducting all the machines required for ancillary services with the armies of France, the artillery spotting machines, the recon naissance machines, and so forth, there still remains available for the independent striking air force of France a number of machines that would be in the proportion of three to one of our available machines?
  Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, that is so; that is absolutely so. I think I might even give figures to the hon. and gallant Member. I believe that the gross number of machines in France is 1,000. If you take away 400 machines for the purposes which he mentioned, that would still leave 600, whereas we have 300 machines it this country, or 200 if you take away all those that would be employed with the Army co-operation squadrons and that sort of thing. Therefore, however you look at it, whether at the gross or the net figure, the proportion of three to one is actually a fair one. But I should like to say that, although allowance is made for that, the machines to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, the spotting machines, the reconnaissance machines, and so forth, would, after all, he to a great extent available in case of need to join and to swell the striking force that he mentioned. I think he will agree with that.
  Now I come to another important point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is the financial arrangement in these Estimates in connection with the Fleet Air Arm.
  Captain BENN: Who invented the term "Fleet Air Arm?" I cannot find it in the Air Force Act. Has somebody baptised some of His Majesty's Forces with a new official name?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I did not invent the name and that, had it been left to me, I would have found something far more suitable, and I would certainly have consulted my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to it. This matter was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend himself, if I remember aright, in the course of the Debate a fortnight ago, when he described it in telling and bloodcurdling language as a breach in the citadel of an independent air force. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Air Ministry are as unwilling as he is that any such unpleasant operation should take place in their flank, but I can reassure him, or at least I will try to do so. No change has taken place whatsoever. The arrangement is that the Admiralty and the Air Force settle before the Estimates what the Fleet Air Arm, as I can call it by no other term, is to cost. This sum is then placed in
  1594
  the Navy Estimates as a Grant-in-Aid to the Royal Air Force, and it is found in the Air Estimates as an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Navy Votes. This arrangement is the direct result of the fourth recommendation—and I should like to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, who asked me a question on this matter—of the Balfour Committee, whereby the financial arrangements between the Navy and the Air Force relative to the Fleet Air Arm were referred to the Treasury, in consultation with these two Services, to settle.
  It is left, as it was considered fair to do, to the Admiralty to prescribe and to justify to the Treasury and to Parliament the scope arid scale of the requirements which they think necessary for the Fleet Air Arm, but it is the duty of the Air Force to supply them with the whole material. The actual accounting is not affected at all, and no point arises which calls for consultation with the Public Accounts Committee. The actual accounting of expenditure in detail is shown on the gross Air Votes as heretofore. I should like to emphasise that this recommendation of the Balfour Committee and the consequent alteration in the Estimates involves no new change of principle at all. It merely crystallises a scheme of co-operation and coordination which existed before. The Admiralty remain solely responsible for deciding how many machines and how much Air Force materiel are to be placed on these carriers, and we have to furnish the full complement to be carried. It has nothing to do with shore babes or anything of that sort, but has to be limited to the three or four carriers. They have to decide what they want in. these carriers and they have the responsibility of the operating and control of them. Duplication is thus avoided by the Air Force having, as it has always had, undivided responsibility for material, construction, and design, and for the training and organisation of the units. I think I have covered all the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I inquire whether the Admiralty accept without reservation the absolute and unified control of the Air Force by the Air Minister?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The Government does—
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Government does?
  Sir P. SASSOON: And it is fully laid out in the Report of the Balfour Committee. Perhaps I might just read the concluding paragraph of that Committee:
  "We earnestly trust that no mere technical difficulties will be allowed to stand in the way of a settlement which in the public interest is most urgently required."
  I am sure the Admiralty would never put technical difficulties in the way of anybody. Then there was a question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hallam as to whether post-War development of British machines was keeping pace with the developments of machines abroad. A good deal of caution must be exercised in making comparisons between British machines and machines made in other countries. The matter does not end with comparisons of reported performances of a more or less spectacular nature. There are other matters which come in, especially the purposes and types required to meet the special necessities and needs of this and the other countries. For instance, I may say that in France the question of the landing grounds it not so acute as here. In that great open country they can find ample accommodation for landing grounds, and forced landings, particularly, are less risky than in our own restricted country. Therefore, hon. Members will find that you can land in France at a greater speed than you can here. Again, the design of the aeroplane is often a compromise between several conflicting requirements, and superiority in one particular at the expense of others is not always the best policy. Conditions of testing, too, differ. Therefore, comparisons are often inaccurate and misleading. For instance, the same kind of aeroplane might be tested under British and French conditions and produce strikingly different results. For all these reasons, I should say that one has to proceed with caution in making comparisons between the machines of different countries. But making allowance for all this, I see no reason to believe that our own machines are not just as good as the machines of any other country. But
  1596
  the Ministry have no false pride. They are perfectly willing and ready to accept hints from any quarter, and to profit by them. The fact that we have bought an American parachute is a proof of what I am saying.
  The results of experiments that we have undertaken enable me to answer another question put the other day by, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). That relates to the matter of flying by night and landing by night and in foggy weather. We have had extremely good results from our system of directional wireless, which operates best from the ground to the machine. By this means the location of an aerodrome can easily be discovered. The problem of landing at night is being tested and tackled with every prospect of, I may say, almost immediate success by a system of lights and what we call the leader cable. This cable is a wire sunk around the aerodrome below the surface of the ground charged with alternating current which produces a magnetic field around it, and which connects with instruments in the machine. The system of lighting illumines the upper surfaces of the fog to a distance upwards of 800 yards. The machine is guided by these lights, or by the illumination, until it gets within the scope and guiding sphere of the leader cable, and, knowing its exact position and height, can then drop down until it comes within sight of the lights on the aerodrome, and effects a safe landing.
  Another question was put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley). The position is as follows: At the time when the Southampton-Channel islands service was inaugurated, negotiations were entered into with the French Government with regard to operating a service to Cherbourg. But at that time the French naval authorities objected to the use of the port by commercial aircraft. Meanwhile the Channel Island line was absorbed into the Imperial Air lines, who do not propose to continue the service to Cherbourg at the present time. I am informed that further experience of the seaplane service is needed before. any more ambitious schemes are undertaken. Therefore, the Channel Island service is shutting down temporarily, to be reorganised in the light of last year's

  1597
  experience. These considerations also apply to the sea plane services in the Mediterranean. The Imperial Air lines, however, did run a service to Ostend last year on the Cologne route. Short services to Deauxville, and other French watering places depend upon various economic factors which are not considered favourable at the moment. The immediate commercial establishment of such lines as were suggested would entail very large subsidies on the part of the Government, and funds are not for the moment available. It is a great pity that matters relating to the air are tied by the terrestial shackles of finance.
  What, however, the Air Ministry can do to help they will do. It is the considered policy of the Ministry to put at the service of civil aviation all its experience and all the results of the costly research that it undertakes, and to help in many ways that are not described by specific figures. It is not always taken into account the many indirect though important ways in which the Air Ministry does all it can for the service of flying I might, perhaps, mention what the Imperial Airways, Limited, are doing. It was considered that the principle of giving help to one company was better than giving a number of small subsidies to several different companies for short periods of time. It was felt to be far better to make an important experiment by subsidising one great amalgamated company with all the resources available for a period of years. The machines of that company are flying 1,000,000 miles per annum. It has been objected that there is no means of checking those figures but there are, and the mileage is checked. The company are flying up to the schedule of their contract. I see every reason to believe that Imperial Airways will take a leading part in commercial flying in Europe in the future.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I put a question to the hon. Gentleman about the company having up-to-date machines. Do we insist when we pay the subsidy that they have to get new machines and not fly from year to year with the old machines? That is a very important matter from the point of view of the safety of the people flying in the machines.
  Sir P. SASSOON: No actual conditions of that sort are made, but, of course, we do insist upon the service being efficient.
  1598
  I assure the hon. and gallant Member that the company are building new machines and are keeping up-to-date in every way. I should like to refer to one or two other things. People do not, I think, realise what the Air Ministry is cluing for commercial flying. Communications are run for the benefit. of commercial and service flying alike. The meteorological office—this will perhaps surprise hon. Members who only know of its appearance in the newspapers, and the sad messages it has for us there—is carrying out work that is increasing in importance and scope every year to the great mutual advantage both of commercial and civil flying. The practical and scientific side of the meteorological department is growing pari passu greatly to the advantage of both sides. Again, the work done by the Training Schools, and particularly now that training of new material ab initio is becoming increasingly necessary as the supply of war pilots diminishes, is valuable not only to the Royal Air Force by way of the establishment of reserves but as a direct aid to civilian commercial flying. Then also the inspection and control insisted upon by the, Ministry establish a standard of safety that the public can trust. Therefore, I do think that the Air Ministry is entitled to credit for all the unobtrusive assistance that it gives the civil flying.
  I do not think that the development in the Dominions should be forgotten, and the Air Ministry are keeping in close touch with it in Australia they arc flying daily over routes of 2,500 miles which makes a 300,000 annual mileage. In Canada, as I said the other day, they are doing important survey work and important work in other directions. In South Africa there has been established an experimental service from Cape Town to Durban. All this goes to strengthen British commercial flying experience.
  Major-General Sir FREDERICK SYKES: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether any data in respect of commercial flying has been obtained as the result of the flying operations between Cairo and Bagdad? Has any definite information been forthcoming which may help commercial flying?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I do not quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means, but anyhow the Secretary of State

  1599
  will deal with it if I cannot satisfy him. That has never been run as a commercial service. It has been run merely as a staff exercise for the service machines in that part of the world, and as such it has been extremely successful.
  Sir F. SYKES: The service was originally started with the object of trying to obtain operational data, and information as to costs, in case a commercial service should fly on the route later on, and I wondered if any such data had yet been obtained.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have always heard that it has been run as a staff exercise. Perhaps he has information to the contrary which he will produce later on; but in the recollection of those whom I have consulted on the point, it has always been run as a staff exercise.
  Sir F. SYKES: That was not the original intention.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I think it was. I have already occupied a great deal of the time of the House, but there are one or two questions still left over which I may deal with seriatim. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Bear-Admiral Sueter) was very anxious to question us about the efficacy of Farnborough, and levelled some rather stringent criticisms against it. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it is purely a Royal Air Force establishment. If it were done away with it would be a very severe blow to aeronautical research. It is the chief place where we undertake research, where full-scale tests are undertaken, and most successfully undertaken. It is no part of the policy of the Air Ministry to go in for anything in the nature of aircraft construction there, none whatsoever. It is intended solely for experimental and research work.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: My point was that during the last five years they have had about £2,000,000, and I think the House ought to know what we have got for that £2,000,000. They do not build new machines; they go in for research work. Of course, some research work is perfectly all right, but there is a lot of other perfectly unnecessary research work which I am quite certain we could do
  1600
  without. But the point is the £2,000,000—it works out about £2,000,000. What have we got for it?
  Sir P. SASSOON: It is the centre for research work of all kinds. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular advice to give in the matter, or if he could show. in what way the money is not being adequately spent, I am sure if he came round to the Air Ministry and expressed his views it would be an immense help to the technical staff of the Air Ministry. Another hon. and gallant Member raised the point of the small number of observers provided for in the Estimate. It is no part of the policy of the Air Ministry to supply observers for Army or for naval work, but the pilot of to-day is trained in reconnaissance, and, therefore, every pilot is in the nature of an observer—every Army pilot, all those pilots naturally employed in the Army co-operation squadrons. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford (Brigadier-General Warner) raised a point about the vacancies at Cranwell. There are 20 vacancies at Cranwell for boys recommended for such cadetships by the Governments of the Overseas Dominions and the Colonies. The House listened also with great pleasure to the speech by my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), who has been associated with flying ever since its teething stage. He expressed anxiety about the anti-aircraft arrangements, which were administratively under the War Office and, operationally, under the Air Ministry. I think they will work quite satisfactorily, and I should like to give him the converse parallel, if I may use such an expression, of the Army co-operation squadrons, which are operationally under the War Office and administratively under the Air Ministry. In conclusion, I think I should like to emphasise the point—
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I point out to the hon. Baronet that he has not answered the questions I put about research into defence from the ground, about helicopters and wireless-controlled aeroplanes.
  Sir P. SASSOON: The research into defence from the ground is showing extremely good results. It would be very difficult for me to tell the hon. and gallant

  1601
  Gentleman across the Floor of the House all the different methods that have been attempted, but the matter is being pushed forward with great care and with great success. With regard to helicopters and wireless-controlled aeroplanes, work is also going on steadily in those matters. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member will be the first to realise that I cannot give information of a secret character, the most secret character, over the Floor of the House, but I should like to say that work is steadily going on.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Baronet be good enough to tell us anything which it would not be injurious to the public interest to disclose? Would he tell us if they have had any results at all that are worth while in regard to the helicopters. We get the same answer year after year—"very satisfactory," "progressing enthusiastically" Has anything ever gone on?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I think I may say that it has made definite limited strides and I hope, if I am fortunate enough to be in this position next year, that I shall be able to give the hon. Member an even more favourable account.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Are these official grants still being made at regular intervals to the inventor, and are these strides on the ground or in the air?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will press me any further on that subject. The experiments are successful and the grants are at present being continued. I should like, in conclusion, to emphasise something which I think underlies many of the speeches in these two Debates, and that is the reliance that is placed, and must necessarily be placed, upon the youth of the Empire to guide the new and improved aeroplanes with which man is every day establishing more and more the mastery over the air. I think I shall carry the House with me in paying a tribute to the splendid young men in service and civilian flying who are carrying on the wonderful traditions of our airmen during the great War. The men are of the right material. Rights or wrongs of armaments apart, l know it would be the common desire of the House to see that these men are adequately provided with training, equipment and machines.
  Mr. AMMON: I do not propose to intervene for more than a few moments, as I make no pretention of having any expert knowledge on the subject under discussion, but last year it was my fortune, or otherwise, to be placed in a Department where at least some of, shall I say, the controversy on the question of control played a part. But before I come to that, I want to make one or two general references to the extremely interesting speech on a fascinating subject delivered just now by the Under-Secretary. He made some references to the large amount of capital expenditure, and I think he deplored the fact that we were behind France in the question of civil aviation. We cannot afford to let slip the opportunity of emphasising the particular point that we find ourselves in this adverse position because France has been building up a large air defence force out of the money she owes to this country. We find ourselves in this adverse position, that France has an extremely large striking air force and is now able to spend money on civil aviation, while we having been deprived of money that is rightly our due, find ourselves very far behind in defence, and able to go forward but very little in civil aviation. One is bound to emphasise that, because the extraordinary thing is (much as we might like to camouflage it) that we are actually going to build an air force against another Power which has built an air force against us, out of our money. If that is denied, one can only refer to the speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in another place yesterday. He said:
  "My Noble Friend who has just sat down has spoken of our great friend and ally, the French Republic, with, I think, a very proper respect, and if one has to speak of France in this connection it is only because she has the strongest Air Force within striking distance of this country. Really, it is hardly necessary to say that there can never be, as between ourselves and our French friends, any idea of friction. We have no aggressive designs"—
  Captain BRASS: Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to quote from a speech in another place?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order to quote from speeches in another place in order to answer them, but a brief reference to information in another place may be made.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. AMMON: That is a reference in support of the point I am trying to make, that we are actually now engaged in building an Air Force against our old Allies, as admitted here, at the expense of the money that ought to be paid to us. and surely this is a case where to excuse is to accuse. One deplores very much the spirit and tone in which these Estimates have been introduced, for it brings before us very vividly that we are evidently being committed again to a great armament race, as we were prior to the days of 1914, and with that historic contest so fresh in our mind we cannot but face the future with some alarm, thinking that the upshot is bound to be upon somewhat similar lines. We have now, as I understand, or will have at the end of the current financial year, 26 squadrons in our Air Fleet, and our squadrons have 12 machines as against the nine of France. I think I am right in saying that by the end of 1929 we shall have 52 squadrons, giving us just over 600 machines. We are building up to the French standard. We have again entered into the competition we knew so well in the old days, which ended so disastrously The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Admiral Sueter), who spoke earlier in the Debate, made some reference—the Ender-Secretary has touched upon it—to what he called the wholly unsatisfactory position with regard to Farnborough. Then he went on rather to contradict himself after he had stated that nothing could be turned out satisfactorily from State-owned fatcories by saying that during the War our best machines were produced in State factories, or at any rate under Government control.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: The machines I referred to were Royal Air Force machines produced by private enterprise.
  Mr. AMMON: What I stated was that they were produced under Government control. The hon. Member then went on to state that there was a, certain amount of conflict during the War between the Admiralty and the Air Service, and that the one gave no help to the other. On this matter which is in dispute we have to face the facts and arrive at a definite understanding and set up one sole control for the Air Force. During the short time I was at the Admiralty I saw something
  1604
  of the difficulties that arose in this connection. My own view is that we want a unified control with one Board of Direction, all the men wearing the same uniform under one direction.
  The most the Air Ministry can do will be to act as a supply agency or a medium for finding the equipment for the Air Force itself. That point will have to be considered before we go very much further. Whatever one might say with regard to the loyalty of our different Services, there is not the slightest doubt that they have been going on under divided control, and if it continues we shall find ourselves in very great difficulties. The defence which is being provided may be all right for narrow waters, but we shall find ourselves in quite a different position in the case of the very wide seas. It seems to me that civil aviation should he under the Board of Trade, just as is the ease with merchant shipping. Aviation should not he considered solely from the military side.
  My chief purpose in rising this afternoon was to make a reference to that of which I know a little, and it is the great danger of the great amount of friction owing to the present divided control, and I hope the Air Ministry will take their courage into their hands and get away from this divided authority, and have under one control the sole direction of the Air Force.
  Lieut.-Commander GURNEY: May I congratulate the Minister of Air upon again resuming office as Air Minister, and if the emptiness of the benches in the House at the present time shows the confidence hon. Members have in the Secretary of State for Air, he ought to feel gratified. We have heard a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). I suggest to him that he took a very much too insular view as to the difficulties before us and our methods of development. I think what we have to do to-day is to have an Imperial stock-taking. We have to consider the whole of our methods of defence and our organisation and expenditure. I call it Imperial stocktaking, because we have been asked this afternoon to vote money amounting to £21,000,000, and that amount cannot be considered apart from the £90,000,000 we

  1605
  shall shortly be asked to vote. We have also to consider it along with the fact that since the War we have spent £1,000,000,000 on armaments, and that to-day our expenditure on armaments is at the rate of 2s. in the £on our Income Tax. At the same time we have to remember that this country is overburdened with taxation. Trade is bad, and we have much unemployment. The Chancellor of Exchequer has told us that unless taxation can be reduced, he sees very little hope of any improvement. We have to consider all these questions together. If we had had an Imperial stocktaking at more frequent intervals before the War, we should have saved countless lives and hundreds of millions of money, because there is nothing so expensive to a country than to have a false doctrine and a false organisation based upon that false doctrine.
  Before the War we had a false doctrine in regard to our Army. In the past we have relied mostly on our Navy for our defence, but there has always been much controversy between the blue water school and the Army authorities. The Army authorities also spent millions on great defensive works, although the Navy used to declare that they were perfectly safe in this country from invasion because of the Fleet. Therefore, on account of the fact that our organisation was based on a false doctrine we have been spending hundreds of millions of money. It is not only by expenditure on war appliances that we find a false doctrine expensive, but if we turn to the part it plays in commercial activities, we find there is some interference in that respect also. As far back as 1844 we find the Duke of Wellington protesting against the building of a railway between Portsmouth and London because, he said, if an army invaded this country the transport of that army to London would be more easily accomplished. We see two things that can happen from this false doctrine. There is the wasteful expenditure on inefficient armaments, and the hampering of civil and commercial activities. I was very much interested in the remark made by the Under-Secretary in which he stated that he hoped civil aviation would develop in much the same way as the mercantile marine, and he hoped that the Air Ministry will assist in that development.
  1606
  That is why I think to-day we lack a sound doctrine. What is a fighting Department doing in the way of interfering or trying to assist in commercial development? Commercial aviation is small, but the Air Ministry to-day employs inspectors to inspect all commercial machines, and in every way they perform what ought to be the functions of the Board of Trade. For instance, we do not find the Admiralty running turbine destroyers between Malta and Gibraltar for the purpose of testing destroyers upon a mail route—but we do find the Air Ministry running aeroplanes for that purpose between Cairo and Bagdad. Similarly, we do not find the Admiralty interfering with a Cunard liner when it is being built by Messrs. Harland and Wolff. Why, then, is this fighting Department (the Air Ministry) interfering with civil and commercial activity? That is a very dangerous occupation for a fighting Department.
  Sir P. SASSOON: Do I understand the hon. Member is opposed to the giving of any subsidies to commercial or civil aviation?
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I did not say that, but what I do say is that it is more the function of the Board of Trade because that Department is accustomed to deal with trading concerns. I have been giving all these as examples of what I believe to be the results of a false doctrine. I think the present day requires a more imaginative analysis than in any stage of our history. To-day we are in competition with the resources of Continents like America and elsewhere. We are considering the provisions of new types of fighting machines, namely, air machines, and the first thing we find is a clear demarcation between the type of defence required for this country and the limbs of the Empire, the Dominions. The defence of these islands to-day, as we have heard from other speakers, is an aerial defence; whilst the defence of the limbs of the Empire is a naval defence.
  To-day we are having a competition for the money devoted to defence, first of all for this country and secondly for the Empire. Previously we have never had that competition, for what was provided was a mobile force which would serve for the defence of this country or the Empire.

  1607
  To-day we have to decide how much money we have to provide for the defence of this country and how much for the defence of the Empire. I will just go back to what happened under the Labour Government last year. Almost at the same date that the Singapore project was turned down by the Labour Government this House voted more money for the air defence of this country. That action was not understood in the Dominions. Therefore it seems to me that unless we devise some clear and consistent policy we are unlikely to acquire and retain the financial cooperation of our Dominions. We have to satisfy them that we are working on some consistent policy. The other side of the question is the expense. I do not think there is any possibility of lightening the expenditure upon armaments unless we treat our armaments as a whole concentrate upon that which is vital and ruthlessly scrap that which is not vital It is obvious that we have not the money to get all the armaments we would like. Therefore, we have to go through a selective process, and concentrate only upon those that are vital. Unless the Government can investigate this matter very carefully, we shall again be wasting a great deal of money.
  There is one further point in regard to, what. I would call Imperial stocktaking, and that is, that the results of the War have weakened this Empire very considerably. We have taken on responsibilities in the mandated territories in all parts of the world, and not one of these countries at present contribute, or are likely in future to contribute, towards their own defence. It is an extra burden upon this country. economically, and upon our fighting forces strategically. It is obvious at the present time that we are not so strong as we used to be. We have no two-Power standard to-day, and the result is, in my opinion. that there are signs that the great distances separating our Dominions from the Mother Country are tending to a lessening of our bonds, and are imposing upon these Dominions the necessity of turning their eyes in other directions. For instance, take the Dominion of Canada. Canada to-day subscribes but little to our Imperial Forces, and if the utterances of public men in Canada arc studied, it will be seen that they advise against this
  1608
  country asking for any further contributions from Canada, for the simple reason that they feel that their contiguity to the United States of America is their defence. They feel that America would never allow a foreign country to invade Canada. Therefore, they are turning towards a Power which is not the home Power of England.
  Take the case of Australia. Very shortly, a great American Fleet will be visiting Australia. Australia still remembers the reversal of the policy in regard to the Singapore project, which I believe is going to be reversed again. We have to realise that in Australia the circulation of American papers is greater than the circulation of English papers. If we allow certain feelings to develop throughout the Dominions, those Dominions may turn to other possibilities. To-day we cannot live without the Empire, but the Empire can live without us. One hundred years ago we had 12 millions of people in this country. whereas to-day we have 45 millions of people. Therefore, it is essential that we should do everything possible to strengthen the bonds of Empire.
  Hon. Members may ask how we can assist in that matter in regard to aerial defence. We can do it in two ways. First of all by making perfectly clear to the Dominions the doctrine upon which we are working, so that we shall not have any more of these difficult matters, such as Singapore, to explain. Secondly, we should ensure that such expenditure as we have to make is made upon vital points. In putting these considerations forward. I would suggest that it is not a question, as the hon. and gallant. Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) stated, of whether the Fleet should have its own Air arm, nor is it a question of the individual training of men as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). It is a matter as to how we are to demarcate as between expenditure for the defence of these islands, and expenditure necessary for the defence of the Empire as a whole. That is the very vital difference there is to-day from what there has been in the past.
  During the last two years, in the Debates in this House, I have endeavoured to point out how a great deal of money is being wasted in our

  1609
  present organisation, how the problem is entirely a financial one, that we cannot afford to get all the forces we want, and that we must, therefore, ruthlessly scrap those that are inefficient. But there is great difficulty in giving effect to that policy: great executive and practical difficulty. There is to-day no authority outside the Committee of Imperial Defence which can decide which Services are essential and which are not essential. On that Committee of Imperial Defence are the heads of the three great Services, and when there is a Conference of the Committee of Imperial Defence, the heads of the three great Services go there, backed up by the technical experts of their own Departments. They fight hard, each for his own Department, with the result that any Conference of the Committee of Imperial Defence always results in a compromise: a compromise extremely expensive to the taxpayer.
  It is for that reason that I do not believe we shall get any satisfactory solution of this problem of the disbursement of money for the fighting Services, unless we have a combined staff of the air staff, the Navy staff and the Army staff, so that no part of the Services shall overlap. The point towards which I wish to move is to show how it is necessary to combine. the Admiralty and the Air Ministry in one unit, one Department. I should like to develop that point, because it is of vital importance. If we admit that the defences of these islands are aerial, we must at once realise that, as we are an island, we have to demarcate where our defence is going to start. Is it going to start by aeroplanes sent out from aircraft carriers, far out at sea? Is it going to start from seaplanes, sent out from our own harbours, or is it going to start from aeroplanes sent out from aerodromes in this country? It must start from one of these three places. Obviously, it will start from as far out as it possibly Can.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air a question as to who would be in command if aeroplanes vent up from the outer defences. He said that my question was in the nature of a riddle, and he went on to say that if it was a Naval operation, it would he under a naval commander, and that if it w as an Air Force operation it would be
  1610
  under an Air Force commander. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked who would decide the point, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would leave it to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. I have a great admiration for the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, but it seems to me that he would, in that event, be usurping the functions of somebody—I do not know whether it is the Committee of Imperial Defence or who it is. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct that remark. If we say that the defences of these islands are aerial, what possible use is there for the Admiralty keeping up out-of-date stations like Chatham and Sheerness? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have put this question before. Chatham and Sheerness are only dockyards for the maintenance of light naval craft, and if light naval craft are a luxury in regard to the defence of these islands, which they are, and if we admit that the defences of these islands are aerial, what possible use is there in keeping up, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, these perfectly useless out-of-date dockyards. That is why I say it is impossible lo consider these questions of expenditure if you look upon your fighting forces separately. You must consider them together.
  I would ask the House to look even further ahead than that. The more aircraft is developed, the more the functions performed to-day by naval craft will be carried out by aircraft. That is a truism. But until we have a combined staff of the Naval Staff and the Air Staff, we cannot have any combination of evolution as to the interchange of the duties to be performed by aircraft and by naval craft. I ask the House to look at the matter on a still broader basis. Our fighting forces to-day are divided into two main classes—the carrier force and the holding force. The carrier force consists of aeroplanes, or the Naval Fleet, which are self-contained fighting machines which transport and act independently, but cannot hold, whereas the Army can hold.
  In exactly the same way, you station a Naval Fleet in the Mediterranean or on the China Station, and an Air Fleet in Mesopotamia. They perform the same functions. The Secretary of State for Air gave an instance the other day. He

  1611
  told us how this carrier force, the Air Fleet, had flown in the oceans of the air over Mesopotamia and had transported soldiers to certain places in order to attack and to hold those places. In exactly the same way in a Naval Fleet, you transport troops in troopships to hold certain places. Therefore, the more your aircraft is developed, the bigger they get, and the more they are kept in such a manner that the crew can live on board and can carry their stores and so forth, the more will they become, in essence, like naval vessels. Therefore, unless the two forces are absolutely combined, we shall never get true development.
  I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford, who took a single instance when the majority of our best naval officers were all at sea. As he knows well, during the War the Admiralty was filled with a lot of dug-outs. I am not casting any reflection upon the hon. and gallant Member. It was only when they got into considerable difficulty that more efficient officers were brought back from the sea.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: The hon. and gallant Member refers to what occurred during the War, but before the War, right through from 1909 to 1915, the Admiralty opposed the work of their airmen. It had nothing to do with the War
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That was hardly my experience. I had a seaplane down to look for a submarine in 1911.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: That was one. I had numbers.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Not in 1911. What I suggest is that we want one unified Air command, but it must be in command, and it may either be that the Admiralty may swallow the Air Force or the Air Force may swallow the Admiralty. It does not matter in the slightest which it is so long as they coalesce. Unless they do I cannot see how we are going to cut down this unnecessary expenditure. I believe that we can save from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 and get as efficient service as we are doing to-day if that were done. I do not agree that it is only those who think that there should be a system such as is maintained to-day who are working for the best interests of the air. I believe
  1612
  that I am working for the best interests of the air, but I suggest that the organisation should be put into a form in which it can be used unhampered by these continual fights year after year. I believe that our organisation to-day is definitely hampering the development of our air power. It is, in my opinion, upon the air that the future of this Empire depends. That is why I hope that the Government will take this question very seriously in hand. For these reasons I press the Prime Minister, and I hope that other hon. Members will also do so, to set up 8. Committee to investigate this matter and report to the Cabinet upon it, so that we may find out, first of all, how we may become strong at the vital points, and in the second place, how we may save perhaps from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 a year, and third, how we may stop this continual bickering between our fighting Departments. I make these remarks in no unfriendly spirit to my right hon. Friend who sits below me, but because I believe that he has the best interest of the air at heart, as I have myself.
  Mr. SPENCER: I apologise to the House for intervening in a Debate of this character because I do not profess to have any special knowledge, or any knowledge at all, of the subject which has been discussed. It is very interesting to listen to the speeches that have bean made, but I should be at a disadvantage in debating the points of view that have been put forward. My purpose in rising is to call the attention of the House to a very simple question on the Estimates. That is the question of marriage allowance. I have no fault to find with the amount which is found in the Estimate for marriage allowance. My point is with regard to the age when the officers become entitled to a marriage allowance. I think that I can make out a case for the marriage allowance to begin at a far earlier age. First, I think that I could make out a good case on what I might term natural grounds. Everybody would agree that. the age of 30 is not the age which we should like to make the general age for marriage in this country. The age in the Army is 26. Why there should be this distinction between the two Services I cannot understand. However, it is 30 in one Service and 26 in the other. I submit that 26 is far more the natural age than

  1613
  30, which for some reason or another has been made the age when the officers in this Service can receive the marriage allowance.
  But it is not upon that ground that I base my case. My reason for intervening is that I have had the opportunity during the last, two or three years of being brought into contact with some of the married officers. During the last two or three years there have been two or three crashes of aeroplanes, and there happened to be in those aeroplanes officers with whom I had been in personal contact. The Air Service regulation is that before a man can obtain marriage allowance he must attain the age of 30, but you have in the service officers who are married at 24 and 25 years of age, and by the time they reach the age of 30 they may have two or three children. We all know that in time of peace this service is far more dangerous to the officers than either of the other two Services.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke very much earlier in the Debate referred to the many accidents that were taking place in the Air Service. So far as fatal accidents are concerned, the great majority are among officers, and if you have a crash and an officer gets killed he may be 29 years and 11 months old and may be leaving a wife and two or three little children. The service does not recognise that man as being married, and the man who is facing danger every time he goes up in the interests of the country is not recognised as having any other responsibility than for himself. I submit that after the speech of the Under-Secretary, who has rightly proclaimed the great ability of the young flying officers, this country is not doing its proper duty to these officers unless we make reasonable provision at a reasonable age for the wives and families of those who are killed in the discharge of their duty. I may put forward this very simple case, in simple language, for those flying officers who are called upon from day to day to go up in all kinds of conditions for experimental purposes, and who are constantly meeting with accidents, some of them, unfortunately, fatal, and then leaving a wife and children behind with no provision whatever made for them.
  I know that the question of marriage allowance in another Service is under consideration. I do not know whether
  1614
  it is under consideration in all the three Services, but I submit that whatever is the marriage age for one Service should be the age for all Services. There should be more or less uniformity about these things, and I hope that the Committee that is sitting to consider the question in another Service will also consider the question in the Air Service and try to arrive at something like uniformity, and uniformity at an age which would more or less meet the responsibilities incurred by men getting married. You cannot and ought not to stop men getting married at 25 or 26 years of age. If that is a reasonable age to get married, the age at which you expect your young people to get married, the Government should recognise that as a reasonable age, and accept that through the whole of the Services, so that when there is a crash in future and a flying officer over the age of 26 gets killed and leaves a wife and children, that wife shall have a right to expect the Government to pay her a pension because her husband has rendered service to the country.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: The House will, I think, have listened with great sympathy to the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), and it is indicative of the type of speech that has been delivered during this Debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will congratulate himself, I am sure, on the line that has been taken. He cannot say that on the whole there has been anything but helpful criticism. One could only wish that this may continue, looking back on years gone by when we suffered either from apathy in this House in all matters touching Imperial defence, or else from criticism of Imperial defence, which should he entirely outside party, which introduced it into the arena of party warfare, and it is an earnest of what may happen in the future that we should be able to say that the course of these Estimates is likely to be particularly smooth. One or two speeches in the Debate a few weeks ago from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those benches were not correct not only in the interests of the Service but in the interests of the country.
  After all, speeches made from the Front Bench, even by right hon. Gentlemen on those benches are read by other

  1615
  Powers besides ourselves, and if they are going to suggest to people outside that we on this side, merely for the sake of spending money, are seeking to build more ships, and to increase our Army and extend our Air Force, they are doing a great dis-service. After all, we are all just as keen on peace as they, only we are wise enough to know that a country built up as we have built up ours cannot be maintained unless the forces for our defence are both sufficient and efficient. The only differences that ought to exist are such as are based on whether or not the policy laid down by the Executive differs as each Administration comes into power. Obviously, if policy is changed, and if that policy, having been settled, is given to the expert advisers to decide what is required to maintain it, it can be appreciated that the strength of either of our fighting forces should go up or down, but why in this case there should be any criticism from those benches except support I fail to see.
  These Estimates are nothing more or less than a, continuity of the same policy spread over three different administrations. Even the increase has already been outlined by Lord Thomson. What a difference it would make in the whole situation if we could be as one while leaving open criticism individually upon the various Votes, or upon particular questions of detail, and if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House having examined the Estimates, had given them their blessing without any suggestion of Amendment or going to a Division on the proposals made.
  So much for the general side. I do not intend to deal with matters of detail. By your permission to-day, Mr. Speaker, we are permitted to deal with policy. We can deal with mail matters as the Votes arise, but I could have wished, since matters of detail were introduced at all—perhaps it is ungracious to the Under-Secretary of State in view of the full speech which he did make to say so—that he had dealt with one or two points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). The only big point which has arisen in the speeches, to which we have all listened with great
  1616
  interest, is: what is the position of the Air Force in relation to our general Imperial policy of defence? There is obviously a growing desire among men here, who are interesting themselves in this question of our national defence, to see a unity of purpose through the whole sphere of defence. It is true that there is a great difference of opinion as to how that shall come about. For instance, my hon. and gallant Friend has stated that we cannot permit our Air Force to go back again under the Admiralty. I absolutely agree with him. He knows the extent to which the development of the Air Force was hampered by the Admiralty at that time.
  On the other hand, I certainly do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), who suggests that there should be a wedding between the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force. I do not know which would swallow which, but I am prepared to believe, as things are to-day, that it is the Navy which would be swallowed. The situation has changed in a remarkable way. Before the War the Navy was everything; the Army was considered to be just a small striking force to which we could add as circumstances arose, and, as for the little Flying Corps, it was the handmaiden of both the Army and Navy, and they fought over it as two dogs would fight over a hone. What do we find to-day? No longer can we proudly claim the hegemony of the wider seas, and the Army has shrunk from the millions which were created during the War, until now it is almost forgotten. The Navy and Army, after the great inflation of war time, have been and are being decreased under the necessity of economy, but we have stopped the decreases in the Air Force and are slowly building it up to our requirements, which means, in effect., that the Air Force is going to be the arm of the future. If there is one thing we do not want to start again it is internecine warfare between the new Force which will be the great Force and the older Services. It is no use saying there is no danger of that; the seeds of it are there and one cannot speak to Admirals or Generals or even lesser fry without seeing the jealousy which exists between the older Services and this newer one which is making such rapid strides.

  1617
  We have to remember this, that giant as have been the strides made up to the present it is really as yet only in a state comparable to that of the solid tyred bicycle of the past when contrasted with the motor cycle of to-day. That is one of the features of which I think enough was not made by my right hon. Friend when he said that part of the additional expenditure in these Estimates at the present time is due to the fact that the reserves from the War no longer exist. I think it is a very dangerous thing that until this moment we were utilising reserves from the War, most of which were already out-of-date when the War ended. The House is to be congratulated that we are now able to take advantage of all the new developments in construction and other matters which will bring to us new types of a more efficient character.
  What we have to aim at surely is a central Ministry of Defence. I remember deciding to put a scheme forward in this House before the War, and also, I think, in 1920, and I would like to tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge that a Committee was formed by the Cabinet at that time to discuss the question of whether or not we should have a central Ministry of Defence and, under that Ministry of Defence, have Under-Secretaries of State for each of the three fighting Departments. I am not going to outline this scheme in detail. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who has more right to talk upon practical flying than any Member in this House, believes it is an ideal which cannot be carried into effect, but it has been carried into effect in other countries and it could be carried into effect here. In view of the additional power which has just been granted to the right hon. Gentleman who has been placed on a parity with other Secretaries of State for the fighting Services, may be he is the one who would be selected to control the three great Services, and I am sure I should like to congratulate him. It is an example of the extent to which his own Department is making headway that the House should have thought fit to extend the slight financial insult with which he is rewarded for his labours. I want to add that I only say that out of a spirit of personal jealousy.
  1618
  We cannot gain anything out of the present position while the three Services are tearing at one another to see who can get the largest piece of meat off the chop, and when you have three great Departments each of which thinks itself the most important. If you can concentrate these three Departments obviously you gain an immense advantage in administration, and, secondly, you are bound to gain an advantage in regard to economy and you can do what you cannot do at the present time, you can say to the Minister of Defence, "So much you are going to be allowed for the protection of the country and no more." I can quite see where the difficulties will come in. We shall have arguments from every side on the occasion of the first Debate on the Ministry of Defence, first from those who believe in the Navy and then from the Under-Secretary in charge of Air affairs against the Navy and the Army. Yet I feel this has got to come. At the present time ibis is a crushing burden, and despite what the right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, we do not like it any more than they do. It is an utterly unproductive expenditure, hat what we say is that. if we are going to defend ourselves, we must do so efficiently and sufficiently. There is no use trying to build a bridge across a chasm and making it four feet short. We might as well leave the chasm unbridged, and yet that is the attitude which hon. Members opposite are taking up on this question.
  I turn from that to the, subject of civil aviation and I take a line somewhat different from that which was taken by my hon. and gallant Friend who has last spoken from this side. I certainly do not believe it is right for a fighting service to continue to look after something which is purely commercial. I have taken the opportunity of getting in touch with a number of the officers in charge of our civil flying and if there is one thing they ask above all others, it is this, "Why do you not put the record of our work not in terms of flying, but in terms of making profit?" I know hon. Members will hate that view, but what these officers mean is that this is business and has nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State for Air. They have an anxious desire to see the scheme develop, but they claim that it is being developed on wrong lines. It seems to me that these are the things which they want more than

  1619
  anything else—first, that it shall be safe; second, that it shall be paying and third, that because it is paying it shall help to build up an aircraft industry utilisable, if war should come along, for the rapid development of our air arm. There was a very regrettable accident on the day before Christmas when a large number of people were burnt at Croydon. As a result of that accident the number of passengers fell off and scarcely anybody at all would go up. There are two or three comments which I desire to make upon that circumstance. I think accidents should be reported sooner than 24 hours afterwards as they are reported at the present time by the officials in charge
  Sir S. HOARE: Our desire is to allow the relatives of any person who has been killed to know about the accident first, as we think it better that they should know in this way before they see the announcement in the Press.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: There is something to be said for that. At all events the minimum lapse of time should take place before the accident is announced. My second point is that an appeal should he made to the Press not to make too much of accidents of that description. We all know it is an extremely lamentable thing, but if we are going to scare people we are never going to get forward with civil aviation. Taken in conjunction with the total number of miles flown, the percentage of accidents is extremely small, and that fact should be broadcast. From that I pass to the commercial side of the subject. One hears people ask why do you only have machines that carry nine or ten people? Why do you not build them larger? That can be done, but it cannot be done on a commercial basis just now, and here we reach a little point of difficulty. If they could build these machines, if they had more money it is true they would get better machines, but they would have greater losses, and on that score I claim the right hon. Gentleman is not allowing sufficient for civil aviation in these great Estimates.
  There is another point that is essential. You should as quickly as possible get rid of the single-engine machine for civil aviation. There is no doubt that the multiple-engine machine of the large type is one that must come along. A smash in an aeroplane is different from
  1620
  a smash in a train. You can have four or five smashes in a train and yet sit up and eat your breakfast, but if you have a crash in an aeroplane you do not want another. I am trying to put this in a way which will cause it to be appreciated. You want to have aeroplanes of such a. nature that you can rely, not upon one engine only to keep you going, but, if you happen to be losing height, you should have something in reserve to rely upon. I think, if I may say so with all respect, that an answer which was made upon this point was a very poor answer in regard to the type of machine which we are flying. I do not want to say anything in the House, but. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard of a machine which was built in the early days of 1919 and is still being flown from one of our civil aviation stations. I think that is too old. When I heard of it I asked if that machine was not too old to be flown, but I was told, "Oh, we recondition it entirely now and then." It seems to me that that is a most important thing and one that should be looked into. Putting it in terms of cars, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he wanted to go somewhere very often, and if he could only get there in a car which was just able to make a poise and get along, would he not want to have a. nice new car to get him there a little more expeditiously and safely?
  Sir S. HOARE: I use an old car because I cannot sell it and get another.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I have two old ones and cannot sell them. I do claim that we must have first-class machines. hut I desire to say in passing, lest any misconception should arise, that I think the efficiency of all these air stations is very remarkable, that the inspection could not be made more perfect and that everything is done to ensure safety at the present time. It is only fair that this should be made as clear as possible. I do not wish to detain the House longer and I only emphasise the two points which I have already made. First, the Government should again take into consideration the possibility of combining all the Services under one single united Ministry of Defence, and, second, civil aviation, as speedily as may be, should be divorced entirely from the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. It should be regarded purely as a commercial con-

  1621
  cern and aid should be given it so that it can develop upon the lines, first, of safety, and, secondly, of the maximum efficiency. I believe that if these things are done they will result in the great progress of flying as an arm of our military forces and, at the same time, will lead to great benefit to this country and to other countries with which we shall be brought into touch by the development of civil aviation.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat clown must have been for some time absent from this House, and while we all deeply regret that circumstance his speech has brought back some of the antedeluvian political atmosphere which existed in former Parliaments. Therefore he felt that in making his remodelled—his reconditioned—maiden speech he should, every five minutes, turn from his argument to go for my right hon. Friends on these benches. I know that is perfectly good old-fashioned form, but we have a new attitude and tone in politics to-clay. This is a House of gestures, and we are co-operating with each other, and those who sit on these benches claim ail the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as collaborators in an attempt to secure economy. Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman listened clearly to the speech of his colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) he would have appreciated that the hon. and gallant Member is as anxious as we are to have real economy so far as the Air Estimates are concerned. We know that economy depends primarily on two features. In the first. place there is the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised as to securing one common Ministry of Defence so as to prevent the old Services still demanding the old financial resources, and there. is also the prevention of a new struggle in armaments in competition with foreign countries. We want no more competition in armaments and we want real economy in the Departments. That is what we stand for, and the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to get up in this House and accuse us of cheeseparing economy and of turning down our own Estimates when we are really doing that which he should be doing, and that is trying to secure efficiency at a moderate price. I know
  1622
  perfectly well that in a month's time the hon. and gallant Member will be jumping up in this House and protesting that there is not a shilling off the Income Tax
  Sir A. BURGOYNE indicated dissent.
  7.0 P.M.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very glad to know beforehand that that is not so. It is absolutely inconsistent for hon. Members to be defending the new race for air supremacy and at the same time to complain that their Income Tax is not reduced when the Budget comes in. I think we have taken up a perfectly sound attitude. We want to get economy through the three great spending Departments, and by pressing upon the Government the urgent necessity of pointing out to the French Government that it is not well to have this race in naval expenditure—largely due to their expenditure of our money—between our Allies, old Allies in the past, people whom we may expect to be Allies in the future, that it is not well to build up this rivalry at an expense which neither country can possibly afford.
  Commander BELLAIRS: With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), it is needless to say how much I agree, for I have been hammering at the principles he mentioned for many years. I used to point out in the old days the false doctrine of coast invasion. Any point with regard to the 50,000 miles of Empire coast line produced the same argument about invasion which the military used in regard to this Island. The whole question of economy is to be found in the suggestion of one supreme Minister who will be able to say to experts, "Is it vital or usefull If it is useful, we cannot have it; but if it is vital we must have it." That means the Minister of Defence at the head of all the Services. The idea of a Minister of Defence is not quite so young as the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne) thought. We owe the idea to Lord Randolph Churchill and the Minority Report of Lord Haiti rigton's Commission in 1886 which he signed. I am quite certain that if that is done and we have some sort of stocktaking with the setting up of a roving Geddes Committee you will find

  1623
  it will save an immense amount of money. As an example, I drew the attention of the Conservative Government in 1923 by letters, and I think once or twice on the Floor of the House, to the parade ground of the military at Hong Kong. The last Government had the wisdom to sell that piece of property, which was right in the centre of the business community of Hong Kong. They got £2,000,000 for the parade ground, and a suitable ground very much cheaper elsewhere. That is only one instance of many where we could raise a lot of money. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) raised the old tale of his unhappy differences with the Admiralty in the past. I wish he could forget these old unhappy things of long ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not see why Lord Beatty and Sir Roger Keyes should be punished for the sins of Admirals years ago. We never had a War Staff in those days, and we all had differences with the Admiralty. You have a War Staff now, and you can hope—
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Will the. hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what they did up to 1915 to help the Air Service?
  Commander BELLAIRS: They were engaged in their job, but they were not Lords of the Admiralty.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: It is too late.
  Commander BELLAIRS: It is never too late to mend. Anyhow, there were two points the gallant Admiral made which tell in favour of associating the Navy and the Air together and having them under one control. He made a point of the promotion of air officers. The life of an air officer is not much more than eight or nine years. Well, perhaps it is more now. What is the outlook for that man when his flying time comes to an end The Navy would benefit very considerably from the experience he had as a flying officer, and as a naval officer he would be able to reach to many posts in his profession. It is the same with regard to the Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made another point: he said our mechanics were so good in the Navy that the old naval flying force seldom had accidents. If the Air Force were
  1624
  associated with the Navy by giving a little supplementary training to our own mechanics they would do the work, and, as he said, they do the work extremely well, whereas the Air Force has to create its own separate body of mechanics.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who moved the reduction, referred to the necessity of a conference on the question of the reduction of armaments. I agree with him entirely. I think the sooner we have it the better. It ought not to be complicated with the land armaments as well. Unfortunately he prefaced it by an argument that we are utterly at the mercy of an attacking air force. I do not believe for one moment that we are at the mercy of an attacking air force, and I do not think it is going to help us if we bring in the cry of mercy at the very first. It reminds me too much of the arguments of the old Liberal party in 1906, when it was said we were being driven to bankruptcy, and, therefore, we ought to induce Germany to disarm. It had the reverse effect.
  Another argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Sutherland was that the increase of the Air Force should be provided for by the reduction of the Navy, and in that argument he is supported by the hen and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I wonder if hose hon. and gallant Members ever visualise what are the services the Navy renders to the Air Force Every drop of petrol that the Air Force gets, all its lubricating oil, the steel—of course we have to import large quantities of steel: n excess for shipbuilding—the aluminium, the flax and the rubber, they all have to come over the sea and they depend entirely on naval defence for the rapidity with which these supplies reach this Island. Therefore just as it is true that whenever this country goes to war every soldier who goes abroad to war goes on the back of a sailor so every man who goes into the air does so in virtue of the successful defence the Navy affords to the merchant ships which carry aeronautical supplies by sea. It is a fact that the life of a bombing airplane in war is only a few hundred hours and 50 per cent. of bombing aeroplanes will be worn out in a single month and have to be replaced. So we see those supplies depend vitally upon the ships that bring them. I am glad

  1625
  the House is realising that this Air Force is by no means cheap. One of the arguments constantly put forward about the Air Force weapons was that they are very cheap. I cannot put the matter better than by quoting the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonby), who, in a speech on 23rd July, 1923, pictured a zone of some hundreds of miles in this island as a no-man's land bombed by 1,200 machines three times in 24 hours. He went on to say:
  "To begin with, the Air Service is a great deal cheaper than the cost of any other forms of armament. The cost of a standard bomber is not very large, and 200 squadrons would only cost about £2,500,000 and that is less than half the cost of a battleship."
  As a matter of fact the cost of a bomber is £5,000, which would make the cost of 200 squadrons £12,500,000. But we get the real truth of the matter when we take these Estimates of £21,000,000. What are they going to provide us with? I think with about 54 squadrons. That is very different from the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman. France has actually 50 squadrons of British dimensions apart from those required for her Eastern Army and her Dominions. I think this picture of 200 bombing squadrons coming over to this country and maintained for a very small cost is an absolutely untrue picture of the state of affairs. Actually we obtain 54 squadrons for £21,000,000, so the House can easily picture what it would cost to maintain 200 squadrons. Again, as I have said, the average life of a bomber is only a few hundred hours, and the wastage in war would be about 50 per cent. per month, so that we see how very soon they would perish compared with the battleship, the average life of which is 20 years. The whole comparison is really childish. There ought to be no comparison at all of that nature. When I turn to these estimates of cost, I want to ask, why is it we never get an answer to this plain question as regards cost. Why, with three times the expenditure of France, we get only one-third the result. The Secretary of State does not agree. I would like to get the exact figures of the expenditure in this country and in France in regard to Air expenditure. If you like; cut out the civil expenditure and give us the war expenditure. I think ours would be three times higher. At any rate France gets much more than three times the results.
  1626
  That is a point the House has got to bear in mind. I know the familiar argument about conscription, but that does not explain it.
  Again, we were promised that the Air Ministry would save overlapping, and that was going to be an economy. As a matter of fact, why the Air Ministry is so extravagant is that there is overlapping. France has her ground men in the Army; the Air Ministry provides its own ground men. In the case of the Navy France has it, mechanics in the Navy itself, and it has not got to provide extra mechanics, as the Air Ministry has. In fact, the complaint of the Navy is that the aircraft carriers have on board a number of people who are quite redundant, and that they cannot provide accommodation for other things because of the redundant air personnel provided by the Air Ministry. We have heard in this Debate that civil aviation is starved, and it has been one of the strongest arguments in connection with the Air Ministry that an Air Ministry would not be prejudiced, like the two War Ministries, the Navy and the Army, in regard to civil aviation. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the Navy, which has an intense sympathy with civil aviation, just as it has with the mercantile marine, civil aviation is being starved.
  I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) referring the other day to General Mitchell's agitation in the United States. What is the basis of General Mitchell's agitation? He says that nine-tenths of the expenditure ought to go in civil aviation. He indicts the Navy and the Army for not having devoted enough to civil aviation. He also differs from our Air Ministry, for he holds that civil aeroplanes are of great use for fighting. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes), in his speech the other day, said that only 2 per cent. of the expenditure of the Air Ministry goes to civil aviation. I believe he is right, because I have taken out the figures for the administrative side of the Air Ministry, and it works out at just over 2 per cent. devoted to the Directorate of Civil Aviation, out of the whole expenditure of the Air Ministry. Then, taking the actual expenditure on civil aviation, it is £369,000 out of a total of £21,000,000.

  1627
  That is very different from General Mitchell's stipulation of 90 per cent.
  I will take the airships as a case in point. The Admiralty wanted airships simply as mercantile ships, to supplement naval work. They did not ask for anything in the way of fighting power. They tried to keep airships going in 1922, but the Air Ministry turned it down. Then the Admiralty kept on agitating, largely as the result of the work done by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), and it was only when there was a danger of these airships falling under the direction of the Admiralty that the Air Ministry took an interest in the matter at all and brought forward their scheme. With flying boats the story is the same—they have been neglected. They are not neglected in America. Both America and France have airships attached to their navies and there is a steady progress in regard to flying boats. Out of 42 classifications of records that the National Aeronautic Federation have established, 33 are held by the United States of America, and there the navy controls its own air force. That does not look as if we were getting greater progress under an Air Ministry controlling the whole of air matters, as compared with another nation in the case of which the Air Forces are under the Navy and the Army respectively.
  When we examine that point, we find that there was a one-man agitation in the United States, on the part of General Mitchell, to get a separate Air Ministry, but President Harding appointed a Commission, including civilians, in April, 1921, to inquire into the subject, and the Report of that Commission is that
  "Aviation is inseparable from the national defence. It is necessary to the success of both the Army and the Navy. Each should have complete control of the character and operations of its own Air Service."
  When we visualise the only two possible, enemies we may have to fight—I only use the word "possible"—namely, France and Japan, we find that in both those countries the Navy has its own air arm completely under its own control. The only country that has imitated our practice—the French tried it and abandoned it—is Italy. Signor Mussolini has done so for his own reasons. The Italian naval
  1628
  manœuvres were held only last year, and they resulted in a most damaging report in regard to the question of combination between the air and the Navy, where the Navy vitally depends on the assistance given it from the air. It has been repeatedly stated, I think, by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, that this arrangement of a separate Air Ministry is the outcome of experience. I deny that altogether. The experience of the War was that we wanted a single Supply Department for the Army and the Navy. It was a temporary expedient, because the Army and Navy were competing against each other for limited supplies, and the demands of both could not be satisfied. This Ministry was, therefore, created, and I can prove it by quoting what was said by Lord Rothermere, the First Secretary of State for Air, in an article in the "Daily Mail" of the 30th July, 1923. He then said:
  "The Royal Air Force was thus constituted purely as a war expedient. I never contemplated its continuance after the War but always thought it would revert to its former subordinate statue under the two older fighting arms. I never imagined that the arrangement would he permanent. Today, the Navy has fleet airmen trained by the Royal Air Force by Army methods."
  Air Marshal Trenchard himself submitted a Memorandum to this House, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary of State for Air. It was circulated to every Member of the House in 1919, and there Sir Hugh Trenchard said:
  "In addition there will be a small part of it [the Air Force] specially trained for work with the Navy and a small part specially trained for work with the Army, these small portions"—
  and I want the House to attend to this point—
  "probably becoming in the future an arm of the older services."
  I may add that, had we known in 1923 that the Cabinet Committee that was going to investigate this matter had Lord Weir on it, we should have protested very strongly, because Lord Weir was at that moment Chairman of the Air League, and committed to that view of maintaining a separate Air Ministry. We should not have considered him an impartial member.
  The point that emerges from the present situation is that the Admiralty

  1629
  have virtually told the Cabinet that they cannot obtain an efficient Fleet unless they control their own Air Arm. The Cabinet have shouldered the responsibility; that is to say, the Admiralty have a scrap of paper which exculpates them from responsibility if any disaster arises in a naval battle as the result of that arrangement. That is reproducing a very disastrous situation which occurred in regard to Russia in the war with Japan. Anyone who has read that very interesting book "Rasplata," by an officer of Admiral Rodovensky's staff, will remember an interview which the staff officer had with Admiral Rodovensky, when he told the story of Admiral Stark, who was in command of the Fleet at Port Arthur when it was torpedoed. Admiral Stark had represented that certain precautions should he taken, and on the Memorandum were inserted by the Viceroy the words "Not yet." Stark kept this paper in his pocket, and, whenever there was talk about court-martialling him, he used to tap his pocket significantly and say, "I have ray defence," and they never dared court-martial him. Admiral Rodovensky's comment on that was, "No, my boy; what is written is sacred. If you possess something in black on white, you stand there as pure as snow."
  But that will not satisfy the country in the event of a disaster. I venture to make a forecast. Years before the Battle of Jutland I made a forecast in articles on the naval manœuvres that, if the turning-away tactics of the British admirals were persisted in, there would be a furious controversy after the next naval battle. That forecast was verified. I say that there will be, after the next, naval battle, if this arrangement is persisted in, a controversy, not merely convulsing the Navy, but one which will convulse the whole political field. I do hope the Cabinet will reconsider the whole matter, preferably on the lines of amalgamating both Air and Admiralty together. I do not care two-pence for the predominance of one over the other, but I do care for unity of control and unity of command.
  If the House will bear with me for a few moments longer, I want to put before them the principle in reference to the continual comparisons that are made between airships and battleships. There
  1630
  never can be any fight between airships and battleships by themselves. What will happen in war is this. There will be a fleet of all arms fighting a fleet of all arms, including aircraft on both sides. When hon. Members are saying what aeroplanes will do to battleships, I ask them to visualise that there will be continual interference by other aircraft with what aircraft can do to battleships. That is how General Pershing's Committee visualised the matter. When the experiments took place on American battleships, they were not sunk by bombs. Damage was done by bombs, but the ships ultimately had to be sunk by gunfire. And what General Pershing reported on the 18th August, 1921, was this:
  "A very small percentage of hits [by bombs] was secured against stationary targets;"
  and, on the question of the probability of hits, his committee reported—and they were unanimous—that it was—
  "practically negligible if the target is protected by effective pursuit planes."
  I think that that knocks on the head all the talk about battleships being useless. Every War Staff of every Navy agrees in the opinion that battleships are the main source of sea-power in the future, as they have been in the past. They do not decry in the slightest degree the importance of the service that aircraft can render; they all recognise more and more that the air will become a decisive factor as things advance.
  There is a wider question than the mere question of aircraft as against fleets—namely, where the target is our whole island. I want to ask, is the attack an air problem? Not necessarily. You have to take your aircraft away from military purposes, and, therefore, it is a military problem also. Whatever you do in the way of wasting aircraft on attacking civilian populations, you have always to remember that you are handicapping your military forces as against other military forces which, keep their aircraft intact. Is the defence purely an air question? Hon. Members who have spoken say that air defence is of no real avail against aircraft. If so, it cannot be a purely air question. These short-lived bombing planes, as I have pointed out, are expensive because their life is so short. They are very valuable for military purposes, and ought not to

  1631
  be used to any extent for attacks on civilian populations. But the result of what has been said by Member after Member, even by such level-headed men as General Seely, about London being wiped out, has created a scare among the population which has led to an entirely erroneous policy of home defence. The whole effort of the Air Ministry, as far as I can see, is now concentrated on home defence, and on a defence which they themselves say cannot do its work.
  If the Navy had been associated with the Air Ministry, I venture to say the problem would have been very much simpler. In the first place, any defensive system ought to be very much cheaper than the offensive system. The Navy has solved two of the problems, to my mind, in connection with this matter. In the first place, we long ago solved the problem of wireless control of moving bodies without any personnel on board; and, in the second place, we solved the problem of a moving body steering itself in a magnetic field towards any iron mass. If we bear in mind that point, I think that by experimental research it ought to be possible to get very cheap wireless planes controlled from the land, which. the moment the attacking planes bring their magnetic field to bear on these small, cheap wireless planes, the wireless planes will go straight for these great masses of expensive bombing planes, carrying 10 tons of bombs, such as we read of in the newspapers. On these lines, possibly, we may see a cheap defence, but, at any rate, I believe in the doctrine that no weapon of war is ever created which does not meet with its match and its remedy. We have always found that to he the case in the Navy, and I believe we shall find it in the air also. I do appeal, however, for combining the services of the Navy and the air. If you get a wrong doctrine scaring the people, you will get a much worse state of affairs in the future than was brought about by the erroneous doctrine of Peel and Palmerston that steam had bridged the Channel. It was a false doctrine, and led to the expenditure of millions of pounds. If we are governed by these false heresies, we shall again go into expenditure on armaments which will be millions of pounds poured into the sea and wasted. I do hope the Cabinet will con-
  1632
  sider this problem, will bring the three Services together, and will save us from this wasteful expenditure in the future.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: In intervening in this Debate, I should like to put forward a few points bearing on the urgent necessity for a change in the present system in connection with the responsibility for the control of aircraft. Several speakers have remarked on the undesirability of war, and I need hardly say that, as a lifelong pacifist, I entirely agree with them. I think, from everything that has been said, that there is a, great body of opinion, with which I entirely agree, that a Defence Ministry is the best possible thing we could have for controlling the great spending Departments of the fighting forces. I have heard it said that prejudice is inclined to come in where a naval, or possibly a military, officer expresses opinions with regard to the Air Ministry. I do ask to be acquitted of anything in the nature of prejudice in that respect, for I can say quite truthfully that I consider the question only from one point of view, and that I am very strongly prejudiced in favour of the unchanging laws which govern the conduct of war.
  So far as the Navy and the control of its own aircraft is concerned, I think it is sometimes forgotten that the air is superimposed over the sea, and, as we know, it is also superimposed over the land. It does not seem to me that it can be right to describe it as a separate element, and to deny to the Navy the use of an element which for hundreds, if not thousands of years, it entirely relied upon as its propelling force. The Navy has never been able to exist without the air, and it cannot exist without it in the future. The Navy should, as it does, work in the sea and on the sea, and it ought also to work above the sea. I would say the same thing so far as the Army is concerned, namely, 'that it should work in, on and above the land. The necessity for a separate Air Ministry has never been clear to me, and I say that it is not proved at the present time. The existence of an Air Ministry now not only complicates Imperial defence, bat it adds very largely, and quite unnecessarily, to our financial obligations.
  To revert for a moment to the Navy, what has been the definite ambition of

  1633
  every ship that has sailed the seas as a man-of-war? It has been to extend by every possible means the limits of its vision. At the present time fleets stretch out, with their screens of cruisers, to as great a visual distance as they possibly can, and they also extend to as great a wireless distance as possible, with one object only, namely, to extend their limits of vision. In the Army it is the same. If the naval commander, Commander-in-Chief, flag officer, or whoever it may be, is to be denied the use of the air, he is being told, in fact, that while he can control such craft as he possesses in a 'horizontal direction to any extent that he likes, he is not to be allowed to control anything vertically. That will not hold water. No naval commander can face with equanimity for a moment anything except absolute executive and administrative control over every ship and every weapon with which he has to carry out his duties. We are all aiming at unity of command, and, as I said at the beginning, that can be approached by means of a Ministry of Defence. But the more you add to your various Departments, as in this instance with an Air Ministry, the more you complicate the question of unity of command. We realise only too well and remember, as I am sure we all do, what Marshal Foch had to say in regard to an independent air force. He was totally opposed to it during the Great War.
  I should like to quote from a speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) the other clay, whose experience and gallantry has not been surpassed by anyone connected with the air. He said:
  "There is no similitude between the services rendered by the people who fly with the Fleet and the people who serve in the ships."
  I am entirely and absolutely unable to agree that that is so, for the reasons I have already advanced. He says a little later on:
  "Is there anything in a warship comparable with photography?"
  if that line of argument is to prevent the Navy controlling its own aircraft, the Navy would never have had mines, electric light., or submarines. Up to the time they were introduced—mines, electric light, submarines, and many other things—they had nothing comparable to the engines and the details with which they were
  1634
  asked suddenly to deal. A. little further on I see:
  "There is no similarity between the services of the naval officer and the flying officer. They are working in different elements."
  I did my best to clear up that point in regard to vertical and horizontal scouting. A little later on I see:
  "If the Navy gets an Appropriation-in-Aid, why not the Army?"
  I say, why not? Many other points have been advanced against the Navy having its own control of aircraft, and one of the things I have heard very often said is that there is the subject of aero-dynamics, which is the science connected with movements of air, and so forth. Even at present, it is perfectly truthful to say that no projectile is ever fired from any gun in the Navy without a deep study of the effects of aero-dynamics. So it is not an unknown science in the Navy. It is perhaps worth recording the fact that the Navy must have looked into the future in connection with flying, and Daedalus was considered a suitable individual to name one of His Majesty's ships after.
  I should like to refer to the question of comparing aircraft with artillery. At present the artillery, both of the Army and of the Navy, is provided and designed for specific purposes by the Ordnance Committee, a mixed military and naval Committee, and it seems to me clear that you might just as well ask that artillery should be provided as a special arm by a special Ministry for the purpose of the Army and Navy, as is done at present in regard to aircraft. Exactly the same thing, to my mind, can be said in regard to submarines. Submarines are a very exceptional form of craft in every sort of way, and they undoubtedly require very special knowledge, but we have no more right to have an Air Ministry than to have a Submarine Ministry. In my experience in the Navy, every new invention, everything that is new in the way of a weapon, has invariably resulted in the same thing happening, and that is that you build up a specialist branch. It does not matter whether it is torpedo craft, submarines, mining, gunnery, electrical work, or torpedo work, you create a specialist branch, and the one ambition of every naval commander is to encourage by every possible means specialist branches. and all naval authorities do every-

  1635
  thing in their power to prevent anything in the nature of an unduly circumscribed service. To give an example, there was a tendency in the Navy some years ago, and it exists a. little even at present, that officers and men in the submarine service get the feeling that they belong to a separate service from the rest of the Navy, and, although they work very well with the Navy, and that sort of thing, the tendency is a bad one, and the Admiralty very properly have always done all they can, first of all, to encourage specialists, and, secondly, to make quite sure that they do not build up too great a condition of independence.
  I should like to make one or two further points in regard to the duties of aircraft in connection with the Navy. At present the Navy is concerned with the watching of coastal areas, with coast-line defence, with the defence of their fortified bases and dockyards, and, thirdly, with the necessities of the fleets and squadrons that are at sea. Those are the three main requirements of the Navy in regard to aircraft. At present no one of those requirements is adequately met. Take the coastal units' work alone. The work of coastal units is a very important one indeed. The aircraft have to scout, they have to look for mines, they may have to fire torpedoes at enemy war vessels, they may have to convoy merchant ships, and they may have to drop bombs, and many other things. At present the Navy possesses, according to the Navy List, which I have studied to-day, something less than 30 aeroplanes to carry out all these duties for the whole of the United Kingdom. That to my mind—and I think many hon. Members will agree—is altogether inadequate.
  When we touch on the question of the protection of bases, we come to what is a very important thing, what has been described as the Fleet air arm. I did not coin the expression, but I think it serves, and we all realise what it means. One must remember that the day of long-distance flying from the land has not yet arrived so far as aeroplanes are concerned, and it is clear that, as things are at present, great aircraft carriers are essential. A nothing thing that is absolutely essential is that when you have those craft away with your Fleet, you have to realise that, their protection
  1636
  depends on the ships they are working with. They have no connection: n the slightest degree with any aerodrome on shore, or any aircraft station, and that is only one more reason why they should be intimately part and parcel of the Navy with which they are working. Their duties are enormous and essential, and in every respect naval—the question of aerial fighting against aircraft belonging to the enemy, scouting, and generally keeping the flag officers informed on the movements of the enemy. All the things they have to do are vital for the Naval Service, and at present they are not under the control of the Admiralty. We have a sort of partial scheme whereby there is 70 per cent. of naval personnel. I say in the strongest possible way that is an inefficient system. it must be one thing or the other. You cannot possibly have a sort of half-and-half scheme of that kind. The main sea requirements, as they appear to me, in regard to naval aircraft are that we must first of all have craft of our own design. We must have a personnel naval in sentiment and in feeling so far as their careers are concerned, and we must create and build up our own reserves. At present none of these things exist, and seamen who fly and airmen who go to sea do their best, and a very good best it is, in a job that is not theirs. What is wanted is that the Navy should provide its own flying men, and that when they have finished their flying careers, whatever the age, which may vary, they can still continue as seamen, and it does not seem to me that it is possible for airmen in their short careers to become seamen. The question of airmanship—I am prepared to be corrected on the question of learning airmanship—is not a lifelong study. That of a seaman most certainly is. The fact has been referred to that certain countries have their own aircraft attached to their own service. The United States has, and I believe Japan is in a similar position.
  I come now to the question of airships. Here the problem, so far as regards the working of the Navy, is exactly and substantially the same as in regard to the heavier than aircraft. There is only one thing at present, it seems to me, which really differs altogether, and that is the burning question whether we can or cannot afford to launch out and expend a great deal of money on airships. The

  1637
  answer is that we cannot. I should like to put forward the following points with a view to doing our utmost to build up a merchant air fleet. After all, the British Navy as it exists to-day was unquestionably built up by reason of the fact that we had a very wonderful merchant fleet scattered all over the world. In fact, the first men-of-war that ever existed in the Navy were converted merchant ships used for scouts, and gradually a type of ship was developed which is essentially different from the merchant ship. That should be our policy at present. We have the will, we have the enterprise, and we have the money—not our money. I am speaking of money that firms outside are prepared to put up. All those things are at our command, and we should make a very great mistake, if we did not, even by providing some small subsidy, 80 our utmost to encourage and use these valuable assets. I think it can be done by subsidising and helping the firms which are prepared to take these tremendous risks, and from that we can build up not only a great merchant fleet of airships, but ultimately it will become, as it invariably has become, necessary in the past to provide extra insurance for them in the way of Protective aircraft, which may ultimately take a different form and he of different design. The call for merchant airships at present is unquestionably an insistent one and there can be no question that there is a great future for them in regard to mails, passengers, and so on. But there are certain things which we must not do to complicate their activity. One of the things we must not do is to spend immense sums on bases in places abroad where we are not sine that those bases will ultimately be found to be the very best. for commercial interests, and that being so, I cannot help thinking that we should do something—I believe a scheme has already been thought out—in the nature of providing what in the Navy we describe as buoys at which big ships are moored in harbours, namely, moving mooring masts, attached to large ships, and that, would enable the craft to be moved about until such time as the commercial aircraft have found the best possible routes for carrying out their activity.
  I hope the Government will see their way to drop the scheme introduced by
  1638
  their predecessors. The scheme that is at present, I understand, under discussion should be pushed forward by every possible means, and private enterprise should be fostered to the utmost. The cost to the country is naturally not a very small one, but in looking at it, as far as I have been able, as I understand the figures, the cost of the subsidy for this great and splendid work is very little more than the value of one modern cruiser, and if for the value of one modern cruiser we are capable of building up in the course of a few years a vast and efficient merchant air fleet, that money is very admirably spent. After all, I think it has been proved pretty conclusively that anything in the way of State control of craft has distinctly failed, and we have only to turn to the Commonwealth line of ships, recently put up for sale, to see what the result of that form of State control is. Anything in the nature of State control of aircraft must be avoided by all possible means. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will allow me to press very strongly that the Air Ministryship should unquestionably be dropped, and not be proceeded with, and we should do all we possibly can to encourage private enterprise to the full for aircraft, and to do everything possible to institute an inquiry at the earliest possible moment with a view to the absorption of the Air Ministry under the War Office and the Admiralty.
  8.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: May I first of all thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his kind reference to myself. Secondly, may I say it is very difficult for a civilian to feel at all at home in discussing these highly technical subjects with such eminent experts as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My experience was limited to being a civilian in an aircraft carrier, but perhaps from the bottom end of the ladder one makes observations and notices things which the eminent high command do not see. If I felt uneasy about expressing any opinion on these matters myself, I should be fortified by the fact that I have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), under whose command I served, and who can certainly express an opinion on air matters and naval matters, which is unequalled for authority in this House or outside. The first thing to observe in this Debate is that the con-

  1639
  cessions, big or little, that the Air Ministry have made to the Admiralty have not satisfied their demands. The only effect of carrying out the resolutions of the Balfour Committee has been to produce such speeches as we have heard to-day demanding more and yet more. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just. resumed his seat do not make any bones about it. They regard this change as the first step towards the disintegration of the force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says a Naval Air Force and an Army Air Force, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone said the same thing. Really it seems to me there is no answer to this plain argument. Under the stress of war, we were forced to unite these Services. It was not a theoretical expedient invented by people who had some passionate and unaccountable love for an Air Force. It was forced upon us in the face of the greatest difficulties by the necessity of inventing new schemes in the hope that they would give us the victory. The hon. And gallant Gentleman speaks as so many distinguished Admirals have spoken in this House about the Air Force. With very great respect and humility I say that I do not think he appears to understand the beginning of their aspirations or of their outlook. He talks as if anything the Air Ministry did merely added unnecessary financial burdens to the country. Does he mean that if the Admiralty had an Air Force they would not spend so much on it?
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I do mean that. I think that if the War Office and the Admiralty had their own aircraft, we should spend less money on the fighting forces than we do now amongst the three.
  Captain BENN: That. means that the force of all forces (if you are to have defensive forces) which deserves encouragement and ought to have more money at, the expense of the senior service and of the Army, if given back to the Navy would be more economically managed. My own view is that the amount of money we spend on defence should be reduced, but that the amount of money we apportion to the Air Force
  1640
  should be increased at the expense of the other services. Of course, in dealing with technical subjects any civilian speaker is at a very great disadvantage in attempting to controvert the arguments of one who is so eminent a professional authority. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of the duty of the Navy being to watch their bases. Suppose that the enemy sent over from their land an air force. The Navy might never see it. The enemy would bomb the bases out of existence, and the people in the ships, pursuing their lawful 'occasions, would never even know that the thing had been done until they went to the bases and found nothing but ruin. The hon. and gallant Gentleman threw sonic light upon the point of view of sailors in this matter, when he said that the seaman's career is the career of a lifetime, whereas the airman's career is only an interlude, a passing thing. That we deny. You will never get an Air Force in this country so long as you tell people that their experiences in the air are merely an interlude to a career in some other profession. That is my complaint against the whole of the change which has followed the putting into force of the Balfour recommendations.
  I will say one thing with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman will cordially disagree. Why should the Admiralty be the body to design an aircraft carrier? An aircraft carrier is a ship, of course, but lots of people can design ships besides the Admiralty. The aircraft carrier is not primarily a ship, but an aerodrome. It comes within the technical knowledge of the Air Service and not of the Fleet or the Navy at all. There are the cranes and the shops. I remember being in a ship, and the best thing the sailors could do was to ask us to develop glass plates directly under a battery, which was hardly an ideal place for a photographic studio. The developing of air photographs is a specialist subject. It is not merely snapshotting. Reading is highly specialised and so is the taking of photographs. Whatever branch of the Air Service you examine you will find that it has nothing to do with the sea at all. It is a different thing, a different element. Fighting in the air is different, flying is different, and so is reconnaissance, except the reconnaissance of naval objects, which

  1641
  should be done by naval officers. Until you make that a root principle of your defence you will never get an Air Service, and you do not deserve to have one.
  There is the question of the command of aircraft carriers. This is supposed to be the real Ark of the Covenant. Who is to command Why should not an Air Force officer be the supreme officer? Most of the duties are to do with the air. The ship has to be navigated, but that is not; the most important thing to be done. There are all sorts of technical details that the commander has to understand, such as turning the ship so as to make a lee in a rough sea for an aeroplane to get off. Such a ship is a floating aerodrome, and would be far better under the command of an air officer than under the command of a naval officer. When you examine the recommendations of this Balfour Committee they are subtle. The changes appear to be small, but they all seem to me to be instinct with the wrong spirit. They are all aimed at making the career of the man who flies in connection with the Navy a naval career instead of an Air career. It does not matter whether it is leave, reports or uniform. They want to get a man to look to the Admiralty for his career instead of to the Air Ministry. That is wrong. You can do it of course you can! The Air Ministry once offered the Navy plenty of opportunity for the sailors to have four or five years in the Air Force to learn that side of their duties, in order to keep the harmony and to have the blend of information which ultimately might give us a capable defence Ministry. But the Navy refused. When the offer was made no officers were forthcoming, because the Admiralty would not have anybody mixed up with the Air unless the Admiralty had control. The Admiralty wished to make a man turn his eye in the wrong direction. They wished him to be wrapped up with the sea, whereas to be successful he must be wrapped up with the air.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The officers would not volunteer.
  Captain BENN: Because they understood it would not pay them to volunteer. They knew very well what their fate was to be when promotion came along, because the Admiralty had said, "No, if
  1642
  you want to be a sailor you can stay here and look to us, but if you are going to mess about with this toy, that is another matter." I would not for the world speak disrespectfully of the Admiralty or of Admirals, but I saw a station inspected once. The Admiral looked at the men, saw that they were shaved; he looked at the mess room and at the tents and at the flagpole, and it was not until he was about to withdraw that some air officer suggested that he should go into the shops and see the aeroplanes. I do not want to speak disrespectfully, because I have the greatest admiration for Admirals—on the sea. But this Admiral did not even know the name: of one of the types of machines we had, although they had been in existence long enough before they were handed to us. The Balfour Committee, having tried to get the carrier and the officer into the hands of the Admiralty, has now come along with this transference of the Estimates. What the hon. and gallant Baronet said may be true—that it is only a bookkeeping account. I understand that the Air Ministry said that they regarded it as inconvenient. But it seems to me that the man who pays the piper will call the tune.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Hear, hear!
  Captain BENN: I notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants that, and he believes it is going to happen. He thinks that if the Admiralty say, "We are going to spend so much on the Fleet Air Arm"—a term of art invented by some Estimates clerk, apparently, and never heard of before—if the Admiralty decide how much money is to be spent, ultimately they will get control of everything. They already have the young officer under their control and they hope to have control of design and of everything. When that happens it is the beginning of the end, as far as the unity of the Air Service is concerned.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Does the hon. and gallant Member know the exact proportion? It is only 4 per cent., and it is getting less and less.
  Captain BENN: What proportion?
  Commander BELLAIRS: The Naval Arm associated with the Fleet is only 4 per cent, of the whole Air Force. How can that ruin it?
  Captain BENN: The appropriation-in-aid in these Estimates amounts to about £300,000 or £1,400,000. If it is only small, that seems to me to show that they are not showing the proper regard for their own Service. If you give the decision of the amount to the Admiralty, ultimately they will get the control of the thing. It is because I sincerely believe that the integrity and unity of the Air Force is necessary for this country that I criticise the change which has taken place in the Estimates.
  Captain REID: I ant afraid that I cannot crave the indulgence of the House by stating that this is my maiden speech, because in that respect I am somewhat of a spinster, having spoken in this House in 1923 on one or two occasions and that is a long time ago. Therefore, though a spinster, I again experience all the pangs and timidity of the maiden, and consequently I hope I may crave a slight measure of indulgence from the House. I have ventured to rise now because I think I can claim some slight reason for taking part in the Debate, for I have spent most of my career, or a great deal et it, in the Air Force. I have listened to the speeches to-day with great interest, and especially to the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and also to the speeches on the same subject a fortnight ago. In consequence I have come to the conclusion that these Air Estimates have been exhaustively treated' from the technical and financial point of view, but not so much from the point of view of those people who actually have to carry out the result. of this legislation. I am referring to the personnel of the Air Force and in particular to the pilots. Hon. Members will agree that our pilots deserve every possible consideration that we can give them. When I was a miserable pilot I used to think that it would be a very good thing if on occasions those in high authority could hear what the pilot had to say about the decisions of the mighty. It might have proved beneficial and even have proved an eye-opener.
  During the War I often heard remarks, and I am afraid that I myself used to make them, in something like this form: "If only so-and-so"—mentioning one of the powers that were—" could himself actually do some flying with us and go
  1644
  through the same experience as ourselves, we feel that soon a far more satisfactory state of affairs would exist." I would like to emphasise that particular aspect. I will give one example. Hon. Members who have had any knowledge of practical flying will agree that what the average airman dreaded more than anything else on active service was flames. The idea of his machine becoming alight and him coming to earth in flames was always subconsciously at the back of his mind. I contend—and I do not think I am alone in this contention—that this fear, this danger, could have been overcome if only we had been supplied with parachutes. We used to see the German airmen leave their burning machines and jump to ground in comparative safety, because they were supplied with parachutes, and we used to see our own friends go to earth in flames, and we were powerless to do anything to prevent them meeting a dreadful death. We were resentful, not because we minded an individual German life being saved, but because our own friends did not have the same opportunity of saving their lives.
  On that particular question, I myself, with one or two others, made somewhat violent representations, but the only result was that we nearly got into very serious trouble. We were always met with the same answer. We were told that if a. machine was fitted with a parachute, it would detract from the speed of that machine; we were even told that there was not sufficient silk in the country to provide for all the parachutes which would be required: and, last, but not least, we constantly got the answer, which I believe originated in this House, that if pilots were supplied with parachutes they would be jumping out of their machines on the slightest provocation. Is it likely, I ask, that any reasonable man, two or three miles up, would, on the slightest provocation, jump out of his machine and trust himself to a flimsy bit of material? I do not think it is. If we had been supplied with parachutes during the War, I maintain that it would have increased the moral of the pilots by at least 50 per cent., and we would have fought 50 times better, and the results, especially the fighting results, to the Force as a whole would also have been greatly increased. In consequence, I can assure the

  1645
  House that it was with a great deal of relief that I heard, in title admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air two weeks ago, that it had at last been decided to supply, as standard, all machines with parachutes. I think that every consideration ought to be given to the improvement of the moral of our pilots, because there is no getting away from the fact that the pilot will always be the main factor of safety and also the main factor of danger. I was very interested to notice one particular aspect of my right hon. Friend's speech, and I would like to quote his words, because they will somewhat bear out my point. He said:
  "I will give the House a few of the questions upon which the Aeronautical Research Committee and other scientists working for the Air Ministry are at present principally engaged."
  Among those questions was the following:
  "How can the pilot prevent a spin following on a stall—prevent, that is, his aeroplane diving nose first in a steep and narrow spiral, and how, should his machine start to spin, can he recover and resume normal flight?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1025; col. 2248, Vol. 180.]
  Unfortunately, this is a matter that all the scientists in the world would he powerless to prevent, and it is no good looking at it from the technical point of view, because it depends entirely on the mind of the pilot himself. A spin is a very easy thing to get into, and it is equally easy to get out of, providing you keep your head, but if you do not keep your head, it means that you follow your instinct, you do what is most natural to you, and, strangely enough, if you follow your instinct on this occasion, you are doing the wrong thing. The way to get out of a spin is to centralise all your controls—I will not go into many details—and, instead of pulling the machine out of that spin, as you might imagine you should do, you must push it even more into the spin. If you do this, you dive straight to earth, but without spinning, and it is then easy to pull up your machine on to its even keel, and to resume normal flying. During the War I have known many young pilots lose their lives simply because they got into a spin, lost their head, forgot: what they had been taught, and hit the ground, with disastrous results, before they had been able to regain control. Therefore, I trust I have
  1646
  shown the House that no scientific research could ever overcome that. Nevertheless, the progress of flying in other directions since the War has increased enormously. This may appear somewhat of a platitude, but, nevertheless, war, I think, has advanced the progress of flying by at least the equivalent of 50 years, and, as a result of our enforced progression, at the end of the War we led all other nations as pioneers of the air. The question that myself and others are asking at the moment is whether the same could be said of us now, and I am afraid that the answer is a somewhat dismal negative.
  I agree entirely with the Minister when he says that quality is far more. important than quantity, but how can we get quality if we do not keep abreast of the times? I am frankly perturbed when I see the present condition of our Air Estimates. I find that on experimental work we are going to expend out of the total amount of the Air Estimates only a matter of 6 per cent. The best means of providing for a reserve of pilots and of continuing practical flying experience is undoubtedly through the encouragement and the resultant expansion of civil aviation, but I again look at the Estimates, and I find that, out of the total amount, only 2 per cent. has been allotted to civil aviation. I know it has been amply emphasised on all sides that France is numerically superior to ourselves, as far as machines are concerned, and I believe the figure mentioned has been three to one against us. Therefore, I hope I am not being too presumptuous when I say that, as far as that is concerned, I should be inclined to take a chance for one or twp years, and, with the finances that we have at our disposal, to concentrate on experimental work, and when we are far enough advanced in that direction, then to commence to make up our numerical inferiority with the perfected types of machines that would have been brought about as the result of our experimental period.
  It is agreed, I think, by a great many people—I have heard it said only to-day of two occasions in this House—that the war of the future is going to be decided in the air, and that applies more particularly to this country than to any other, situated as we are, for it

  1647
  perfectly true—though we have been told that this is a scarist story, but is obvious to those who have a practical knowledge of bombing—that if a colossal hostile fleet of bombing aeroplanes were allowed to come over this city unhindered, it would mean that the metropolis could be wiped out in a very short time. That would mean, as far as we are concerned, that the war would be over within an hour, because all our communications would be destroyed, and the whole country would consequently be in a chaotic condition Yet there are hon. Members opposite who will persist in suggesting that we should reduce our Air Service to a negligible size. Several of them went into the Lobby two weeks ago with that in their mind.
  If I may be allowed, I should like to make a very homely comparison in a futile attempt to bring my point home. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) is not in his place, because he suggested that a hundred men would be adequate for the Air Force. Might I suggest that the hon. Member for Shoreditch would not go down the Shore-ditch main street with a parasol. This may seem somewhat a strange thing to say, but he would not do it, because a parasol would not be adequate protection against the elements. He would, no doubt, use an umbrella. He would use that umbrella not because he thought it was going to rain, and not necessarily because he thought, it would rain, but because it might rain. I maintain that if all the eloquence even of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch, coupled with the persuasiveness and persistency of the hon. Gentlemen that usually sit around him, were eventually to persuade the people of this country to do without umbrellas altogether and also persuaded them to do without an Air Force, I contend that that would sot necessarily mean that, "It ain't gonna rain no mo," or that we are not likely to be again attacked in the future.
  But I am inclined to agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite on a different matter up to a certain point. I consider that eventually we should be able to reduce armaments in this country. As I have already contended, the wars of the future will be decided in the air. And it is not only the destructive factor but also the moral factor in aerial warfare that is
  1648
  going eventually to cause the older services, the Army and the Navy, to take less prominent positions in the future.
  I look forward to the period when, after considerable time and money has been spent on air experimental work, we shall then greatly increase the size of our Air Force and at the same time, maybe, decrease the size of our Army and Navy. I consider that this would not only be more economic from the point of view of the nation, but in the remote event of hostilities our position would be enormously improved, taking into consideration modern conditions of carfare, and not only would our position be very much improved, but, without parading the fact, we should be far in advance of any other country.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: The discussion this evening has been taken up very largely by experts on each side on this purely technical side of this problem. I should be very sorry if this discussion came to an end without some, at least, on this side of the House putting in a plea for a further limitation of armaments. Some time ago the Government, in face of a great financial crisis, appointed a Committee to inquire into various forms of national expenditure in the hope that proposals might. be put forward for the limitation of that expenditure in various directions. I refer to the famous Geddes Committee, whose recommendations are well known to every Member of this House. Throughout to-day's discussion the one idea that seems to have obsessed the minds of speakers on the other side has been this idea, that sooner or later, it things go on as they are doing, we are bound to come to some kind of international crisis leading ultimately to war. Anyhow, at the back of the minds of most speakers has been the idea of the possibility of war. Because of the existence of that idea we. are invited, not to consider a decrease of the Air Force Estimates, but rather an increased Estimate. I should like, if I may, to remind this House of a passage in the Geddes Report. I find it on page 88. It reads as follows:
  "We have continually before us the view of the Cabinet that no great war need be anticipated for at least 10 years In these circumstances we suggest that the question of a considerable reduction in the number of squadrons should be considered"

  1649
  As a matter of fact we are to-night asked to contemplate, not a reduction in the number of squadrons. The proposals of the Geddes Committee was that they should be reduced to something like 32½ squadrons. In the White Paper circulated for our discussion to-night there is actually a proposal for providing 54 squadrons in various parts of the world. Obviously the deduction we are entitled to make from this proposal is that there is something in the mind of the Government to-day which has induced them to, believe that the conditions now prevailing are different from the conditions which prevailed at the time the Geddes Committee reported. The Government of that time—the Coalition Government—had in their minds the impossibility of there being any war within 10 years, yet now we are asked to contemplate, not merely an increase of the Air Force as compared with that time, but something that is much nearer double the strength of that suggested in the Geddes Report. I think that is a very grave menace to world-peace. After all, I am entirely prepared to admit that the last speaker was entirely conscientious in his point of view, that in order to have peace you must he prepared for war. From my point of view, however, I simply do not see how such a proposition can be maintained after the experience of the world in, the last war.
  It has been repeatedly stated in this house, and not controverted, that there were plenty of preparations for war on all sides before the Great War broke out. It has been repeatedly argued that the German nation was guilty of excessive preparation for war before 1914: Let ns accept that argument. Did that excessive preparation for war prevent war? Obviously not! It created in the minds of a large number of thinkers in our own country a feeling of insecurity, and that feeling of insecurity created in them the desire for increased preparation of our sick. The consequence of all that preparation on all sides was not the preservation of peace at all but the creation of a situation which made war inevitable. Hence I rise to-night to put in my simple plea—an honest plea—to the Minister for Air that he will carefully consider whether this proposal, which is being made to us to-night, is destined to give the world that sense of security in
  1650
  the direction of peace that the world is entitled to expect in these days! I observe that a paper has been circulated to-night giving the purport of a speech which has been delivered to-day at Geneva by the Foreign Secretary Obviously that speech of the Foreign Secretary will, necessarily, be interpreted in the light of these new Estimates now presented
  Those who have pinned their faith, rightly or wrongly, to the Protocol, when they find that the representative of Great Britain rejects the Protocol, reading side by side his statement and the presentation of these Estimates to the British House of Commons, will make the simple deduction that Great Britain is so far from being anxious to help forward any well intentioned movement in the direction of establishing world peace, that she is, as a matter of fact, once again preparing the instruments of war. The consequence will be, I fear though I hope it will not be so, that they too will he encouraged on that sonic headlong march to destruction. A leaching diplomat of the last generation in this country, said in regard to our naval rivalry that we were "rattling into barbarism." If it is possible to rattle into barbarism by a more rapid method than the one practised before the War, surely this preparation of air armaments is that method. Therefore, I pray the Government to hold their hand rather than to embark on an increased air force, so that we may give that gesture in the direction of international peace for which the world so much longs.
  Having said that on the general policy underlying these Estimates, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions on particular matters. In these Estimates we contemplate a certain expenditure upon educational services in connection with the Air Force. I am not going to traverse the whole ground of controversy as to whether we are spending enough or too little upon educational work in the Air Force. All I want to say is that we were told in the Geddes Report that the average cost of educating a cadet at Cranwell amounted to the colossal sum of something over £700—nearly £750. I am not going to question that expenditure at all, nor compare it with to-day's expenditure—if I knew it—but I want to ask what sort of arrangements are being

  1651
  made in the Air Force for the education not of the cadets, who I presume will be the future officers of the Force, but of the ordinary rank and file members? These people are devoting a good part of their best years to the national service. For about seven or 10 years—I do not know what the actual period of service may be—they are drawn away from all the educational institutions provided for other people up and down the country, and since they are withdrawn from those facilities it is the bounden duty of the State to provide them with an equal form of educational service in the various centres to which they are attached.
  It is well within the knowledge of most Members that these men when they are demobilised are often at a loose end. They have lost touch with the movements of their locality. They have lost touch with all kinds of educational activities and the consequence is they feel more or less lost when they return to civil life. That is an unfair handicap to place upon these people, and I would urge upon my right hon. Friend that the most complete form of educational provision should be made for these people so that when they return to civil life they may be able to take up their civil duties with as little interruption as is possible under the circumstances.
  I will not detain the House further except to reiterate the hope that these Estimates will not he allowed to be inflated beyond what is absolutely necessity, interpreting the word "necessity" not in the direction of increased armaments or the creation of a. new rivalry, but in the direction of preserving what is usually regarded as the ordinary security of the State.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I rise with some diffidence to address the house this evening after all the expert experience that has displayed itself on the various benches, but I feel that I may be able to contribute slightly to the information of the House from my previous experience in the matter: and I hope to allay the suspicions which have been freely expressed as regards the extent to which the various Services have contributed to building up what is now the Air Force. I was somewhat interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for
  1652
  Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) criticise Farnborough. I am going to deal briefly with Farnborough, because having done civil ballooning—taking up ballooning in 1906—I went there to do an Army course. I would like to mention the surprise I feel that a very large number of my gallant friends in the Navy seem rather to disagree with the Air Force as at present constituted. I am glad that I do not reckon my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) in that category. and I note that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) almost apologised for having been a civilian. What I hold is that we all built it up; it is not a question of one or the other having done it, but the Army, the Navy and civilians all have done it. We regard him one of the leading lights of the flying world, and so we regard also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), as one holding No. 1 certificate as a pilot. We need not really quarrel as to whether the Navy should have this Service or anybody else. The great thing is to have an efficient flying service.
  In that connection, I think, I will put in a word for the Army, as I believe only one member of my profession has spoken up to date, and I think we can claim to have started the Air Force. We began in very curious circumstances in the Royal Engineers, and I will ask the House to allow me to relate my experiences. It will open the eyes of a few when they compare the state of things then with what we find them now. I joined the Army Ballooning Factory about the time that the first airship took the air—the "Nulli Secundus," I think it was. We built that ship on experimental money, which at that time amounted to only £500 a year. That ship was built by the savings which Colonel Capper and others in charge accumulated to enable it to be put together. We had no motor-cars in the Air Factory. Colonel Cody, whom everyone will remember, had one, and I had a small one of my own. It is rather a curious fact that the State did not supply motor-cars, but with two of us at least, to help we got the "Nulli Secundus" on her first trip to London. My car broke down in London, and the "Nulli Secundus" broke down at the Crystal

  1653
  Palace on the way back, and the net result was that we got "told off" by the War Office for having advertised, and we were told that airships were never to go east of Aldershot after that day. However, that was probably a good thing, hut it seems rather absurd that we should have started aviation in this country under conditions of that description.
  I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford will appreciate my remarks, because he said he got very little help from the Navy, and we got very little help from the War Office. In discussion afterwards with a distinguished officer at the War Office, whom I knew well, he said, "You know Capper rather well. You might give him a tip not to talk about throwing bombs out of aeroplanes, because we consider that is not possible." In fact, he tapped his forehead as indicating that there was some derangement on the part of anyone who took up ballooning at that time. I think that rather indicates the amount. of help we got from the War Office. That is why I agree in saying it is desirable that there should be an Air Force on its own. The whole development has come about with the rapidity that it has since it started on its own.
  We began, as I have indicated, in a small way, and it has now developed and become the Air Force, and I feel sure we can, if we try, do away with this jealousy on the part of any branch of the Service to take it over. I was surprised at some of the remarks made by hon. Members on these benches, because the Air Service is essentially an arm of its own. After all, anybody accustomed to flying can go up just as well from a. ship as from the shore. It does not follow that a man must be amphibious because he is flying. What it does mean is that you are not going to limit your operations to the Navy. The Services must be interchangeable, and you must have an Air Service on its own. Besides this, we have to consider the cost of these things, and it is absurd to have three Services when one will do. The question of how much you have of it is quite another matter. I think in the end a large and a strong Air Service is going to be the cheapest solution for the
  1654
  defence of this country and of the Empire.
  I do not say that with any idea of criticising the functions of the Army and the Navy because naturally they can never disappear. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) in not understanding why we arc developing fixed armaments in the Colonies. In view of the prospects before us which the Air Service gives, I think we should attend much more to having these places abroad strengthened in the way of the Air Service. This brings me to a point in which I am more interested. My experience in flying is practically nil although I was a pioneer in the old days and that led me to be appointed to the Anti-Aircraft Service. During the War I was brought into the service in 1916, when the raids were becoming serious, and I started in the anti-aircraft organisation in London. It seems to me that that. Service might well be co-ordinated more closely with the Flying Service. I am sure it would help us to solve the problem as to what we are going to do with our pilots when they have passed through their flying time, as they could be put to antiaircraft work. In this service it is a great advantage to know something about flying and the aircraft you have to deal with. It would he a great opportunity for those gallant men who have suffered much strain and stress in the ordeal they have had to undergo to be able to feel that they can come back and do a bit of what I will call shore work.
  The two Services can be intermingled in a way that is highly desirable, and there should be closer co-operation in that direction and I hope the Air Minister will be able to further that object. I understand that in this respect the closest co-operation is being arranged. I know all this is in its infancy, but I do not think that its importance is sufficiently realised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last pointed out that it would be a comparatively small matter for a city to be destroyed in a few minutes by bombs, and therefore what I am suggesting is not an expensive form of defence. By co-operation with the Air Force a great deal can be done. This matter of defence by anti-aircraft cannot, however, be left chiefly to Territorial units, because that. Service corresponds very closely to a fire brigade. If a raid

  1655
  comes in this country it will be a very sudden affair, and it will be necessary to deal with it at once and it would be rather difficult to call up Territorial units in that way.
  Now I come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham about the co-ordination of staff control. That clearly shows the desirability of the Air Force being independent in the same way as the Army, and it is quite hopeless to consider any sort of competition in this matter. When an operation becomes serious the great feature in modern warfare is the rapidity with which troops can be got together and destruction made effective. It is quite hopeless to start organising at the last minute to arrange for any particular defence or attack. I think it is absolutely essential that the efforts of the Prime Minister should be directed towards co-ordinating the whole of our fighting services and to leading up to the establishment of a Ministry of Defence. This point has been very ably dealt with by those who are more experienced than myself, but my own small experience in the Army and in the Air leads me to speak freely on two branches of the Service. Co-ordination is better on the part of all the three Services than for each to act independently.
  I do hope that the result of this Debate will at all events be, in the first instance, to retain the Air Force as such and to enable the other forces to recognise that their best interests are served by having a sound Air Force where all the training and research and the best knowledge is concentrated on that one line and which can be placed at their disposal for any particular operation. Secondly, there should be some form of coordinated defence to place us in the best possible position. Those are the points which led me to intervene, and, in conclusion, may I say that although this is not my maiden effort, I have only had one previous experience of addressing this House.
  Mr. WELLS: I propose to deal with matters relating to airships. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) a short time ago stated that the late Government turned down the Imperial airship scheme because they wanted competition between the company
  1656
  and the Department. I am not sure that competition to-day will solve the problem, which is at present in its infancy. When I say that it is in its infancy, I mean that the Government and the Airship Guarantee Company have a scheme for producing an airship twice the size or more than double the size of any airship that has ever been produced in any country before. It will be more by consultation and co operation that we shall get more quickly forward at the present stage. This was foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for Air when he told us two weeks ago that we could pool more easily the airship knowledge between the Air Department and the Airship Guarantee Company, and that if the Air Ministry had the better design the Ministry would be prepared to adopt it, or, on the other hand, if the Airship Guarantee Company had the best design the Air Ministry would be prepared to adopt that.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who will judge which is the best design, because I think all experts on airships are, practically, in either the Ministry or in the Airship Guarantee Company. I should also like to ask him a question in regard to airship sheds. If we have two airships of five million cubic feet capacity produced, and the heavenly twins, I might call them, come out at the same time, will there be sufficient airship sheds not only to store these giant airships but to enable us to go on building more airships if there is a demand, as there probably will be, it these airships are successful? I understand that there are two airship sheds at Hawden, and that at Cardington the airship shed is being enlarged. Is the airship shed at Cardington being enlarged sufficiently to take the largest airship that may be laid down? We ought to take a long view, for it is possible that larger airships may come shortly.
  I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to lay down the Government airship at Cardington, where the airship shed is being enlarged. I understand that the enlargement of the airship shed there is not likely to be finished until the winter. Will it then be necessary to dismiss people who are working at present on R.33, and thereby cause considerable un-

  1657
  employment at Cardington, which has just got under way. They are now reconditioning R.33. In this country we have the R.36 and R.33, both of them of about two million cubic feet capacity, with a range of, perhaps, something under 2,000 miles. We may anticipate that the new airship to be produced will have a far greater radius, something like 3,000 miles, if we can be guided by what the ZR.3 did when it flew from Germany to America. It is important to keep one's eye on what is being done in America. I understand that to-day in America they have 14 airships, but only two, the ZR.1 and the ZR.3, which are big airships and have a large radius. I have seen in the Press lately a statement that it is proposed to send an airship from America to this country with mails in the summertime.
  I should like to ask a question in regard to mooring masts. I have seen a. new design of a mooring mast with a double arm, which has been brought out recently. Some arrangement might be come to, if possible, between the company and the Government, so that they should not fall out in regard to mooring masts. It is most important that whichever airship comes out first it should be able to moor at any mast, in any place. I understand from the Press that the company airship will probably come out in about 15 months' time, or perhaps a little later. I do not know when the Government airship is likely to come out, but I do not think it will be so soon as that.
  I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could inform me whether the bases abroad have been chosen from the strategical point of view or from the commercial point of view. It is of great importance if sheds are going to be built abroad for these giant airships that they should be built, if possible, at the end of the journey, so that the airship can refit before returning, say, from Australia to, this country. There. is a great opportunity for a new industry in this country. if the Government and the company can only press on and prove to the world the stability of the airship. In that case, it is possible that we might get orders, not only from the Dominions, but from other countries, and so help to solve the question of unemployment. Airships are vital to this country in order to bring the Dominions into closer connection with us, and I hope the Government will press on
  1658
  and do all they can to encourage the building of these airships.
  9.0 P.M.
  Colonel DAY: I begin my remarks with a sigh of relief, because I have risen persistently since 4 o'clock, and, consequently, I had almost commenced to imagine that my attempt to get into this Debate was hopeless. I had almost hoped that when I saw the Air Estimates they would have shown a large decrease, but they show a substantial increase. The might hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air has missed a most wonderful opportunity of proving himself a benefactor to humanity by showing that Estimates for a fighting Service such as the Air Service should, so many years after the War, start to decline instead of increasing.
  I would have liked to have seen the Estimates for the research department of civil aviation on the increase. As long as we have the Estimates for the ammunition and the armament operations of the Air Service increasing, we have the terror of another war at any time. In the cause of humanity, the Estimate should have shown a marked increase as regards civil research. There can be no question that our pilots are among the finest in the world. The records of last year show that over one million miles were flown, and we should see that civil aviation is sufficiently encouraged by the Government. Was sufficient support given to that glorious expedition of Squadron Leader MacLaren in his attempt to fly round the world I do not think that anything like the support was given to Squadron Leader MacLaren which should have been given.
  We are fast falling behind in the encouragement of civil aviation. Other countries are showing a much better example than we are in this respect France has voted nearly £600,000 for the, purpose of encouraging civil aviation. There can be no doubt that we must keep more in the forefront as far as civil aviation in the world is concerned. I would not cavil so much at the increase in the Air Estimates provided that there was a substantial decrease in the Estimates for the Navy and Army. Our experience in the late War was that the co-ordination of the flying services of the Navy and the Air Force was not at ail

  1659
  successful. Why attempt it again? I should think that the lesson of the War would have been sufficient, and that the Air Ministry should be run absolutely independently. I and other Members on these benches would like to see considerably less money spent on all the Services. The crux of the situation is: What is the present Government doing to reduce armaments? What is being done? What is happening to the Protocol and to the Washington Treaty? There is not now any very great disparity between France and ourselves. We have advanced while France has been standing still, and my opinion is that while the franc is where it is in the exchange we have nothing to fear from France. My own opinion, though I see the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) laughing—perhaps it is because he is thinking of the speed at which he travels himself and believes that the Air Force could travel in the same way—is that we should press France more to pay the debt which she owes us than to build aeroplanes which are a menace to the world. We on these benches would like to see not only the Air Estimates reduced hut also those of the other Services. While the Estimates for the fighting Services are increasing in this manner they are a glaring menace to humanity.
  Sir F. SYKES: I would first like to read from the OFFICIAL REPORT a short statement of the Secretary of State for Air in 1922, to allay a misapprehension under which, I understand, the tinder-Secretary of State is at present labouring in regard to the Cairo-Bagdad service. On the 21st March, 1922, the then Secretary of State said:
  "Dining the year we have established a line by air as a communication between Cairo and Bagdad. Both from the operational and the trading view this is a great advance."
  Later on he said:
  "In the flying sense we have almost continuous territory from Europe to Australia with great distances unbridgeable excepting by air. for example, Cairo to Bagdad or Basra-Karachi. These 2,000 miles have been flown in 13 hours. What we are doing now is that we are making this the practicing field for future and further developments of the experience we have obtained in regard to these links in our Imperial chain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1922; cols, 239 and 308, Vol. 152.]
  1660
  On these two statements I base my statement that this service was largely in order to gain experience to help commercial operations. I felt that that was a point which I would like to put straight. I spoke two weeks ago on the subject of Air Estimates, and I should like to add one or two words to what I then said. I think, as has been shown to-day, that the House as a whole is very indulgent to the air. It is not only because it recognises that in future these islands will be largely dependent upon the air for their defence. It is also partly owing to the technicalities involved in consideration of these problems. But I feel most strongly that it would be for the interests of the country, and also of the Service itself if these Estimates received very careful scrutiny year after year. This year we are voting £21,000,000 for the air. We want to know whether the policy being carried out is a sound one, and whether the money that is being allocated to it is being allocated in the best way to carry it into effect.
  With regard to the policy there are three alternatives. The first is, irrespective of other considerations, to build up as rapidly as possible the numerically largest uniformed personnel you can collect. The second is to expend your time and resources on the improvement of the technique of actual air operations, personnel and material. The first of course is the most human. It is the easiest, but I think it is a very short sighted one. It would only have any justification if it were believed to be possible by this means to attain to a reasonable degree of safety. It does not, and cannot, achieve real safety. The second alternative is to expend all our resources on the cultivation of flying ability. That is to achieve a constant extension of technical, operational developments. This unfortunately is an ideal which cannot yet be achieved. A purely aerial development of policy would leave us without any organised air defence force for immediate action. On the other hand both development in airman-ship and the creation of natural services would be directly responsive to such a policy. It would fulfil pacific and useful purposes of considerable imperial and international importance. The third policy is one of compromise between the two. The Secretary of State has shown

  1661
  in his speech that he is very much alive to the necessity for such a compromise, and we shall wait for next year's Estimates to see whether the promises which he has made are carried into effect. We are all absolutely convinced of the necessity for such action.
  Before sitting down I would like to call attention to one or two points. The first is in regard to the expansion of squadrons. I have no criticism other than that I should like to see more, and for less money. The money position is of great importance in this regard, and I am not very clear' upon the subject. It will be remembered that the Secretary of State when he made his statement two years ago, on the 26th June, 1923, on the expansion of the home defence force to 52 squadrons, forecasted an additional expenditure for the third year, covering both capital and maintenance, of £5,500,000. At the end of this year, the third year, we are to have, as I understand it, 25 of the 52 squadrons, and the Estimates show, I believe, an increase of £4,500,000 over those of two years ago. This leaves £1,000,000 of the amount forecasted for the further 27 squadrons. I would like to know whether there is any additional ground expenditure incurred in this connection or whether the original Estimate is still maintained? In regard to the squadrons themselves, for all reasons I should like to see that the actual flying effectiveness of the squadrons was of a higher standard. My reason for saying so is that I am of opinion that it is basically unsound to increase until you have achieved a sound standard of efficiency. Until you have done so, expansion should not take place. In this connection I think I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who raised this point, that it is most important that the Air Force should have its own engineering branch. It is becoming daily more important that the efficiency of the mechanics should be of a higher standard than could be reached under the old system, and I feel that the only way is to introduce a specialist engineering branch for the purpose.
  There are many other points, but the only one on which I will touch is that of the reserves. The Estimates show that there is a quadruple organisation for reserves, and these reserves are largely to teach civilians flying. There is the
  1662
  reserve proper, the special reserve, the auxiliary force, and the flying clubs. We all know that, ultimately, the only economic and efficient reserve is that which can be drawn from industrial life, but in the meantime the Estimates rightly provide for the State maintenance of reserves. Curiously enough, from having no reserves at all—there was not even an assessable record of the number of qualified pilots demobilised after the War—we have suddenly developed, and are going to pay for, four organisations, each apparently to do more or less the same thing. I cannot under stand why such a complicated, uneconomical and overlapping system was accepted when we could have adopted a simple organisation for the purpose. The civilian schools are those which in the past have given and still are giving refresher courses to qualify pilots with, I think, freedom from serious accident. They are admirably suited for the purpose, they could expand to almost any extent, and—a very important point—with expansion could be made to accept from the Government a lower fee per pilot. There is certainly room for the flying clubs, though it is my opinion they would do better to keep to flying for those who have already learnt to fly rather than attempt to teach flying. The success of the clubs depends upon safety, and it is very much better they should not embark upon a very difficult form of activity such as the teaching of flying.
  What about the other two forms of reserves—the Special Reserve and the Auxiliary Force? The Vote for these two forces provides £33,000 for permanent staff, and £5,000 for outfit, while I take it there are probably costs for land and buildings as well, and only £4,000 is taken for the reservists themselves. I think these two forms of reserves have other disadvantages in addition to their considerable cost, and the very small return from it. For instance, if you are going to enrol men who have a knowledge of the maintenance of aircraft, you are taking the men who, on mobilization, are most wanted in the factory. If you are riot going to enrol such men, you have to teach others to maintain machines, and you are teaching them on machines on which you are also teaching

  1663
  flying and therefore there will be great danger in the actual flying of those machines. In fact, you are inviting the disaster which follows the all-too-well known description of accidents—
  "Engine failure, followed by error of judgment on the part of the pilot."
  I think, therefore, for these reasons the Secretary of State would do well to concentrate his reserve training in the reserve proper and in the flying clubs, and cut out the other two. It is a point which I put to him for his consideration, because it seems to me that at present the position is one of overlapping, and is not an economical arrangement. They are only two more military organisations without commensurate return, and if we can have simplicity of organisation we should strive to attain it. I should like, in conclusion, to say, now that the Secretary of State has an extended period of office before him, I hope in view of this Debate, and of all that is going on, he will consider a question which almost every Member who spoke to-day has raised, that of a re-allocation of the funds at his disposal in the direction of greater research and experiment, and extended civil flying throughout the world. Enormous economies are, I believe, available if the right hon. Gentleman will institute a careful and searching inquiry into the whole of his organisation, and these economies, I hope, he will he able to throw into the scale on the side of research, experiment, and operation throughout the world in o order to develop flying as a whole, and to develop those communications which are of such vast importance Imperially and internationally.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: This very interesting and most important subject has been discussed to-day from almost every angle, and the few words which I shall utter will I hope be entirely noncontroversial. Whatever Britain's status in the air may be, there is no denial of the fact that we take the greatest possible care in training the finest material it is possible to obtain as pilots, in the organisation of our aerodromes, and in the manufacture, the testing, and the retesting of our aeroplanes and engines. It is universally agreed that no country pays more attention to these all important details. I am quite convinced, as I think the House is, that the formation of light
  1664
  aeroplane clubs will do much in advancing this great science, and will obtain for this country a steady output of trained pilots of the right kind who may be of enormous use in the future. As far as the civil side is concerned, that seems to be the side which, apart from certain discussions on the position of the Navy, seems to have interested the House most to-day. On the civil side, although there are countries which may have flown more miles than we have, there is no country, I think, which has reduced the risk to a minimum as much as has this country in the flying of civil planes. The engines used in our planes for civil flying are all made for war service. I do not know' whether all the Members of the House are aware that every one is fitted on a war basis. Every engine which flies a civil plane from Croydon or any other part of England has to do an extraordinarily strenuous test of 100 hours. That may be one of the reasons why civil flying in this country has been so reliable.
  I should like to see more money spent on civil aviation. As far as I have been able to see on more than one visit, the system carried out at Croydon would be very difficult to improve. The engines and planes are overhauled every night and after every journey to and from Croydon. But I should like to suggest—I do not know whether it is impossible to make any alteration—that Croydon does seem to be a very bad site, and if it were possible for the Ministry to find a site nearer the heart of London, where less time is wasted in getting away and getting up, it would be of enormous advantage to the civil flying of this country. As in the quality of our output in the air, both in the pilots and materials we need, I want to make sure that that policy is maintained.
  In France there is a huge output in the manufacture of engines and planes. I personally know of one firm in France which had an order last year for over 2,000, which makes it very easy to keep up the continuity of work, and the reason I have got up to-night is to ask the Minister—and I believe we have his whole-hearted sympathy in the suggestion—if it is possible to guarantee some similar continuity of work in this country, so that orders can be sent out on something like a three years' basis. At

  1665
  present what happens is this: Orders are sent out by the Air Ministry, and the firms carrying out those orders are under high pressure to complete the orders before the end of the financial year, which is roughly at the end of March. When these orders are completed, there is a lull throughout the whole of the manufacturing firms in the country and a gap in the work, which must tend towards unemployment. It is, at the same time, from the point of view of the works, uneconomic when these rush orders are put in. In these circumstances we know we cannot buy on the same basis as when orders are spread over a wider period.
  From every point of view I am quite convinced that., if some method could be arrived by which a certain continuity of work could be carried on, even without asking for more orders, if the firms concerned can only know what they were likely to get spread over a term of three years instead of as it is now some seven or eight months, it would be better from the point of view of economy in buying and still better for the skilled workmen employed in these places. Let me assure the House that the skilled mechanic takes a deal of training and is very difficult to replace, and it is only fair to a man of that calibre that he should be able, when he takes on a job, to feel more or less certain that the work will go on throughout the year. Finally, may I venture to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on again taking to the air, in the forthcoming Recess, in his visits to the Near East. I have had the opportunity, on more than one occasion, of being at different parts of the Continent when he has arrived, and I assure the House that his visits and the fact that he did fly instead of going by train and boat did much to draw attention throughout the Continent to the very high efficiency of the Air Force, and added very much to the prestige of Britain in the air. I am convinced this will be carried further in his coming trip to the Near East, and I wish him bon voyage.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his personal references to me in his speech. We are drawing to the end of what I think has been a very interesting, and, certainly from my point of view, a very useful Debate. I should like at the outset to thank the House for the very sympathetic attitude they have
  1666
  shown. During the time—I hope it will be a short time—during which I am going to occupy the attention of hon. Members, shall attempt to deal with the greater part of the very numerous questions which have been raised in the course of these two Debates. I can assure any hon. Member that if I fail to deal with any particular question at this time, I will see that a full answer is sent to him from the Air Ministry in the course of the next day or two. Let me begin with the speech which was made a fortnight ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who followed my opening observations. There were two things I rather regretted in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which on the whole was, as all his speeches are, a very admirable one and not unsympathetic. The right hon. Gentleman, the House will remember, dissociated himself from what I said as to the continuity of air policy. I vent need to say that in the field of air defence there had been a most remarkable continuity of policy shown by all three parties concerned in it, and I did not think there had ever been a question of national defence of great importance in which so conspicuous an agreement had been shown. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my observations, said that I overstated the case, and that so far as he was concerned it would be his duty to get the hon. Members behind him to vote against the Motion before the House, that he and they took no responsibility for these Estimates, that they would throw the responsibility on Members of this side of the House, and that he and his Friends protested against them. Well, I have taken the trouble to look up speeches that were made by Members sitting on this bench a year ago when Mr. Leach and Lord Thomson introduced the Air Estimates for last year. Time after time these two Gentlemen and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Colonial Secretary said that, as far as the first stage of the home expansion scheme was concerned, they took full responsibility for carrying it into effect. Further than that, not only did they say time after time that they were continuing the expansion scheme that I had initiated the previous year, but actually during the remaining months between the Estimates and the General Election they took decision after

  1667
  decision, approved by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, upon the main items of expenditure in this year's Estimates which are directly responsible for the increase in the greater part of them.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the contention I am now making, he will find that, in almost every case where there is an increase of expenditure in this year's Estimates, it is due to decisions that were taken when Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach were in office and when the right. hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can give him case after case—aerodromes bought, beginnings made with the formation of squadrons—the decisions for which were taken when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and when Lord Thomson was my predecessor. That being so, I am inclined to think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in a Debate that took place last night, spoke a very true word when he said:
  "I do not wish to interrupt, but surely no one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary"—
  that was his hon. Friend who was last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—
  "the change in frame of mind that occurs on a transference across the Floor of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March; col. 1425, Vol. 181.]
  We have had speaker after speaker from the opposite benches, and no fewer than four speakers from the Front Opposition Bench, holding up their hands in horror at this increase in the Air Estimates, pointing to our military extensions, and the hindrance we are creating to the cause of disarmament, when almost every single item in these Estimates was approved by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the benches opposite.
  There was another contention that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, on which I should like to say a word. He said to me, "Look at these Air Estimates—£21,000,000 to-day, 26 Home Defence squadrons. They will continue to rise and rise, and eventually, when your programme is complete, we shall be asked to spend no less than £50,000,000 a year upon Air Estimates alone." I am glad
  1668
  to be able to inform the House that there is no foundation whatever for a statement of that kind. First of all, the £21,000,000 that the House is now asked to authorise is not only for the Home Defence programme, but for the Fleet Air Arm, the services in the Middle East, the Army co-operation squadrons, and the other squadrons in other parts of the world. Secondly, it surely must be obvious to every hon. Member that, as the Force expands, so the overhead charges will tend, as they always do, to decrease. There is another reason why what the right hon. Gentleman said is altogether inaccurate, and that is this: In the early years of an expansion scheme of this kind, you will have large outlays upon capital expenditure, for the buying of aerodromes, for instance, and the building of barracks: and there comes a time, after a. year or two, when you still have a capital expenditure going on, and you also have going on the maintenance expenditure for the squadrons you have formed. But gradually the capital expenditure comes to an end, and then you only have the maintenance for the actual squadrons. The right hon. Gentleman again shakes his head, I do not know on what account, because I think what I am saying is quite unanswerable.
  So it comes about that in these early years we obtain the aerodromes and the barracks, but in a year or two's time these items of capital expenditure will fall off, and we shall only have the maintenance expenditure to meet. The result will be that., while I admit that the Air Estimates are bound to rise to some extent as the home expansion scheme develops—as Lord Thomson, in the White Paper circulated last year, himself said they would rise—they will rise to nothing like the £50,000,000 suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the figure which was mentioned just now by my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) a ill be much nearer the mark. While I am not now going to tie myself down to any definite figure for the future, I will say this, that the Estimates should not rise even to half the amount suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope they will be less even than that.
  Having made these observations on the contentions of the right hon. Gentleman

  1669
  the Member for Colne Valley, I now come to a number of other questions that have been raised during the Debate, but first let me say how glad I think we have all been, during the course of the Debate, to have had not only so many interesting speeches, but so many interesting maiden speeches. There was the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage); there was the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Brigadier-General Warner), and, really, there has been almost a record number of interesting speeches made on these Estimates. A number of miscellaneous points have been raised, and I propose now to deal with a certain number of them. Then, having dealt with those miscellaneous points, I shall hope to say a word or two at somewhat greater length upon some of the bigger questions that have emerged during the discussion.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam, whom I am glad to see in his place, is, perhaps, of all Members of this House, as well worthy of attention in an Air Debate as anyone. The hon. and gallant Member raised several very important questions. He asked me whether we were not going too much for numbers and not enough for quality and technique. It must be a matter of opinion as to what kind of increase in quantity one should adopt in any particular year, but I should have thought that, so far as quantity was concerned, no one could accuse us of going too fast. If hon. Members will recall what is happening this year, they will remember that we are only forming a very limited number of new squadrons, and that, at the end of this year, we shall still have only half our home defence squadrons actually formed. We are going slowly intentionally, not only on the ground of expenditure—and quite obviously there must be a limit to the increase in expenditure which this House would tolerate—but we are also going slowly with the definite intention of making the foundation as sure as we can, and of ensuring that the technique and the quality shall be as high as possible. I am inclined to think that we are fairly holding the balance between quantity on the one hand and quality on the other. I should like to go into greater detail on the question with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I think I can show him that
  1670
  we really are keeping in mind what he wishes to keep in mind, and what we all of us wish to keep in mind, namely, that quality in the Air Force is more important than anything else.
  Then my hon. and gallant Friend raised a further point about reserves—again a very important question, probably more important for the Air Force than for any other of the fighting Services. He asked why it was that we had four reserves instead of two. The Special Reserve and the Auxiliary Air Force Reserve are, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, reserves of a different kind altogether from the other two. They are much more in the nature of, shall I say second-line, or shall I say a territorial line, for the Air Force, and I should have thought that there was everything to be said for having this variety of formation of reserves—the reserves of the Civil Aviation Schools, the reserves created by the light aeroplane clubs, and then, again, reserves in the form of units, whether Special Auxiliary, Special Reserve, or Auxiliary Air Force units. In questions of this kind, with a Service such as the Air Force, I admit that we have to make experiments, and I am not prepared to say that any single experiment is necessarily going to be successful, but I do think that on the whole we have been wise to have this variety, if only for the chance of proving out which of these four kinds of reserves is the more useful from the point of view of air defence.
  Then there was another of our great air experts in this House, the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who is as well qualified to speak on air questions even as the hon. Member for Hallam. As is always his habit, he asked me a number of very important and technical questions. He asked me whether we were promoting young men. I think he would find, if he would go through the Air Force list with me, that the age of Air Force officers, even in the senior ranks, is much lower than it is in either of the other two Services, and I believe I could satisfy him that we are promoting by merit, and that youth is having its full share in the higher appointments. Then he made some serious criticisms upon the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. I am quite aware that, to

  1671
  anyone who is not following very closely the work of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, the sums that we are spending on it may appear to be very high. But it is my firm belief that that money is being very well spent, for, after all, it is at Farnborough that the greater part of the practical air research of the Service is being carried out, research into questions of safety, research into the speed and manœuvre-ability of machines, and it would, in my view, be an irreparable blow to research and to aeronautical progress, both military and civil, if the activities of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough were restricted or abolished. I would ask any hon. Member interested in the question who wishes to investigate it further whether he would not at some time convenient to himself go down to Farnborough, and I think he would then judge that I am in no way overstating the value of that institution both to military and civil aviation.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Have you had £2,000,000 worth of real research in the last five years?
  Sir S. HOARE: I should not like to go back five years. I should like to restrict myself to this, that on the two occasions upon which I have introduced the Air Estimates I am quite confident that the money I have asked for is going to he well spent.
  Then the hon. and gallant Gentlman the Member for Hertford asked me whether the time had not come to set up in the Air Force a special branch of engineers. That is a question to which a great deal of attention has been given ever since the Air Ministry was started, and upon the whole we have come to the conclusion that, with a small service like the Royal Air Force, it is better not to have too many Departments, very often watertight Departments, of specialists, and it is better, therefore, to get the knowledge of aeronautical engineering diffused as widely as you can through the whole force. On that account We have up to the present been opposed to the institution of a special engineering branch. I think we can point, as evidence of the justification of the policy we are pursuing, to the undeniable fact that
  1672
  accidents due to engine trouble are tending to decrease at a greater rate than accidents due to other causes. That being so, and for other reasons into which I could go if I had time, we have on the whole, I think, been wise not to set up a special Branch of that kind.
  Another series of questions was put to me by the hon. Members for Hertford and Bedford with reference to airships. We are taking the greatest precautions as to tests, and we are actualy breaking up one of the older airships, R.80, for the express purpose of making tests. With reference to fabrics, there, again, we are sending one of the re-conditioned older airships out to Egypt at the end of the summer for the express purpose of seeing if a tropical climate is injurious to the fabric. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bedford, who is naturally and rightly interested in airship development, sitting for a constituency in which the great airship port of the future is going to be situated, put a number of questions to me with reference, for instance, to employment. He said, "Are we taking steps to ensure that the men we are employing at Cardington at present should not be turned adrift when a particular stage of airship travel is reached?" I am already taking steps to make the transfer from one stage to another as easy as possible and to avoid the risk of turning adrift men, many of them experts, who are at present engaged upon airship construction and development.
  Some other questions were asked me with reference to the double experiment which is being made, that is to say, the building of the two airships, one by the Air Ministry and one by a private company. We are doing everything we can to pool all the available expert knowledge and make it as easy as possible for both sides to make use of it. I am also doing everything I can to give the freest scope possible to the experiment. I f I may give the House a single example of what I am doing, I have only in the course of the last few weeks set up a technical committee, composed of three of the best known aeronautical experts in the country, to whom questions can be referred for impartial decision—for none of the gentlemen on the committee will be officials of the Air Ministry—by both the Air Ministry and the construction company.

  1673
  There was a series of questions put to me by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan, Jones) in connection with the education of the boys in the Royal Air Force. and he asked me whether we were taking adequate care and trouble with the education of the boys who are going to be the mechanics of the future Air Force. So far as I can judge the education which is being given to the boys at Haltoo is as good as any education which is being given to boys of a similar age in any school in the country. I spent several years of my life upon the Education Committee of the London County Council, and I remember the first time I went to Halton I went feeling that one might discover a good many gaps in the system of the education we were giving our boys. I was amazed by the excellence of the two or three years' training they had, and I would ask any hon. Member, particularly the hon. Member for Caerphilly, to do what several hon. Members on those benches did when I was in office before and make a visit to Halton, where they can judge for themselves whether or not I am justified in giving this testimony to the excellence of the education that is given.
  10.0 P.M.
  I now come to a series of very important questions which were raised by a number of hon. Members in connection with home and Empire defence generally. There was, for instance, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). I am sure the House was deeply interested to hear a distinguished staff officer like my lion. and gallant Friend give his views upon some of the great problems of home and Empire defence with which we are faced. Particularly must the House have been interested to hear what he said about the necessity of making our Empire defence much more mobile than it has been in the past. In my opening speech on the Estimates I made a suggestion or two upon those lines, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are investigating very carefully this very important problem of a more mobile defence for the Empire, and by means of a more mobile defence, of saving large quantities of men and money now tied up in immobile defence. May I remind him of the example I gave a fortnight ago when I pointed to the advantages of mobile air defence in Iraq and in the Middle East. So far, there-
  1674
  fore, as his observations upon mobile Empire defence are concerned, I can assure him that he will have the most sympathetic attention of the Air Staff and the Air Ministry.
  Then there were a number of other Members who raised a no less important question as to whether we are making the best use of our financial resources, and not for the first time in one of these defence Debates more than one hon. Member has said, you will never be able to make full use of the money available for home and Imperial defence until you have a single Ministry of Defence which will co-ordinate the expenditure between the three Departments and, what is not less important, will co-ordinate the policy between the three Departments. I am not going to say that at some time or other the country will not come to a single Ministry of Defence. I think if there were no past history, if one was starting entirely afresh in a new country, one would probably start with a single Ministry of Defence. Here I have always taken the view that any great change—and it will be a very great change—of this kind will have to come about from below rather than be super-imposed from the top. By that I mean that it will have to come about as a result of better co-ordination between the three Departments, closer association between their staffs, better pooling of knowledge between them, a more constant intercourse between them, whether it be at the Committee of Imperial Defence or whether it be in a number of other Departmental Committees that arc constantly sitting to consider questions that concern all three Departments. As a result of this closer association between the three Services, you will, stage by stage, build up a fabric that will gradually come much nearer to a Ministry of Defence and a single control than anything that we are likely to get by suddenly creating a new superman or a new office of supermen for the three existing Departments.
  It is significant that when, in the Committee of Imperial Defence, we went very fully into this question two years ago, I think I am right in saying that not a single well-known expert nor a single public man who had been directly associated with defence problems was in favour of setting up, here and now, a single Ministry. That being so, I hold

  1675
  the view that the right course to take is to help on every step that is likely to bring the three Ministers more closely together, that is likely to bring their three Chiefs of Staff more closely together, and is likely to bring their three Departments more closely together. So far as I am concerned, I have done what I could to carry that policy into effect, and I am glad to say that in the Air Ministry we have now a certain number of distinguished Army officers working in the Department and we have also some Naval officers. So far as the Committee of Imperial Defence is concerned, again as the result of the so-called Salisbury Committee of two years ago, there is now a. much closer association between the three Chiefs of Staff than there ever was before that Committee came into being when we were last in office. I am not giving away any confidential information in saying that on more than one important occasion the three Chiefs of Staff have taken collective responsibility for the advice on some big strategic question that they were offering the Government.
  I think, therefore, that the House can rest assured that the closer intercourse, the closer association between the three service Departments, is upon the whole getting better and better. That leads me to say that, whilst I sit by and listen with interest and sometimes with a certain measure of amusement to the annual battle that goes on when Navy and Air Estimates are discussed, upon the question of what is called the fleet air arm, I take the view that that question has become obsolete. I have never regarded it as one of the more important questions of military aviation, and I always regret the prominence that has been given to it in these Debates. I take the view that, however much the battle may continue in Whitehall, however much it may continue in this House, actually upon the spot, upon the aircraft carriers, the difficulties are getting less and less, there is growing up a better understanding between the officers of the two Services and between the staffs of the two Services, and if we can only let the controversy be, and not constantly year by year bring it into great prominence in this House, the difficulties that loomed so large last year, two years ago and three years ago, will cease to exist altogether.
  1676
  There were several specific questions put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A Sinclair) in a very interesting and able speech, if he will allow me to say so. They were questions connected with the bigger problems of air, military and naval defence. The hon. and gallant Member alluded to some remarks that I made two years ago, as to the responsibilities of the Air Force. He asked me what those responsibilities actually are. Let me refer him to the Report of the Salisbury Committee and the Report of the Balfour Committee. He will there find that the responsibilities of the Air Force are set out, shortly, I admit, but none the less clearly. I will answer his question in a single sentence. The responsibilities of the Air Force are now three in number: In the first place the defence of this country against air attack; secondly, the provision of Air Forces for the Army and Navy and the garrisons abroad; and thirdly, the independent Air Command in Iraq. Those are the three responsibilities that have been imposed upon the Air Force by the Committee of Imperial Defence and by the Cabinet. There was another question I was asked in this connection, and a very important one, as to what is the standard of the Air Force up to which we are now building? Was it, the hon. and gallant Member asked, a one-power standard? I have always taken the view that a phrase like "the one-power standard" is a somewhat dangerous and objectionable phrase. After all, with aeroplanes you are comparing machines that may differ in size, in speed, in manœuvrability. On that account I have never taken the view that this House or the country ought to adopt in so many words what is called a one-power standard.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I hate to interrupt because the right hon. Gentleman is answering me so courteously. As a matter of fact, I did not use that phrase. I suggested that mere comparison of the gross number of machines in one country with the gross number in another was very misleading.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member. If that be so, he and I are in full agreement on the question, and I do not think I

  1677
  need pursue it further. I can assure him that we are carrying that view into effect, and that we are not attempting to set up actual numbers against actual numbers. We are trying to do what we said we would do, and what the Imperial Conference agreed that we should do, two years ago, namely, set up an Air Force adequate to protect this country against the strongest Air Force within striking distance. There is a question that comes back to my mind, as I am dealing with the question of Imperial defence, that was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney), who always, and very rightly, interests this House with the most important speeches that he makes upon the Service Estimates, and I am sure that everyone who listened to him must have been greatly interested with the views that he put before hon. Members.
  There was one conclusion with which, I may say in passing, I did not find myself in agreement. It was his view that the Air Ministry and Admiralty should be, here and now, combined. I am not quite sure whether he informed us if it was the Admiralty to absorb the Air Ministry, or the Air Ministry to absorb the Admiralty. I am inclined to think. knowing a good deal about the Air Ministry and a little bit about the Admiralty, that either the one or the other would be much too indigestible for the other to absorb, and I should have thought if there was going to be an absorption of Service Departments, that that absorption could come about when the ultimate ideal of a Ministry of Defence is actually carried into effect, and we have, whenever that be possible, a single Department and a single Minister dealing with these various questions of defence and strategical policy.
  There are only two other questions to which I should like to allude before I sit down. One or two hon. Members have alluded with regret to the fact that we have been very unfortunate, as a country, in regard to winning any of the international air races in recent times. I am very sorry that that is so, but, at the same time, it should be remembered that, if you are going to set yourself to win one of these international competitions, it does mean the expenditure of a very large sum of money. The sum, for instance, as
  1678
  I understand, that was spent by the United States Government last year in winning the Schneider Cup was a sum that really was a very big figure, and, unfortunately, I find myself in the position of having to pay, and to pay heavily, for a great number of absolute necessities in regard to national defence, with the result that I am left with very little money for prizes and competitions, either national or international. But I admit that, if we had the money, we certainly ought to do more in the way of encouraging British competitors, and I hope that, as the finances of the country become less stringent, we shall be able to do more in the future. [Interruption.] I would remind my hon. Friend that in some countries of Europe more trouble is taken than in others to balance the Budget. What I am going to try to do this year is to give support to certain long-distance flights within the Empire. Last year there was a gallant attempt made to fly round the world by Squadron-Leader MacLaren. I am sorry that attempt failed. This year I hope to be able to organise one or two long-distance flights within the Empire itself. The two flights which I contemplate are in Africa. It will take some little time, but at any rate during the year I hope to be able to organise one flight between Cairo and Capetown, and another between Cairo and Lake Chad. That is only a beginning, and year after year it is hoped we may make these long-distance flights and show the Lag in the air over a great part, of the British Empire.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded to the flight that I myself am going to make in the course of a few weeks. As the House knows, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I are going to make a journey to Iraq. We shall make use of all the flying facilities available. In the course of eight or nine days in a series of journeys we hope to cover a distance which, I suppose, but for the invention of flying would take us almost as many months, and even then one might not have been able to penetrate the places that we shall visit. I think I have dealt with all the questions that have been raised, at any rate, with all the more important. If I have failed to deal with any, I shall see that my hon. Friends receive full answers from my Department.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: What about the help to civil aviation?
  Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised the question of help to civil aviation, and seems to take the view that we should he doing more than we are. He quoted the figure of £300,000 a year, and said that that was only something like 2 per cent. of the total expenditure under the Air Estimates. Other hon. Members have taken the same point. But that is not the full story. If hon. Members will go through the Estimates in detail they will find that we are spending a great deal more money on civil aviation than this £300,000 a year. For instance, we are spending a large sum upon airships, a great part of which is directly civil aviation expenditure. We are spending a large sum upon research, a great part of which is for civil aviation. I think I should be right in saying that, so far from spending only £300,000 a year on civil aviation, we are spending much more like £1,250,000, in one way or another. But, even so, I am quite prepared to admit, and I readily admit, that I should like to spend a great deal more money upon civil aviation. However, I am in the unfortunate position of not having all the money I should like for the encouragement, of aviation in every direction. I very much hope that as the urgent necessities of home defence are gradually met year after year, there will be more funds available for what, I admit, is almost as necessary, namely, the encouragement of British civil aviation, whether it be by subsidies to civil air transport lines or whether it be in any other direction. I have now, I think, dealt with the greater part of the questions raised during the Debate, and I would venture to suggest to the House that we might now get this Vote and proceed to the next three Votes before the House.
  Mr. T. HENDERSON: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of two points which have been made perfectly clear to me during this Debate. The first point is that it is perfectly clear, I think, to the person usually called the man-in-the-street, that there has been a tremendous increase in the destructive powers of air armaments, and the second point is that the air
  1680
  defence is really an attacking force. Arising out of these points the question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, Has he had any conversation with other State Departments as to the necessity for providing shelters for the civilian population, so that they will have some protection from the increased destructive powers of an invading air force? I understand that the best advice would come from the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, and I want him to tell us whether any arrangement has been made, or is likely to be made, for that purpose.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I want to ask another question. Last year, I understand, Lord Thomson visited the Middle East. I do not know what was the object of his visit. Are we to understand that it will be an annual sort of business for the Air Minister to have a trip to the Middle East to see how things are going on? I should also like to know how many aeroplanes will go with the Minister, what will be the cost and on what Vote the charge will be borne?
  Sir S. HOARE: With the permission of the House I can answer those questions. The Air Ministry is considering the question raised by the hon. Member opposite as to shelters in time of emergency, but I cannot specify the exact form. In reference to the question by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I should certainly say it will not be the practice of Ministers to make a journey of that kind every year. I imagine Lord Thomson went for very much the same reason that I am going, namely, to see for himself on the spot how far the policy of garrison by air is succeeding, and also to see whether it is possible to make any savings in the very large expenditure that is now falling on the British taxpayers in that connection. Those are the objects. As to what Vote this expenditure will fall upon I am not able to give that information off-hand. I would point out, however, that I am not asking the House on this occasion to vote my salary, and therefore the hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising this question again if he wishes to do so.
  Question, "That '36,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Second Resolution read a Second time.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£3,412,000," and to insert instead thereof "£3,411,900."
  I move this reduction in outer to raise a matter with regard to the pay of the Air Force, and particularly the question of the Air Force cadets. A very fine type of man has entered for this cadet force, and according to an answer that I received in February last, they receive a daily rate of pay more than the gentlemen cadets at Sandhurst, and certainly more than naval cadets, because they get no pay at all until they go to sea. The point I want to raise is that I understand the rate of pay and the messing allowances they receive are not sufficient to maintain them, and, consequently, it is necessary for their parents to supplement this to a considerable extent. The amount is such that in a year, taking the cost of uniform and equipment, a. poor man whose son does riot obtain a prize cadetship is not able to put his son into this Service.
  This is a very undemocratic system, and it does not obtain in the American Air Service or the Japanese Air Service, where there are no fees for the cadets, and I see no reason why poor lads of great promise should be debarred from these positions because their parents have not the means of keeping them during their training. For these reasons I consider the pay and other allowances should be raised so that the most efficient boys may be able to enter the Air Service. I press the Air Minister for an answer and a declaration of policy on this matter. I may say that I have been addressing successive Governments on this point for two or three years past, and I find the only way to get anything done is to keep on pressing this matter. I hope in what I am doing I shall have the sympathy of hon. Members in all parts of the House, because I consider that this matter should be put right without any further delay.
  Major CRAWFURD: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so for the reasons which have just been given by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Sir S. HOARE: With respect to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that we do not give a chance to parents of limited means, I can assure him that we are doing a good deal. While one does not wish to compare one Service with another, I think he will find that in the Air Service we compare very favourably with the two other Services. Let me give a single example. Roy mechanics are trained at Halton, while cadets are trained at Cranwell. Every year we take a certain number of the most talented boys from Halton and give them a free education at Cranwell That, in itself, shows that we do offer an open career to boys of talent. We give six free cadetships a year at Cranwell, and we give free places to boys of promise and talent at Halton.
  With respect to the question of pay and allowances given to the cadets at Cranwell, I may say that that question is now being considered by a Government Committee which is going into the whole question of pay and allowances in the three Services. As far as I know, I do not think that there is evidence in proof of the contention made by the hon. and gallant Member. I have had no cases brought to my attention where parents Lave been debarred from taking advantage of the opportunity of their boys being educated at Cranwell. If the hon. and gallant Member would give me any particular cases I will look into them. We are considering the whole question of pay and allowances at Cranwell, but it is a question which cannot be considered by itself. It has to be taken into account in correspondence with the pay and allowances of, say, Sandhurst, Woolwich and Dartmouth. Until the Government have come to a decision upon the recommendations of the Committee, I cannot give a more definite answer than that we are fully alive to keeping fees down as low as we can, and giving an open career to talent in whatever walk of life it is found.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the amount which it actually costs the parents to enable their boys to go through the course? Can he also tell us' what percentage of the young men come from ordinary council secondary schools? The House will agree that if we are to get the best possible Service to compete with similar Services in other

  1683
  countries, who are concentrating enormously on the efficiency of the Air Service, we must be sure that we are getting the very best young men available: young men who have the necessary character, courage and stamina for this most important Service. The House ought to be satisfied on this point before it passes the Vote.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I take a very different view from that which has been expressed from the other side. We have at the present time an Income Tax of 2s. in the £ because of the upkeep of our armed forces. If we have in this country a certain number of persons who are prepared to pay for the privilege of serving the country, I see no reason why the State should not take advantage of that fact. It is quite obvious that we want boys of talent, but if there is equality of talent as between the person who is prepared to pay for the privilege of serving the State and the person who is not able to pay for the privilege of serving the State, I see no reason why the State should not benefit. I very much deprecate the Government giving way to what the hon. Members on the other side would term the democratic spirit. The state should make the best bargain that it can, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Air will not be led away by the sentimental fallacies of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
  Major GLYN: Before this Vote is disposed of, I would like to say a word about the system of education in the Air Force, because I think that the Air Force has set an example to the other Services in establishing at Halton and Cranwell a system of training boys who come from elementary schools and passing them into the cadet service. If the other Services would follow the example set by the Royal Air Force, we should be able to get a larger number of entrants from all classes of the population of boys eminently fitted to serve their country I think that the action of the Air Ministry in encouraging boys from the elementary and secondary schools is one to be followed, and I hope that they will have an increasing number of entrants from the elementary schools to go into the Royal Air Force, because those who know the system cannot but
  1684
  recognise the enormous progress made by the educational branch. One small advantage is that those engaged in the education of the boys and cadets do not pretend to be officers. They are civilians and are proud to be civilians, but they bring an atmosphere into the education of the cadets and the boys which is very healthy. I think that that is a matter which may well be copied by both the Navy and the Army.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am inclined to think that the right policy for the Department is something between that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). It is that a large number of the cadets should come in from families who can pay for it. The amount is not very high. At the same time, as in the secondary schools there is a certain number of free places given to scholars from the elementary schools, so also facilities should be given for clever boys from Halton to get to Cranwell. If the hon. Member were to discuss the question with me I think that I should convince him that we are in very close touch both with the Board of Education and the local education authorities, and that we are getting a substantial number of intelligent boys from the secondary schools.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the actual cost to the parents?
  Sir S. HOARE: The actual cost is £75 a year, but apart from that we provide a number of free places for intelligent boys.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to put the House to any trouble, in this matter. I agree with what the Air Service has been doing, but if I have the fortune to catch your eye when the occasion arises I hope to raise the matter in connection with the other two Services next week.
  Question, "That '£3,412,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Third Resolution read a Second time.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£2,572,000" and to insert instead thereof "£2,571,900."

  1685
  I would first like to ask the Minister why he cannot find anything in this large sum for works buildings and lands for defences for the new naval base at Singapore? The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Burney), I am sure, will support me in this matter. I will not argue as to the advisability or otherwise of the naval base at Singapore. I am going on the assumption that a base will be constructed there for the Navy, and it is obvious that any base in a possible war zone, if it is to be defended at all, must have powerful air defences. This applies peculiarly to Singapore, where, as a matter of fact, the Straits could be made perfectly secure by a combination of air defences, submarines and long range artillery without the need for any large surface ships at all. Such a combination would prevent raids either by day or night through the Straits of Malacca. I have raised this matter in questions, and as far as I can gather from the official 'answers no allowance is made in the Estimates for the establishment of an air station at Singapore; if such allowance is made, I cannot discover it. We are commencing to build this great naval base, and it is self-evident that we must have air defences there, and I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman why no provision has been made for works, lands and buildings for any aerodromes or other aerial stations at Singapore?
  I wish to raise another point on this Vote. A war with the greatest air Power in the world is, of course, improbable, but nevertheless we take it into consideration as a justification for this great expenditure of money. In the first hours of any such war the principle objective would be the opposing side's aerodromes and aerial bases. Therefore, fighting bases and refitting bases for the Air Force should not be in the South of England, as they are at present. It is strategically wrong. The main aerial bases should be well up North, and the only stations in the South should be refuelling stations or stations where aeroplanes could land to take on supplies of bombs, additional crew and so forth, and these stations should be of a temporary nature, capable of being moved about in the event of their locality being discovered. I ask for an assurance
  1686
  that this matter is not being overlooked. Experience in the Admiralty shows that there is a sort of inertia which leads to the continuance of existing base establishments. As an example, for some years after the end of the War we continued to spend money on certain bases on the North-east coasts of Scotland and England, still aiming at a potential enemy, who had become impotent as the result of the War. It was only after some years it was realised that the centre of naval power had shifted first to the Mediterranean and then to the Pacific, and it took years to convince the Admiralty that it was useless to provide these bases on the North-East coast, but that the provision should be made in relation to the Mediterranean and the Pacific. The same thing may apply in the case of the Air Force, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to fight for recognition of the fact that the first consideration in connection with an aerial base should be the strategical consideration and not the fact that a base already exists in a certain place, that the officers have settled down in the neighbourhood and know it well and that they find it troublesome to move further up north. The whole policy of the Government in air matters is based on the possibility of attack by the strongest air force in Europe, and we should place our bases in the most suitable strategical position to meet that contingency.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I would like some information with regard to the expenditure Which is now proposed. I happen to know Halton camp very well, and I realise that we have to have expenditure before we can get efficiency in the Air Service. At the present time a great number of the personnel is housed in separate buildings and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State should inform us in his reply how much of the sum now asked for is to be devoted to permanent buildings.
  Mr. RADFORD: I rise to ask a question with regard to the item of £3,800,000 included in this huge amount. I should like to ask what steps are taken by his Department in the purchase of land for aerodromes and to be assured

  1687
  that they buy land which is suitable and at the right price. It will be within the recollection of the House that some years ago a big tract of land was bought in Scotland which proved to be utterly unsuitable for its purpose. The money was lost entirely, and I think the House should have some information and be assured that not only that the lands now being purchased are suitable, that they are being bought at the best low market price and that estate agents and valuers are employed to conduct negotiations, or whether the purchasers of these lands are officers of the Department who may not be qualified to judge of their real value.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the projected French air place at Cherbourg, and he replied that his attention had been brought to it, and that the total force of the station there was one fighting squadron. It is a very vast affair. I wish to ask whether in any of the aerodromes which are to be bought under this Vote he has taken steps for protection against bombing attacks. If these aerodromes are to be situated on the south coast within an hour's reach, it seems preposterous they should have no protection whatever. Is the right hon. Gentleman conducting any experiments to guard, not only against heavy bombs which may be dropped by ones or twos, but night bombs which may be dropped in their thousands near the hangars?
  Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked for information about Singapore. The position is this, that it is not proposed to involve ourselves in any expenditure at the moment, for the time has not yet come.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are no machines?
  Sir S. HOARE: No machines either. But in due course, as the programme for the defence of Singapore develops, an item will appear in the Estimates for the air defences necessary there, and for the equipment of the aerodrome. Then the hon. and gallant Member asked a question about the location of our squadrons. I can assure him that we take into account the points he has raised, and so
  1688
  far as possible we are getting out of the fighting area training squadrons and organisations of that kind and are basing the fighting and bombing squadrons in the area which will be most convenient for their operations. I agree that that is one of the most important questions to be taken into account in a scheme of this kind. We keep it constantly in mind, and I think we are carrying out very much what the hon. and gallant Member wishes to see carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne) asked me about expenditure at Halton. I am glad to be able to inform him, though it may not be pleasant news to the taxpayers, that we are spending £107,000 there this year. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that these improvements are most urgently needed, whether it be as regards the hospital or as regards accommodation for the boys and men. They should no longer be expected to live in war-time huts, but should have permanent accommodation. We have a big scheme with that object, which we hope will be carried out in the course of a few years.
  Then the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) asked with reference to the protection of aerodromes. Of course, that is a question that we constantly have in mind, but I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member realises the kind of expenditure that would be involved if we made underground hangars at aerodromes. As far as I remember, the experiment was made at an air station, Manston, during the War, and it ran into millions of money—in fact, it was so costly that it was never completed. [An HON. MEMBER: "It fell in!"] I did not know that. I am very much afraid that, if we adopted a general policy of that kind, my Estimates would not be £21,000,000. but would be something nearer the £50,000,000 about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) spoke a fortnight ago. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that. within reasonable limitations we are taking what action is possible to protect aerodromes in our defence scheme.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I must say that I am unable to share the hilarity—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet seconded the reduction, so that he has exhausted his right to speak.
  Mr. RADFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my question?
  Sir S. HOARE: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. We take great pains with the purchase of aerodromes, as I know to my cost, from the difficulty that there is in getting past the eagle eye of the Treasury any proposal to buy new aerodromes at all. I can assure my hon. Friend that the kind of scandal to which he refers—and I think I have the case in mind—would be inconceivable in present conditions, with Treasury control as it is, and the expert advice that we are bound to take, and do take, in the selection of the aerodromes we have to buy.
  11.0 P.M.
  Major CRAWFURD: Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I am unable to share the hilarity of hon. Members opposite, because this is a serious question. [A laugh.] I thought this was one of the questions which hon. Members opposite did regard as serious. I only rose to make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that, at any rate, a measure of protection might be afforded to aerodromes by re-adjusting the places where bombing and training squadrons are placed and by removing the latter from the possible area of attack.
  Question, "That £2,572,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Commit-tee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Fourth Resolution agreed to.
  Fifth Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Commander BELLAIRS: I do not think this Resolution, even at this late hour, ought to go through without some protest against the Government adopting the scheme of the opposite party, after we had protested in the Division Lobby and by speeches against the scheme. I still protest against that scheme. I believe the Government ship will be a failure, and that we shall be tarred with that policy. I do not believe in Governments building
  1690
  commercial airships. I am sure the result will be disastrous. Let me recapitulate very shortly the expenditure that we are letting ourselves in for. The original scheme of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) which we had adopted, provided only for a Government initial expenditure of 1'400,000, and in the event of the failure of that scheme the Government foreclosed on the whole value of the sheds and everything. and the ship which was built. They all became the property of the Government. Under this scheme you have already got £79,470 for staffs under Vote 3. That is only the beginning. The annual expenditure represents a. capital sum of £1,750,000. Add to that the cost of the ship's mooring masts and sheds, and the ships, and you have another £1,350,000. Altogether we are risking about £3,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. We have the Director of Civil Aviation flying about India discovering sites for bases. My hon. and gallant Friend has already announced' that he has increased the radius of action, of the ship and the consequence is that the bases will be obsolete. He is the only man who can speak for the Commercial Air Line. He says he does not want a base in India. It is more' likely to he a base in Ceylon that he wants. The probability is that the Government base will be obsolete from the very start. The mooring masts, we know, are obsolete. They want to put mooring masts on shore. The Admiralty and my hon. and gallant Friend want mooring masts (,n board monitors which they can shift about and find out which is the best position for the mooring masts to be placed. When the Government scheme was brought forward I said it would inevitably be a failure, and I instanced the. point that the Admiralty have never built merchant ships. Here we have the Air Department embarking on a merchant ship of the air. Had the Admiralty embarked upon building merchant ships we should never have succeeded in shipbuilding. If both these ships had been entrusted to a mercantile company the company would have been strengthened' and been able to compete in the market for building for foreign Powers. I believe in one company at the start. The Cunard was one company at the start. Elswick was the first, of the armament companies.

  1691
  Courtaulds once stood by itself in the manufacture of artificial silk. If my hon. and gallant Friend's company had succeeded there would inevitably have come rivalry into the market.
  The Minister of Air said he was having a pooling committee. Is he getting the benefit of the private company's inventions for the Government airships? If so, they may succeed in building a good ship, but I doubt very much whether the private company will part with its inventions for the Government airship. It is not business. Will he publish the contract for the private built ship, because it is very important that we should know what sort of ship it is. When the discussion took place we understood there were to be special precautions against lightning. Is there anything in the contract on that point? Is there going to be an outer envelope of inert gas? We ought to know. The reason I am anxious is this. The Germans before the War lost two ships by lightning, and we lost one. The Germans lost six ships and four sheds by fire before the War. We know the military airships were lost because they abandoned the margin of safety in several directions. Is there to be a proper margin of safety in these two ships? I think the Government might have put in a very much stronger demand in their contract for many things. They might, for instance, instead of asking for 70 knots, knowing what the Germans have done, have asked for 90 knots. Anyhow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's ship is to be a 90-knot ship in spite of what the contract says. I think the Government contract was put low because the Government felt they had to enter into rivalry with the privately owned ship and they did not hope to succeed in getting more than TO knots out of their own ship. I deplore the fact that the Government have abandoned their original scheme. It is all very well to say this scheme of the other Government was in being. The ship has not even been commenced, and it seems to me it could quite well be abandoned even at this stage.
  Captain BRASS: I think the ship, which will be started at an early date, will be very useful indeed as far as this company is concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend says a mooring mast on land is no good, and that we should have
  1692
  a mooring mast on a monitor. I do not know if he has ever tried to land a balloon. A balloon is considerably smaller than an airship, and if you try to land a balloon with one cable it jumps all over the place and you cannot get hold of it at all. But when an airship is landed at a mooring mast you have a triangle. It bas three cables, so that the nose of the ship does not dive about. The result is that they can get hold of it and put it on to the mooring mast. This would be quite impossible on a monitor, and I do not think a monitor would be the least use to try to anchor a big airship to. I think the Government are right in going very carefully as far as airships are concerned. "R33" has just been completed for experimental purposes. It is coming out very shortly from its shed at Cardington, and it will be of very great value, not only to the private enterprise airship scheme, which is going forward, but also to the Government ship which is being built. There is a very big advantage in building a ship of 5,000,000 cubic feet as against one of 2,000,000 cubic feet, which is the size of the "1133," because, instead of having about a 60 tons lift, which the 2,000,000 cubic feet ship has, this new ship will have about 175 tons lift. Consequently the ship can be built very much more strongly than the older ship. If we do not have the experiments which are suggested by the Air Ministry, I feel that these ships may be built with the wrong design, possibly slightly too long and not of the right shape. The experiments which are to be made will be of very great value to this country. I hope that the Secretary of State for Air will go very slowly with these airships. We do not want any disasters like those which occurred to the "R38" and the "Dixmude," in the one case a ship being broken in half and in the other case being struck by lightning. For all these reasons the Ministry would be very wise in going slowly and experimenting very carefully before launching forth on a big scheme.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: There is only one point on which I will not join issue with the last speaker, and that is that we do not want any disasters. After all, we are starting out on a very big experiment upon a type of vessel with which we have not dealt for a very considerable period.

  1693
  Apart from that, we were not very successful when we did deal with it. The Air Ministry are going to build one type of airship, and they have asked a private firm to construct another. They have seen the designs of that firm. They have accepted those designs, and they are of such a nature that the masts which are now being put up by the Air Ministry cannot possibly be used for anchoring this privately-built ship, and the designers of that privately-built ship have themselves put forward a design of a mast to be placed on a monitor—a design that has been accepted by Dr. Eckener, of the Zeppelin Company in Germany, who has made 2,500 flights in Zeppelins. Obviously this private design was not accepted until passed by the experts of the Ministry. What we have to consider is which is likely to be the successful design. Is it to be the one designed officially or that designed by private enterprise? If the latter is a failure, what is the type of expert who has passed it for acceptance? If the one designed by the officials is a failure, we have masts erected to take that failure which are incapable of mooring the vessel designed by private enterprise. The matter is a very important one, and we ought to have some sort of explanation from the Secretary of State before we decide on this very important Vote. One other point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) in regard to the testing of these airships in hot climates. I am going back to the time before the War when I was closely associated with him. The suggestion to send one of these old airships out to Egypt to test it has no hearing whatever on the value of the fabric of an airship used for constant passages backwards and forwards between this country and hot climes. In those clays they had sections of the material placed in the hottest possible position arid kept there for months to test the effect of the actinic rays on the fabric, and I would like to know whether such experiments are being made now, for otherwise we shall get disaster after disaster. Vickers built a ship at one time which broke its back like a chocolate eclair. We do not want to have anything like that occurring, for if we do we shall set back the march of progress with these
  1694
  great vessels which, if dealt with on right lines, are bound to have a great effect on the development of flying. I hope the Secretary of State will tell us something to satisfy the minds of those of us who desire to give him the Vote, and who appreciate the work he is putting in, and who want the Air Service to go forward.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I have spoken to many flying officers in the last week or two, and there is very great danger of putting two many complexities in these machines. I am told the latest type of machine has as many as 20 different levers and gadgets, as they are called, for the pilot to work. This is a very serious point. There is considerable and increasing dismay at the increasing complexity of the pilot's cock pit. I should like also to ask where is the Vote for parachutes and whether it comes under this or some other Vote. We understood it had become part of the standard equipment for every machine that it should have a parachute, and I should like to ask where the item is to be found.
  Sir S. HOARE: It is in this Vote.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not want to intervene in this controversy, because I do not think it would be fitting that I should, but I wish to make some remarks from a technical point of view. In the first place, the question of lighting in regard to these ships was raised. In the conference I had with Dr. Eckener, he told me his ship had actually been struck by lightning 12 times, and that there was no undue damage done to the vessel. There was one thing asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), and that was with regard to the question as to whether we had any pilots or expert pilots advising us as to the position of our controls. We have had five pilots of rigid ships who have expressed their view on this matter and who entirely agree with this design.
  I want to put on record a public protest against sending the R33 out to Egypt. I feel that if I did not do that I might be associated with that experiment. I do not consider that the lessons that we are likely to learn from that ship are in any way comparable to the risks that we should run by sending an old ship of slow speed and small radius of action out to Egypt. I do not want in any way to

  1695
  inconvenience the Air Ministry in their policy, but I feel that unless I put on record, as I am now doing, this protest, in so far as my own opinion is concerned, I might be associated with the idea of sending that vessel out to Egypt.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to make a slightly different protest, and that is to draw attention to page 19 of the Vote in connection with the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, and to ask the Ministry without further delay to look into the pay of the writing assistants, of 17s. a week. There is a war bonus, but even so it seems an absolutely scandalous wage to pay. There is a great contrast between the Superintendent, with his £1,000 a year and his bonus, which I do not grudge him, and I am sure he earns it, and the third-class writers with their pay of 28s.—and these are men—the shorthand typists, with Ms., and the writing assistants, with 17s. I think the Government should be a model employer, and these wages are scandalous, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I do not expect an answer to night—to look into the matter, and if he can do anything to persuade the Treasury to pay more generous rates, I am sure the country will be agreeable.
  Sir S. HOARE: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) I would say with respect to the cases he quoted that they are girls of 16, that the bonus nearly doubles the wages, and that the wage paid is not peculiar to the Air Ministry. but prevails in the Civil Service generally. Another point put was the complexity of the machines. That is perfectly true. It is very difficult to combine the various demands for safety, performance, and protection, and it is becoming a great problem. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member who raised it that I am fully conscious of that problem. The difficulty is to combine in a single machine the various demands made upon it. I come to a much bigger question that has been raised—that of the question of the airships. This is a very difficult and technical question. It is one that I do not think the House would at this late hour wish me to go into in great detail. But I should like to say enough to remove some of the doubts and suspicions of my
  1696
  hon. friends as to our policy. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) asked: "Why build two airships?" That is a very good question, if I may say so—it is a question that I asked myself when we were considering the question of airships last summer. Since I have been back at the Air Ministry I have gone fully into it, and I have satisfied myself that there is a good deal to be said for building the two ships: on two grounds. First of all, there is the ground of safety. That, after all, is the most important ground. The double experiment is, in my view, after hearing what my experts have said, going to be much safer than a single experiment. When we are building a new type of aeroplane we should never think of building a single machine, but two or three machines. On this ground—the ground of safety—it is my considered view, after going very fully into the question, that a double experiment is much safer than a single experiment. There is another reason that I think must impress every hon. Gentleman who investigates this question. That is the question of the potentialities of air-ships. I am very anxious to test out some of these potentialities in full—their potentialities, for instance, in connection with Empire and Home Defence. If successful, this experiment may lead to great economies in our future expenditure. By having an Air Ministry ship over which we have got full control rather than being dependent upon the use of a commercial ship for a few weeks in the year, we are able to make those tests. For those two reasons, and I will not develop them at great length tonight, it is the considered view of the Air Staff, and of the research experts connected with the Air Ministry, that the double experiment of the two airships is better than the single experiment of one airship only.
  There is the other question that my hon. and gallant Friend put to me, Why could we not go back at once to the scheme associated with the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney)? I wonder what would have been the view of the majority of hon. members if I had come to the House this evening with a proposal to scrap the several hundred thousands of pounds of public money we have already

  1697
  spent, and ask the House to go back without further delay to a scheme that, whatever might have been its merits, and they were great merits, in my opinion, would certainly involve the country in a very big financial commitment? My own view is that what is wanted above all other things with airship development is some continuity of policy, and that it is much better, having got the experiment started, and money actually spent upon these two airships, to go on with the experiment, and not once again to throw the whole question of airship development into the melting pot. Hon. members who know the past history of airships will know that it is a long history of continuous inquiries and reversals of policy. In view of that and of the danger of once again throwing it into the melting pot, it would be much better to go on with an experiment that is actually going to produce two airships within a not unreasonably far distant time. As I told the House the other day, we shall take every step to make the double experiment a success.
  Let me assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne) that the greater part of the money we are spending is going to he useful, whatever may he the ultimate development of airships. The actual amount to be spent. under the present scheme is about a million and a quarter. Out of that £1,250,000 only about £200,000 to £250,000 is being spent upon the Government airship. The rest of the money, anyhow the greater part of the rest of the money will be usefully spent, whatever may be the future scheme that is adopted for airship development. The mast to which my hon. and gallant Friend alluded can be transferred from one place to another. The place we have selected in India has been selected upon commercial and not on military grounds; and furthermore, in order that the experiment may be as full as possible, we have offered to refer the design of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) to the Technical Committee to which I have already alluded this evening. If they say the design is practicable, we will give every facility for its being adopted that we can give. We have no wish to smother what may be a great development in connection with airships by any act of
  1698
  bureaucratic interference. We wish to make the Air Ministry experiment with the Air Ministry airship, but we wish to give the greatest possible scope to the development associated with the hon. And gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) provided it is found to be reasonably likely that that design is going to be successful. I think I have said enough to convince the majority of hon. members as to the wisdom of the policy included in this Vote.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Biggleswade and the parishes of Langford, Astwick, Arlesey, Henlow, Upper Stun don, Mcppershall, Clifton, Campton, Shefford, and Shefford Hardwick, in the rural district of Biggleswade, all in the county of Bedford, which was presented on the 10th day of February, 1925, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport tinder The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Ulverston, and the parish of Osmotherley. in the rural district of Uliverston, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the February. 1925, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Chaldon, in the rural district of Reigate, and the parishes of Wohlingham, Chelsham, and Farleigh, and Parts of the parishes of Godstone. Bletchingley and Tandridge in the rural district of Codstone, all in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 15th day of December, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Buckhunst Hill, Loughton, Wanstead, and Woodford,

  1699
  and the parish of Chigwell, in the rural district of Epping, in the county of Essex. which was presented on the 10th day of February, 1925, be approved."—[Colonel-Ashley.]

  LONDON TRAFFIC (RESTRICTED STREETS) REGULATIONS, 1925.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move
  "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the London Traffic (Restricted Streets) Order, dated the 18th day of February, 1925, be annulled."
  I do not think I need make any apology, even at this late hour, for moving this address. It is unfortunate that a Motion of this kind has to be moved at this hour, but the London Traffic Act was passed to give protection to London traffic, and to the travelling public. Consequently our only course is to take this opportunity of criticising this Order, and protesting against the regulations made under the powers conferred by this Act. When the Act was going through the House of Commons last year, I did my best by Amendments and speeches to obstruct its passage. I considered then that it was a reactionary measure based on unsound principles which strike at the root of local government, and which in its ultimate result would establish a huge traffic combine in connection with the travelling facilities of London.
  I realize that the Bill owing to the cooperation of my hon. Friends above the Gangway and hon. Members opposite was placed on the Statute Book, and I have to accept that fact. I was at the time very anxious to get greater safeguards for the control of Parliament, and I did succeed, with the assistance of some hon. Members opposite, in passing a provision to the effect that none of these regulations should have force until they had been approved by a Resolution of this House.
  The result of the action in another place has left us with only the elementary provision of petition. That is a very small safeguard. I remember the present Minister of Transport, when he was a private Member, making complimentary references to the activity of London Members. He suggested that London Members were very keen in regard to the interests of their constituents and that if a Regulation of this character came
  1700
  up they would be here in force. I do not know how many London Members are here now, but I do hope that whether they are few or many they will make their views felt this evening, and show that they are anxious to protect their constituents from the machinations of combines or anybody else.
  I have taken the trouble to look up the Regulation in question. According to the provisions of the House the Regulation should be laid on the Table. I had visions of the document lying on the Table exposed to the view of Members, but I found on inquiry that in order to see the Regulation I had to visit the library. The Regulation was under lock and key and I could not even get possession of it. Therefore I had to copy it so that the House would know exactly what it is. This is the Regulation:
  "It shall not be lawful for any person to use or allow to he used for the purpose of plying for hire in any restricted street, or part thereof, any omnibuses, in addition to such omnibuses as might under and in accordance with Section 6 of the London Traffic Act. 1924, and the Schedule or Schedules deposited by him under that Section with the Licensing Authority and in force from the 1st January, 1925, to be used by him for the purpose of maintaining the regular service or regular services along that street or part thereof as the case may be as shown in such Schedules or Schedules."
  I have great respect for the ability of the Minister and the clarity of his speech, but I must confess that the wording of this particular Regulation is neither simple nor clear nor easy to understand. I have shown it to one or two of my legal friends and I have had very different interpretations of its meaning. Perhaps we shall have the advantage of the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown who can give us an interpretation.
  I would remind the Minister that the provision for restricted streets conies not under Clause 6, hut under Clause 7. Claus, 7 is the Clause that governs the power, on the one hand, of scheduling certain streets as restricted, and, on the other hand, of petitioning His Majesty to rescind such Regulations. This particular Regulation only refers to Section 6. and I am rather doubtful whether the whole thing is in order. I suppose that in drafting this Regulation he has had the advantage of legal assistance, but I am not quite clear, in spite of the legal

  1701
  drafting, that it actually satisfies the provisions of the Act. There has been published in the Gazette, but not laid on the Table, a schedule of the streets that are to be restricted. The streets total 165. That will show how comprehensive is this provision and how seriously it is likely to affect the travelling public. But when the routes are studied it would be found that nearly all the omnibus routes which it is proposed to restrict will make it almost impossible for any omnibus to go through the centre of London without touching some of these particular restricted streets.
  I remember that when this Clause was under discussion in Committee, and on the Report stage and on the Second and Third Reading, we were assured that these powers were only meant to apply to a very few special cases, and very special streets, such as Bond Street and Fleet Street. We know the serious effect or: the general facilities for travel of materially altering the streets in which the ordinary omnibus would be allowed to ply for hire. Now when we see the streets scheduled in the Gazette we find the Minister taking power to control, completely, practically every street in London, where any important omnibus route works. I do think that it is a very serious proposition, when the public is so dependent on travelling facilities, for a Minister to take into his hands at this very early stage such autocratic powers to interfere with the convenience of the public. I would point out that the owner of motor ears is not dependent on an omnibus or a public vehicle, and is not going to be affected. He can go where he likes, uninterfered with by regulations of the Minister of Transport, but the poor person, who depends on an omnibus to get to his work in the early morning arid get home at night, will find the already insufficient number of omnibuses reduced so that he will have a still greater fight to get on a bus for the very limited convenience of straphanging or fighting for a seat.
  When we come to inquire into who is going to get the advantage of this monopoly we come to the really interesting part of the proceedings. I am told that there are something like 5,000 omnibuses licensed to ply for hire in the streets of London. Of these about 500 are what are
  1702
  generally known as independent or private omnibuses. The remainder, 4,500, are all under the control, direct or indirect, of what is known as the London General Omnibus Company. These 500 omnibuses do not form one big company. They are owned by almost 200 independent owners. Some of them run to half a dozen omnibuses, and some of them on the other hand are owned by the driver and the conductor, two persons who are making a rather desperate struggle to earn a living, ex-soldiers who have invested the Whole of their savings in buying an omnibus so that they may not be a charge on the community. What has the Minister done? He has made the Order retrospective—an unprecedented procedure under any Act of this kind—and I think he will have to justify to the House that rather high handed action. The serious part of the matter is that many of these small companies, four or five months ago, ordered chassis and omnibuses to be delivered in the early part of this year. Some are due in February, some in March and some in April. This Order dates hack to January, and no application can he made under it in respect of the restricted streets unless there has been a licence for the omnibuses on 1st January. These people will have to cancel the orders they have placed for new omnibuses or bear the financial loss, and I am afraid from all I hear of the contracts they have made, it will to some of them mean financial ruin.
  It is a serious matter from the point of view of these owners, but when we come to look at it from the point of view of the combine, we find that this body stands to gain in every direction. No one admires the ability, capacity and administrative power of Lord Ashfield more than I do. There is no better business man than he, and there is no more efficient organisation than the London Traffic Combine. I do not find fault with Lord Ashfield who is doing his best in the interests of his shareholders to strengthen the financial position of the companies which he controls. But I would point out to the Minister that he—no doubt quite innocently—is by his action definitely improving the position of the combine. I am informed that, anticipating the action of the Minister, the combine brought out antiquated chassis—-omnibuses of the "B" type—and rushed them

  1703
  on to the streets. These omnibuses were, I understand, in the past only used for summer-time traffic. Hon. Members could go in them to the Derby or down the river or do things of that kind, but they were only used for such frivolous purposes. These omnibuses have been rushed on the streets in order to give the combine the right to claim that they had these vehicles working on these, routes on 1st January.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): May I interrupt the hon. Member, to set his mind at rest. As a matter of fact the London General Omnibus Company and its associated companies had considerably fewer omnibuses running at the end of December than they had in August, and the smaller companies had very much increased their number.
  Mr. HARRIS: I quite accept the statement of the Minister, but a question was put down only to-day on this subject, in order to get information. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) had a very good question on the Paper to-day, but unfortunately was not in his place to ask it. I took the trouble to get the answer, from which it appears that the Minister was not in a position to give the facts to the House. I have the answer here and it is as follows:
  "I um unable to give the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend. The numbers of omnibuses belonging to various proprietors which have been licensed during December, 1924, and January, 1925, respectively, are, of course, known. I am obtaining them, and will communicate them to the hon. Member. This will not give him the information he asks because I have no means of ascertaining to what extent the vehicles licensed during these months are being run, in substitution for vehicles withdrawn from service."
  The Minister was not in a position to give full information to the House this afternoon. I am glad he is in a better position this evening. But this is really an important thing. This London Traffic Combine has for years been trying to get complete control over the streets of London. They made no secret about it. Lord Ashfield. in a pamphlet which he has very fairly distributed to all Members of the House, giving a speech made on the 19th Dec., 1924, made it quite clear that his aim, in the interests of the public and of the share-
  1704
  holders, is to have a complete monopoly. He made it clear that he considers that by no other means can you get a sufficient traffic system for London. Now I can understand that a very strong case can be made for that, monopoly, and it is much easier to manage London traffic if it be in the hands of one board or one authority, one council, whether elected, nominated or of any other character of single control, but I respectfully submit to the House if that monopoly is to be given, it should be given in return for some definite financial consideration either in payment, as is done in America or Paris. or else in return for some valid concession, Here we have the right hon. Gentleman in the early hours of the morning rushing through Regulations to hand over to the traffic combine almost the complete monopoly of London traffic without any valuable consideration or concession. The only exception we are likely to have are 500 vehicles now on the streets, because the restricted streets cover all the profitable, all the paying roads in London, and it would be practically impossible for any private owner to start any more omnibuses in future in competition with the combine because he would find all the roads already scheduled by the Minister are handed over to the combine. The effect of his order in practice means stereotyping the facilities for traffic and handing them over to the combines. I do not know whether all hon. Members have studied the interesting statement, the masterly statement, of Lord Ashfield. He says:
  "Certainly it is foolish to have provided underground railways to deal with congested traffic and then to permit them to be operated with half loads while other means of transport intervene to rob them of their traffic and retain it on the streets, not only restoring the congestion but making it more dangerous and tedious in the process. For our part we have always had the Common Fund to fall back upon and with this resource have been content to follow omnibuses and railways to pursue their proper expansion and development, while, at the same time we have given encouragement to an exchange of traffic between them by co-ordinating their routes and facilities. If the omnibuses succeeded too well under the Common Fund, they necessarily had to share their success with the railways; if the railways succeeded too well, they also must share their success with the omnibuses."
  Now the right hon. Gentleman has come to his aid and the effect of his regulation will be, I submit to the House if passed,

  1705
  and if, it comes into force, will be to hand over practically for all time the control of our streets to one Board of Directors, the traffic combine, which will enable that combine to dictate to the public how many vehicles they will have and what fares they will pay. I say that this House, having deliberately taken London traffic out of the hands of an elected body and decided to manage London traffic through the Minister, they themselves have a great responsibility to the London public and must view with grave suspicion this autocratic action which is bound to lessen the facilities for traffic and place them at the mercy of a private combine. I beg to move.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Motion.
  It has been said that attempts have been made to make this a party question, but I respectfully submit that it is not a party question. It is a question of the public interest, and is independent of party altogether. I join with the Mover of the Motion in saying that there is not a single regulation that is issued by the Minister of Transport that will not have the effect of assisting the Combine and annihilating the efforts of the independent busmen. Take even the very first thing that is done—the scheduling of routes. They ask the independent man, who owns his own omnibus and drives it himself, to fill up huge forms in order to get leave to run on particular routes. He has no clerical assistance, he is tired out at the end of his day's driving, and yet, if his route does not suit him, he has to fill up all these details in order to change it. He will not have much time left to drive his omnibus! Then the Act provides that there may be appeals, and these appeals may be lodged by the other people running on the same route, so that they may be appealing against one another and fighting like Kilkenny cats; and if the Combine appeals what a nice thing it will be for any single man to be up against the Combine! It is extraordinary how this Act slipped through the last Parliament—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not open to the hon. and learned Member to criticise the action of the last Parliament.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was not going to do so, but was going to show how these circumstances arise out of it. First, you
  1706
  had the Combine putting 1,000 or 1,500 extra omnibuses on the streets and choking them up and then complaining bitterly that the streets were blocked. They hauled out all their ancient omnibuses, some of them 10 or 14 years old, and chocked the streets. Then a strike happened about that time, and they found that they could not beat the independent omnibuses because the independent omnibuses can run much more cheaply than the Combine omnibuses, owing to their smaller overhead charges. What could have been finer for the City of London than to have every bus run by an independent owner? That is the position with the taxicabs. Could hon. Members get a cab at 4 in the morning by hired labour? They could not; it is because the men are running their own cabs that they can do it. It is the same with the buses.
  12 P.M.
  The object of these regulations is simply to choke off the individual man. I find in the "Evening News" of the 11th March a statement that according to the Minister of Transport there are 1,105 independent omnibuses and 4,272 Combine omnibuses. Superintendent Bassom says there are 4,900 Combine and only 408 independent omnibuses. When the strike occurred who kept the omnibus system in London running but the independent men? If all the busmen were independent men we should never have a transport strike. They would not join the union of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) which, of course, would be to their disadvantage, as they would not be so well looked after.
  Mr. B. SMITH: They could not join yours either.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: They might, because they are within the law. We all have eyes to see what happens on the London streets. Who are choking up the London streets? The Combine omnibuses. Lord Ashfield said that 100 omnibuses would be taken off the streets, but there should be 1,000 taken off and the independent men left alone. That would be a very much healthier state of affairs for the streets of London.
  The purpose of these regulations is to assist the Combine. It is said that the tubes do not pay. Of course they do not pay with short-distance traffic; they should be made longer, so as to serve the outlying

  1707
  districts, and then, with long-distance traffic like that, they would pay. The tubes are said to receive from the onmibuses £400,000 a year, and the Combine states that if the buses do not pay and are driven off the streets the tubes will be shut down. I do not believe that for a moment; I think it is a matter of bookkeeping that is put about to try and frighten the Minister of Transport into giving the Combine the monopoly which they have long desired, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George refused to give them, but which they will rapidly get under these regulations.
  You cannot get any criticism of the Combine in the newspapers, because every newspaper has great big advertisements saying, "Travel by the omnibuses: travel by the tubes," and pointing out all the advantages of it. The public are to have no liberty against the Combine: they are to be driven underground. As soon as the independent omnibuses are driven off the streets, you will find that the Combine will cut down the number of its omnibuses, in order that motor cars may have more room to run about the streets. That is the theory. If the natural law of supply and demand were left to operate, the Combine itself would be forced by economic pressure to take about. 1,000 omnibuses off the streets; but instead of that they have got their Act and they have got their regulations, which will kill out the healthy competitors and leave us entirely at the mercy of the Combine, without its paying one penny for it.
  The proper scheme is for the Minister to decide the number of omnibuses that are to run on the streets of London and then put all the licences up to auction. That would give fair play, and the independent men, being able to run their omnibuses with less overhead charges would be able to provide a cheaper, better and more efficient service. We have all seen how the Combine omnibuses hurt the individual men. In 1922 I and one or two friends felt so much annoyed, when we saw the Member for Derby bringing in a Bill to raise the fares of the Combine tubes by something like 75 per cent., that we put a young man into business with an omnibus charging him nothing for the finance, and it is running now—the Liberty omnibus—and he is doing well out of it. But he has
  1708
  told me that he was hunted high and low by Combine omnibuses—two in front, two behind, and one alongside. He was, of course, free to shift from street to street, but whenever he shifted from one route to another he saw a Combine detective running to the telephone, and a short time afterwards he would, be followed again,
  What does the Minister of Transport do? We saw at, the inquiry that Mr. Bevin said that a "pirate" omnibus, as he called it, should live and die on the route on which it runs; and the Minister of Transport is providing that an omnibus is to run on exactly the same streets all clay long. That is a splendid opportunity for the Combine to shadow it and chase it all over the road. It is making a tramway car of an omnibus it is depriving it of its mobility, which is one of its essential features. And what do the independent omnibuses do on Saturdays and Sundays. They do not run in the deserted streets of the City. On Saturdays they run to places where there are football matches, and on Sundays they take runs out into the country districts. Now they are to be tied down, and if they want to go, say, to the Derby, or to any other special place on a particular day, they have to apply for a special licence in advance. The whole benefit of their mobility is gone and the Combine gets the whole of the extra traffic, because it has innumerable omnibuses lying by with which it formerly used to choke the streets. Lord Ashfield complained bitterly that these independent omnibuses came out to snatch the theatre traffic; but why should they not do so? Is it not for the convenience of the public? Are the public to be compelled to take taxicabs, or must they dive down into Lord Ashfield's burrows? The position that he end the Combine take up is that no one has any right on the streets but they—to my mind one of the most impudent propositions I have ever seen.
  At one place in this Report he speaks about this "unjust and unfair competition," and says that these independent omnibuses should never have been allowed on the streets. He says the first of them appeared in 1922—I think the one I put on, for the purpose of testing the Combine, was the second—bet that the rate of increase has been growing every year. It has been

  1709
  easy he says, to sot up in the omnibus business, and many people have been concerned in financing these omnibuses. The House may be interested to know that I did not make a penny out of mine, but simply did it in the public interest. What could have been better for the public than that we should have had all these independent men, instead of being in the hands of a Combine? It would have made immensely for the security of the public. In conclusion, let me quote a statement of the present Prime Minister, who said, speaking in May of last year:
  "It is clear that a fundamental difference lies between us and the Socialists. We want to help the individual to better his position, and through bettering himself to help the State. What is the State after all? It is nothing but a mass of individuate, and just as you can get each individual to better himself and the little circle around him, so, and by no other means, can you get the better State which is the sum of the whole individual. We rejoice over this process of the spread of businesses, of co-operative societies and of saving certificates among the people. We won td like to see every man and every woman in Otis country a capitalist, necessarily, to begin with, in a small way. We would like to see everyone a possessor of something of his own for we believe that that reacts on him directly in making him snore careful, more thrifty more anxious to better himself and to raise his own Family in the struggle of life, and through that to give that impetus which the country needs to send it forward to better things. We want to raise the people, and not to depress them."
  Here we are giving a monopoly, through these Traffic Regulations, and, moreover, we are giving to a corporation licences which are perpetual, whereas the individuals licence dies with him, so that as these individuals die off the number of individual licences will gradually decrease. I think that no snore wrong thing has ever been done that the attempts which have been made to create this monopoly, and you have in this carrying out of the same scheme sub-conscious dictation by the "combine." When the combine have driven this scheme home you will have the position that they will have got a strangle hold on the means of transport of a vast population. If you do not reject the Order to-night you will have surrendered one of the dearest interests of your people.
  Sir HENRY JACKSON: I feel sure that the House will accord to me, as a new Member, that courtesy and generosity which is traditional. My excuse for
  1710
  intervening in this Debate is that I happen to be a member of the Traffic Advisory Committee, and it may be of use if f state the reasons and the facts that impelled us to advise the Minister to make this particular order. May I say, in passing, that the Advisory Committee set up by this House is composed of representatives of all types and interests, and I would like to say that the Advisory Committee are subjugating their indidual claims and wishes in trying to comb out this tangle of London traffic which they were set up to solve. May I just describe the problem that met us when we came into existence? We came, as an actual force, into existence at the end of last year, and we found that, notwithstanding the chaos which we were asked to remedy, additions were being made week by week to the fleet of omnibuses in the London streets. The, hon. _Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris), in moving this Motion, asked if he could. be told what were the figures of the omnibuses, which had been thrown on the London streets since this Act came into force on October 1. From October 7, 1924, to March 12, 1925, the London General Omnibus Company have put on the street 68 omnibuses. Of these 42 are substituted for existing omnibuses, so that in fact the London General Omnibus Company have only placed in the streets of London 26 new omnibuses since the Act came into operation, whereas the independent omnibus owners, for the same period—from October 7 of last year to March 12 of this year—have placed on the streets 159 omnibuses. I think, after all that has been said about the London General Omnibus Company, it is only fair to state these figures.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: They had choked the streets by them.
  Sir H. JACKSON: Well, that was the problem with which we were faced. In spite of the chaos that was existing, these omnibuses were being added to day by day. We, therefore, advised the Minister that he should at once put Clause 7 of the Traffic Act in operation. That, as you may remember, restricts the number on the streets. We felt it was impossible to examine the problem street by street, not only because the streets were obviously inter-related, but also because

  1711
  the time taken would have made that course almost impossible, and in the meantime the problem would have got worse and worse. Let me add the stages the Committee took in the matter. On January 7 of this year, we handed to the Minister the list of congested streets already referred to—166 in number. On January 8th, the Minister published that list in the Press. On January 12 he gave very wide notice and publicity of his intention to make an Order, by which, under Section 7, he proposed to prohibit the plying for hire of any omnibus in a restricted street not being one of those which may have been running in these streets in accordance with deposited schedules, on January 1. But he went on to say that before putting that Order into effect he would refer it to the Advisory Committee for advice, and that all persons concerned must submit their views and objections to him before 27th January. I would ask the House to see the results. We had 12 representations in regard to this particular notice of the Minister's. One of these expressed real gratitude and thanks for what we had done, and of the other 11 only three people, representing six omnibuses, objected to this Order being made by the Minister. Practically no one objected. On February 4th the Advisory Committee decided to recommend to the Minister that stabilization should take effect on 1st January, and the Minister made that Order on 17th February, and it was published in the "Gazette" on the 18th February. Therefore, all this agitation that we have soon has been wonderfully delayed, and there is just a little suspicion of the reasons behind it.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: What: are the reasons behind it?
  Sir H. JACKSON: We have sometimes been asked why we did not institute an inquiry before we advised the Minister to make this regulation. Well, I think the House will agree that in view of that very slight opposition to the date, an inquiry was obviously unnecessary. But, as the House knows, the Minister has now decided that the Advisory Committee shall see these men who have complained since the Order was published, and we are, in fact, seeing them. We sat, from 3 to half-past 9 on Monday and saw a num-
  1712
  ber of the men, and we propose, if it will not alarm the Sabbatarians, to sit the whole of Sunday to see another batch. We shall then form our opinion as to the men, and as to whether or not they have a genuine grievance. But I would like to say that most of these men, not all of them, knew perfectly well before they ordered the new omnibuses that the London Traffic Act was intended to reduce the Lumber of omnibuses on the streets. We shall report our results to the Minister, who will take what action he thinks proper. What we have done is to stabilise the condition of things on the 1st of January of this year. Believe me, that is only the first step along a very thorny road to settle the London traffic problem. It was impossible to deal with that problem unless the position was stabilised first. There is another factor to this problem.
  May I remind the House of the origin of this Traffic Act? It is connected with the strike last March, the tramway-men and subsequently the omnibus workers came out strike for an increase of wages. I understand that the then Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the operators of these great tramway and omnibus companies that if they would pay the increased rates and allow the strike to come to an end, he would give them the protection of the London Traffic Bill. It was in consequence of that undertaking that the late Government introduced the Traffic Bill. What has happened! At that time these great London tramway organisations were being run at a very serious loss. In the year ending 31st March, 1924, the tramway organisations represented in the London Traffic area, the London County Council. West Ham, and the trams associated with the Gene al Omni bus Company lost £320,000. I am told that the London County Council estimate that the losses on their trams in the year ending 31st March, 1925, is going to be over half a million—£577,000 to be strictly accurate. I am told that the West Ham trams estimate their loss for the same period at £58,000. I am given to understand that the tram organisations which arc associated with the London General Omnibus Company probably will have a loss of something like £250,000. That is to say that for this last year—largely accounted for by increased wages and a diminution of passengers—the loss of

  1713
  these great organisations is going to be probably about £800,000. What is going to be the end of that? The end of it will be that these tramway organisations will have to go out. of business. If so, that means an immense amount of unemployment. It means that the great factor which hon. Members are so eager to protect—the welfare of the transport workers and others—will become gravely and seriously affected. This proposal is an elementary act of justice. If the House, which can hardly think possible, were to take the disastrous policy of stopping this first step then I say it is difficult to understand what is going to happen.
  I ask the House to look at this problem as we look at it on the Advisory Committee. We were asked to deal with the chaos in existence. To-day we are merely stabilizing the position. We have got the great problem still ahead of us of how we are going to deal with the chaos in existence at the end of last year. I venture to say that we can only see more restrictions, more hardships, more things of that type. We hope, however—and I say this to the Minister with all respect—that it may be possible under the aegis of the Minister of Transport to get all those undertakings together, the tramway organisations, the independent omnibus owners, the London General Omnibus Company, and the Electric Railways—all these great organisations that are dealing with the London traffic and put to them the gravity of the problem of the Greater London traffic. Let them come together; let one organisation decide to give up this, and the other decide to give up that, let there be a common agreement and accommodation amongst these great traffic operators, and then, I. am sure. if they can come to such an agreement, the Minister will be very glad, if necessary to legislate on those lines. It is only along the line of co-operation that the problem of London traffic is to be settled, and that co-operation, believe me, is going to mean more sacrifice than is embodied in this comparatively small matter with which we, are now dealing. The Minister and the Advisory committee are concerned with one thing, and one thing only. You can dismiss from your minds all this talk of working for the combine, or working for this or that group. We are
  1714
  working for one thing only, and that is to do something to get rid of the chaos that at present exists; to do something for the great London public, who are groaning under this traffic problem; and, above all things to give to the London public a better service, while at the same time doing something, in common justice and equity, for those great organisations, one as well as the other, which are doing splendid service for London. And so I am confident that in a little time this House will give its answer to the prayer of hon. Members opposite.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I am sure I shall be expressing the views of the House if I say in the first place how much we deplore the absence this evening of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), who was always an agreeable and conciliatory figure in the discussions last year On the London Traffic Act, and I am sure that we all, irrespective of party, wish him it return from the south of France restored to health and vigour, for we all respect him, and. I may say, we all love him. After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) there is really very little for mo to say, because he has put the matter so very clearly and concisely before the House. Though I take absolute responsibility, of course, for everything that is done under the London Traffic Act—I would not for a moment shelter myself behind my Advisory Committee—I may say that everything I have done up to now has been done on and with the advice of the Committee, a Committee which was set up under the Act of last year, an Act only six months old, to advise the Minister with respect to London traffic. Its composition is known to all Members, it is as representative as any Committee could be, and in everything I have clone I have had the unanimous support of every single Member of the Committee. Hon. Members who sit on those benches up there were always demanding during the Debates last year on the London Traffic Bill, that we should have a Committee independent of the Minister, a Committee which should be able to give decisions of itself, not a Committee would be under the thumb of the bureaucrats of Whitehall, and could only be the mouthpiece of the Minister. As far as this Committee are concerned, they have not been the mouthpiece of the

  1715
  Minister; the Minister has been the mouthpiece of them. In everything done they have given unanimous advice, and that after having given days—not hours, but days and days—to the consideration of these very important questions.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: Is not the Chairman of the Committee a permanent official under the control of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, but, he was elected by the Committee. I repudiate with some indignation the insinuations of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) that, in administering this London Traffic Act, I am unduly favouring the Combine. I am unduly favouring nobody. I am endeavouring, with considerable difficulty to hold an even balance between the contending interests. If omnibuses have to come off the streets, I am sure the Advisory Committee will advise me that the list of omnibuses should be equally divided among all the streets concerned. If I have any say in the matter, I shall certainly say that a little extra advantage should be given to the small men as against the big men, but I must try to hold the balance fairly. The whole speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) was this: "I want free unrestricted competition on the London streets." I have the inclination to agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Whether he is right or wrong, you have the London Traffic Act the law of the land. It was passed less than six months ago by a large majority. It was initiated by a Conservative Government, and was passed in its present stage by the late Government. Therefore my duty and the duty of the Advisory Committee is to administer the Act. I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll that he is quite mistaken if he thinks I have any other interest in this Act than as 'the Minister.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The regulation made the Combine and destroyed certain men.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I do not destroy a single man. The balance of advantage or disadvantage will be just the same as before these Regulations were put into operation. I think it is of some im-
  1716
  portance that I should trace the course of events since the passing of the Act, in order that hon. Members may realise and that no one should be ignorant of what is intended to be done, and that those who feel they have a grievance or may have a grievance should know what was going to happen. The House must remember that the Bill received the Royal Assent early in August last year, but, owing to the procedure laid down by the Act, the Advisory Committee was not set. up till December, and between that time and the issue of the Order constant notices and references to the Act appeared in the Press, so that everybody ought to have had some idea of what it was about. On 18th December the Advisory Committee had its first meeting and elected its Chairman. Immediately after the first, meeting of the Committee an announcement was made to the Press on the same day in which it was stated that the Minister of Transport had requested the Advisory Committee at their first session to consider and report generally on the questions arising out of the London Traffic Act. The announcement went on to say that these matters would not be considered before the Committee's next meeting. On 12th January another notice was issued in the following terms:
  "Notice is hereby given that the Minister of Transport proposes to make an Order under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act. 1924, declaring the streets specified in the schedule hereto to be restricted streets, that is to say streets in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to he prohibited or restricted either generally or during particular hours:
  And notice is also hereby given that the Minister also proposes to make Regulations under the same Section restricting the plying for hire by omnibuses in such streets so that it shall not be lawful for any person to use or allow to be used for the purpose of plying for hire in any restricted street or part thereof any omnibuses in addition to such omnibuses as might under and in accordance with Section 6 of the said Act and the schedule or schedules deposited by him under that Section with the licensing authority and in force upon the 1st day of January. 1925. be used by hint for the purpose of maintaining the regular service or regular services along that street or part thereof as the case may be shown in such schedule or schedules."
  The announcement went on to say:
  "Before making the Order or the Regulations above referred to the Minister will refer the matter to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for their advice and report.

  1717
  Any person affected who desires to make representations in connection with the proposed Order or Regulations should forward such representations in writing to the Secretary, Ministry of Transport, London Traffic Branch, 7, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.1, not, later than the 27th day of January, 1926."
  That notice received great publicity from the Press. After having given 14 days' notice and opportunity to attend, only three people, representing six omnibuses, gave objection. There can therefore be no grievance as regards the fixing of the date. May I say that I am very much obliged to the Advisory Committee for having taken upon themselves the onerous duty of investigating each of these cases. There was no obligation upon them to do so, but they have most generously decided to do so. As has been said, they spent Monday afternoon and evening, and are going to sit on Sunday, and give a decision as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, may I inform the House that no omnibuses have in fact been driven from the streets at present as a result of the Regulations. May I deal with the category of people who think they have or may have grievances? (1) Proprietors of motor omnibuses who had deposited schedules in December last and deposited revised schedules in respect of these vehicles between the 1st and 13th January. 2) Proprietors who deposited new schedules for new vehicles and actually operated these vehicles on restricted streets between the 1st and 13th January. I have the proportion of omnibuses. There may be eases of real hardship. I understand the Committee are going into these cases, and I hope they will be able to recommend the fullest sympathy it is possible to give to this class of people. I do not think there are a great number, but I will do everything in my power to avoid injustice to them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he must only limit by the 13th January.
  Colonel ASHLEY: What was meant was that there was a certain number of omnibus owners who did not send in their schedules by 1st December. They sent them in some days Tater. They could not get a revised schedule, and therefore those people who come in between the 1st and 13th January owing to sending their schedules in too late ought to receive
  1718
  most sympathetic consideration. They ought to be given every chance. But I put it to the House that persons who either deposited a new schedule subsequent to the 13th, or people who entered into contracts for the delivery of omnibuses subsequent to the 13th, knowing that this Order was going to be made, ought to go in a different category. I want to avoid all possible hardship, but it is a very difficult task that is laid upon me, in trying to do as least possible harm in straightening out this tangle of the London traffic. Last year, when the Act was being passed. everybody was saying something must be done to relieve. the congestion. People used to say they were being held up in the streets for half an hour at a time, that they could not get about, and that the workers could not get to and from their work. What we are trying to do is to avoid the immense loss of time and money that results, and I can promise the House the most sympathetic consideration In all the eases of hardship mentioned.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I only rise to say that so far as the Labour party are concerned, this Prayer is not our Motion. Certain Members of the Labour party have tabled a Motion which would hay,' been debated on Wednesday of next week. The party as a whole has no determined view as to this particular Order. but it is something different from the Bill itself. The observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport, that consideration would be given to hard cases is a very valuable statement which the whole House will appreciate very much, and justifies the hon. Member who brought forward this Prayer to-night in order that these people might know that if there are cases of hardship, they will he sympathetically considered. As regards the more general question, I understand the principal citicism, if criticism it he, which can he directed against this Order is this—not that Orders he made, but that this particular Order is made in such a form that it is to be retrospective. That is really the principal gist of the criticism. Had it not been for the retrospective operation of the Order particular hardships in many cases would never have arisen, but as the right hon. Gentleman has said he will consider these eases and after the discussion I think the matter has been exhausted.
  Sir F. HALL: I was inclined until I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to vote against the Government. First of all let me congratulate the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir Henry Jackson) on his maiden speech. It. was most lucid. He gave us very valuable information, and, if I may say so, I was glad to get information to the question which unfortunately I was unable to obtain from the Minister of Transport himself. I had put down a question to which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has referred to and asked for specific information for particular reasons. I asked how many of these 13 buses were put on during the month of December, and I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, had he applied to the London General Omnibus Company, would have been able to have supplied the information which I am glad to say has been forthcoming from the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth. I have always been opposed to retrospective legislation of any description, and I cannot help thinking that it is a great mistake, notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Transport, that this Order should be dated back to the 1st January.
  The Minister said he was going to give favourable consideration to those omnibuses which had been scheduled up to the 13th January. But I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this. There are many of these private omnibus proprietors who had contracted for omnibuses four or five months ago, and they were not delivered up to the contract date. If they had been delivered according to their contract many of them would have been running on the streets of London luring the latter part of last year. I am going to press the right hon. Gentleman this way—I am going to ask him this: Is he prepared to give consideration to any of those omnibuses which were bona fida contracted for in sufficient time to warrant the owners receiving the omnibuses say by the end of March this year. I know a case Where a man contracted for an omnibus in July or August of last year. He put the whole of his savings into it, and mortgaged his house, but unfortunately it was not delivered in time. It was running I think in the early days of February. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to
  1720
  this: that omnibus was contracted for on a bona fide basis long before it was expected that this regulation was to come into operation. Surely that man is not to be ruined; he has his omnibus running and as it happens it is the only independent omnibus running on one specific route. He has acted according to the suggestion that was made by the Prime Minister on the 22nd of May last at the Hotel Cecil When the Prime Minister was holding out the hope that the small people would be given a chance of earning their living and become masters in their own way. If you are going to press this Measure in the way in which it has been brought before the House to-night I venture to say you are going to stultify the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. I should also like to say this, that it is all very well to say, to intimate, that you have only had a small number of objections up to a given date. Since I have been in this House I have sat on two Select Committees on London Traffic and I recognise fully how necessary it is to do something to reduce the enormous congestion that we have. But surely that should not be made at the expense of these small people. There are too many-omnibuses on the streets of London and the Combine are desirous of getting their Underground Railways better used than they are at present. It is a case of "live and let live." Let the small man have a chance, and let the Minister of Transport make proposals to the General Omnibus Company to take off a certain number of their omnibuses in order that the bona fide small omnibus owner, who had contracted for his omnibus in a reasonable time, might, have an opportunity, and by-that means help to solve the difficulty.
  I quite realise the enormous amount of loss involved in the streets of London by congestion. I well remember my hon. Friends behind me were always in favour of there being some special traffic authority. An Advisory Committee has been set up, and Members of the Committee arc taken from all the different classes—Him the Metropolitan Police, the County Council and the City Police, and there are representatives of the small omnibus owners and the combine. Surely, in these circumstances, you can be able to come to some reasonable solution which will not penalise these small people, many of them ex-service

  1721
  men, who were promised that when they came back: everything would be done to assist them. You are not going to assist these people by making too drastic measures. I am averse to retrospective legislation, you never know where it is going to lead to, and the less we have of it the better for the country in general. I was very glad to hear that sympathetic consideration is going to be given, and I hope and trust my right hon. Friends will make the sugggestion to the Traffic Committee—I am sure they will be prepared to accept suggestions from him—and that they will deal as leniently as possible, so that people will not be penalised in crossing the congested areas; that something will be done to relieve the minds of these people by arranging that they can come from their start to their destination without being handicapped in the way suggested. Then, I think, we shall get some good out of this traffic question.
  Mr. B. SMITH: I think it is regrettable that this Motion should have been submitted by the Member for Bethnal Creep (Mr. Harris). In the first place it has anticipated the one by Members of the Labour party that would have come after the inquiry which has been instituted by the Minister with regard to these 100 and odd cases that are claiming special treatment. Any effort to make political capital out of the sufferings of these men is regrettable. Further, the hon. Member belongs to another body, the London County Council. That Council have submitted to the Traffic Committee a claim that 30 per cent. of the omnibuses shall he withdrawn from the whole of the tramway areas they serve during the peak of the day. That is the policy of that particular concern. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) we respect the wisdom he has brought from the breezes of the north to solve this traffic problem. I have heard him on several occasions demanding that shops should open all night for the benefit of the individual shopkeeper. It is a policy he is following very closely, but it will not solve the traffic problem of London. I would like to call attention to the genesis of this matter. In March of last year a dispute took place which ultimately involved not only the whole of the tramways of London but also the omnibuses and,
  1722
  for one night, the tubes of London. A Committee of Inquiry was instituted by the then Minister of Labour and in their report they say that all parties—that includes the whole of the municipal undertakings of London, the company owned tramways of London and the omnibuses—expressed the view, in which the Committee concurred, that without some co-ordinated control of passenger traffic within the Metropolitan area there was little, if any, prospect of the improvement of the conditions of the industry. Further, that a definite undertaking should be given by the Government to introduce and press forward legislation placing the passenger traffic of the Metropolitan area under some co-ordinated control. This, the Committee stated, was a basis, and the only basis, suggested for reopening negotiations between the parties.
  1.0 A.M.
  Arising out of that an agreement was made by the interests concerned and legislation was promised. The result of that legislation was that the Committee was set up. Unlike the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), I am not an ordinary, but an additional member of that Committee. Since that Act was passed, when the tramways dispute was settled, approximately 600 fresh omnibuses have been licensed on the streets of London. It is all very well for the lion. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) to suggest that we ought to extend this to March of this year. That does not solve our difficulties. We have at the present moment two policies running through the minds of the two interests. Little man claims not only the right to run his present omnibuses, but the right to expand. The London General Omnibus Company claim, not the right to expand, but the right to contract a number of services. If 1,000 omnibuses come off the road, that means unemployment for 7.000 people employed by the London General Omnibus Company. I have weighed that carefully. I am not enamoured with the idea of everybody being let loose. If any industry needs control, it is the passenger-carrying industry of London. There were two ways of dealing with this problem. The effect of that under Section 7 of the Act was that certain men who have paid deposits on their omnibuses are now debarred from operating them on the

  1723
  streets of London. But, unfortunately, there is another department involved. Whilst streets are being restricted on the one hand by the Ministry, through the Committee to which I am a party, at the other end at Scotland Yard men are being licensed or told that their omnibuses can be licensed to run up against the restricted portions of London traffic. That looks to me as if the time must come when legislation will be proposed from the Government to bring in a one Clause Bill definitely fixing the number of omnibuses and men, I hope, that can ply on the streets of London. Had that policy been attempted in the last Measure, or the present Measure, I think we should have got over our difficulty. Further, Schedule two of the Act lays clown, I think, a means of getting over our difficulty. Section two says the object should be the co-ordination of all or any of the forms of municipal service and the co-operation of persons operating the same of all means in the best interests of the public. It does seem to me. Having regard to the documents that have been placed before the Committee of eleven municipalities demanding the removal of all omnibus traffic and the re-introduction of the old system, which would entail changes no less than four, five or six times, that that is not a solution of the traffic problem. The busmen are claiming the right to expansion, and the tubes are claiming that where omnibuses are running very little they should be restricted. It does seem to me that the conditions at the moment are favourable that under Section 2 of the Act efforts shall he made to bring together the whole of the interests of London, namely, the federated employers, the London General Omnibus Company and their associated companies, and the tramways, both company and municipally owned, in London. If they could be brought together and could agree to a system of dividing, or a system of mutual adjustment of the services, as long as they could come to the Traffic Committee, and through them to the Minister, with an agreed scheme our difficulty would be very easily got over.
  There is another factor, and that is the possibility of further antedating the Order and going back to the period to the time when this legislation was passed.
  1724
  There are two tramway undertakings where 2,000 men are employed and are involved, and of these there are upwards of 70 per cent. who are ex-service men engaged, who have served their country and have an equal right to consideration. Further, it does seem to me that the Minister might have foreshadowed, that there is a prescriptive right and that there ought to he some scheme under which, where these men are affected by the operation of any Order under this Act, the question of compensation should receive favourable consideration. One cannot get away from the fact that these men have paid anything from £50 to £500 deposit. I think of this amount there is £86 for the Road Fund, which, of course, can be returned on application, and then there are garage costs running to £2 per week. All these things are serious factors for these men. If an authority widening a road has to purchase property to be demolished, or if you close a public-house for that purpose, compensation has to be afforded.
  Mr. BANKS: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that compensation is afforded to those who own or are interested in such property, and it is not provided by the ratepayers.
  Mr. SMITH: It is a wonderful traffic monopoly at this moment. I am not a bit concerned with the merits of a combine or a municipal undertaking at this moment. If I were asked whether I would prefer to see traffic under one control I would answer "Yes," but I am dealing with things as they are; therefore, I suggest that some scheme of compensation might be submitted to this House. After all these are poor men. I would suggest that the Order should stand. As I say, it is regrettable: it should be moved as it is, but, nevertheless, at this moment there are factors of goodwill that, I believe, will ultimately absorb, in the best interests of the whole of the traffic concerns of London, all that is useful to London to the great advantage of the people in these services and to the services of the intending passengers of London. I hope the Clause will stand, because, obviously, if it does not, I think the Committee work ought to finish. In face of the promise of the Minister that he is already going into the matter, that

  1725
  meetings have taken place, that on Sunday next there are three Sub-Committees hearing the remainder of the cases, and the fact that there is a goodwill being shown on the Committee among the interested people in the hope of bringing co-ordination and co-operation about, I suggest the Order should stand and the promises of the Minister be carried out.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: As far as I am concerned, the longer the cries to "Divide" persist, the longer the hon. Members will be here to-night—[Interrruption.] We are speaking on behalf of a very small body of men who have no powerful trade union to protect them. And I would like to say it. is a remarkable fact that when hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway get up to voice any grievance, they think they are the only champions of the oppressed; but when anybody else sees that people are suffering from a. grievance and stand up they are accused of making political capital. Soma of us are very much in earnest about this matter. What we object to is not the fact that an attempt is being made to restrict the traffic on the streets of London. We agree that restriction is necessary and we make no complaint at all of the work of the Advisory Committee. We recognise it is useful work hut we complain of the way the Order has been made and of the fact that it has been ante-dated. This Order was made under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which says that at least 40 clays must be given before making any statutory rules. Notice must also he given of the proposal to make the rules and the place where a draft may he seen-is o be published. In the present order not only has no 40 days' notice been given, but no notice has been given of the making of the Order. The Minister has taken advantage of what might be described as a "Joker" law in another part of the Act. This is only a provisional rule intended only to stand until time has been found to bring the rules under the proper procedure into operation. The first question I want to ask the Minister of Transport is when he proposes to make the rules contemplated under Section I of the Rules Procedure Act? Another point on which we have ground for complaint is why it has been necessary to make this restrictive Order
  1726
  to prevent the private omnibuses using the streets when they are not congested? In the Traffic Act it is clearly contemplated that if it is necessary to make an Order it should only apply to those times when congestion actually occurs. There has been no attempt to limit the operation of the restrictive Order, with the result that at non-congested hours we shall find ourselves again at the mercy of the combine. Where does the Advisory Committee get the information on which it bases its list of restricted streets? I asked the Minister of Transport to-day who had provided the information, and he said he had not clone so. We should like to know upon what data this list of streets was based. These omnibusmen have come to us and told us that you cannot take a map of London and draw your finger along a single road on which it is possible to have a private omnibus. The list of streets was made so as to render it impossible for a private omnibus to run a service at all without the permission of the Minister of Transport. The congestion which he wishes to cure is almost entirely due to the operations of the London General Omnibus Combine. As one who has always been a supporter of trade union legislation, it surprises me to find that those trade unions who are behind these omnibuses are trying to squeeze the others out of existence. You find each of these people pursued by five London General Omnibus men, who try to sweep them off the streets. The Minister has said he will consider the cases of these men. That is a new concession, for the men have come to me and said they have appealed to the Advisory Committee and have been told they must go to their Member of Parliament. These men have no Parliamentary Counsel to defend them. They have no powerful trade unions to stick up for them, nor have they any thousand a year publicity men. They have to rely for justice on a Minister of the Crown, and that Minister has no right to shift his responsibility on the Advisory Committee. I do not wish to make any indictment against him, but this no laughing matter. I do not want to accuse the Minister of deliberately giving a preference to the combine, but there is no doubt whatever that his Regulation has had two effects: first, that a number of people without having had notice that the Order was going to be

  1727
  made have given orders for certain omnibuses to be delivered to them. They have committed themselves to the expense of £1,000 or £2,000, and this Order will have the effect of ruining them. The second point is that the ante-dated Order limiting their right to transfer to another route will have the effect of clearing them off the streets altogether. I consider the Minister has made a grave error of judgment. Seeing this is a provisional Regulation I would ask the Minister if he could not give these men an opportunity to have due notice of what they have to face and also to limit the number of streets restricted, and especially to give the men an opportunity to run their omnibuses during non-congested hours.
  Major CRAWFURD: I desire in a very few sentences to try to bring back the House, particularly the hon. Members opposite, to the purposes for which this Motion was tabled. I want to draw attention to the method which has been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, sheltering his action behind the action of a Committee. I would remind him that the Committee is not an Executive Committee: it is an Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman himself is responsible for this Regulation. The Act of Parliament under which the Regulation has been issued provides quite clearly for the control of Parliament. It says in Section 7, Subsection 5, of the Act of 1924 that the Minister shall give notice of his intention to make an Order or Regulation. I want to point out to the House that we have not had any opportunity whatever of knowing the relevant facts which bore upon the Regulation which has been issued. Last Friday hon. Members opposite were cheering to the echo one of their number who was making a very eloquent plea, with which I had great sympathy, for restoring to the individual man freedom of initiative, but they now grudge a few minutes of time at an early hour in the morning when their own Government issues a Regulation and insists upon carrying it out, which is definitely going to create a monopoly. The right hon. Gentlemen the Minister of Transport has admitted the case of hardship, but let me point out what I believe to be the
  1728
  case under this Regulation, that once you have passed it, once you have scheduled these streets, once you have stabilised the position from the 1st of January, you may, if you then like, remove other omnibuses from the streets, and the effect might easily be to squeeze out the small private omnibus owner. The answer to that objection has been given by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), who made an admirable maiden speech, who said that there have been only three objections. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that this is a very childish answer—[Interruption.]
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Withdraw "Childish."
  Major CRAWFURD: Well, youthful. A great many of these men are ex-service men, not particularly well educated, and certainly not readers of the "London Gazette." In enforcing the Regulation, it may easily have the effect of driving off the streets the owners of single omnibuses, You then schedule your streets. I have a plan in my hand, and I defy any hon. Member opposite to point out a single alternative route where these men can make a living with their omnibuses. This Regulation may very easily have the effect of leaving the whole of the traffic of London in the hands of a monopoly. If there is to be a monopoly in this matter, it should be a Municipal monopoly, and not a private monopoly. You are taking away the control of the streets from the people who are responsible to the public—the local authorities. It has been suggested that the motives behind the moving of this motion are to make political capital. What we are doing is entirely in the interests of private omnibus owners. It is a protest against the creation of a monopoly. It is the first step and what I want to suggest is that this first step is in the wrong direction and should not be taken at all. You can either reduce the number of omnibuses and that is what you are doing, or you can increase the amount of street space which is what you ought to do. That is the kind of method that ought to have been used to solve the London traffic problem. It is not a problem of administration; it is a problem of physical structure. I had the advantage of speaking this afternoon to

  1729
  a prominent member of the Automobile Association and his reply was that this is a move in the wrong direction. It is because we resent creating a monopoly and because it is a great hardship that my friends must press this matter to a Division
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr.
  Question put:
  "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the London Traffic (Restricted Streets) Regulations dated the 18th day of February, 1925, be annulled."
  The House Divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 154.

  Division No. 38.]

  AYES.

  [1.31 a.m.

  Barr, J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Broad, F. A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Crawford, H. E.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ramer, J. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Harris and Mr. Macquisten.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Oakley, T.

  Atkinson, C.

  Hanbury, C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Penny, Frederick George

  Balniel, Lord

  Harland, A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Rye, F. G.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Savery, S. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Scurr, John

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Burman, J. B.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Skelton, A. N.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Christie, J. A.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Jacob, A. E.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Cope, Major William

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Warne, G. H.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lumley, L. R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Drewe, C.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Ellis, R. G.

  McLean, Major A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macmillan Captain H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fermoy, Lord

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fielden, E. B.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

  Finburgh, S.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Merriman, F. B.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Grace, John

  Moore, Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Colonel Gibbs and Captain

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Neville, R. J.

  Hacking.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-Two Minutes before Two o'Clock a.m., Friday, 13th March.

EDUCATION.
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS, UNIVERSITIES.
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS, UNIVERSITIES.
  TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  DOMESTIC SUBJECTS AND HANDICRAFTS (INSTRUCTION).
  DOMESTIC SUBJECTS AND HANDICRAFTS (INSTRUCTION).
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  WEST VIEW COUNCIL SCHOOL, LETCHWORTH (HEADMASTERSHIP).
  WEST VIEW COUNCIL SCHOOL, LETCHWORTH (HEADMASTERSHIP).
  ATTENDANCE AGE.
  ATTENDANCE AGE.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS (REGULATIONS).
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS (REGULATIONS).
  AIR SERVICES.
  AIR SERVICES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (VOLUNTARY RESIGNATIONS).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (VOLUNTARY RESIGNATIONS).
INDIA.
  FACTORIES AND EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.
  FACTORIES AND EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.
  CONSTITUTION.
  CONSTITUTION.
  OPIUM EXPORTS.
  OPIUM EXPORTS.
  ASCENSION (WEST AFRICAN LABOUR).
  ASCENSION (WEST AFRICAN LABOUR).
  OPIUM.
  OPIUM.
  UGANDA (COTTON SEED).
  UGANDA (COTTON SEED).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MOTHER'S PENSION.
  MOTHER'S PENSION.
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  TEMPORARY ASSESSMENT.
  TEMPORARY ASSESSMENT.
  FINAL AWARDS.
  FINAL AWARDS.
  DISABILITY ALLOWANCE.
  DISABILITY ALLOWANCE.
  CHARITY LAND PORTHCAWL.
  CHARITY LAND PORTHCAWL.
HOUSING.
  INSANITARY PROPERTY.
  INSANITARY PROPERTY.
  NON-BRICK HOUSES.
  NON-BRICK HOUSES.
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  BRICK MANUFACTURE.
  BRICK MANUFACTURE.
  CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES, DONCASTER.
  CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES, DONCASTER.
  RURAL HOUSING.
  RURAL HOUSING.
  CONVERSION INTO FLATS.
  CONVERSION INTO FLATS.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES.
  HOUSING ACT, 1919.
  HOUSING ACT, 1919.
  WANDSWORTH (HOUSES COMPLETED).
  WANDSWORTH (HOUSES COMPLETED).
  SKILLED LABOUR.
  SKILLED LABOUR.
  INFLUENZA.
  INFLUENZA.
  NEATH TOWN COUNCIL.
  NEATH TOWN COUNCIL.
  CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING MACHINES).
  CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING MACHINES).
  MILK (CONTINENTAL SUPPLY).
  MILK (CONTINENTAL SUPPLY).
AGRICULTURE.
  HOME FED BEEF AND MUTTON.
  HOME FED BEEF AND MUTTON.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  PIG INDUSTRY.
  PIG INDUSTRY.
  CALVES (SLAUGHTER).
  CALVES (SLAUGHTER).
  SHEEP-WORRYING.
  SHEEP-WORRYING.
  SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  BREWING COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  BREWING COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  BARRACK DEPARTMENT.
  BARRACK DEPARTMENT.
  RESERVE (SECTIONS A, B AND D).
  RESERVE (SECTIONS A, B AND D).
  COAL-MINING INDUSTRY (PROFITS).
  COAL-MINING INDUSTRY (PROFITS).
  POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH (RECIPROCAL PROMOTION).
  POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH (RECIPROCAL PROMOTION).
TRANSPORT.
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (FISCHLEY).
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (FISCHLEY).
  ADMIRALTY ARCH.
  ADMIRALTY ARCH.
  TRADE UNIONS (APPRENTICES).
  TRADE UNIONS (APPRENTICES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXTENDED BENEFIT.
  EXTENDED BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT (DEPENDANTS).
  BENEFIT (DEPENDANTS).
  KURDISTAN.
  KURDISTAN.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  DIVORCE COURTS (NEWSPAPER REPORTS).
  DIVORCE COURTS (NEWSPAPER REPORTS).
  WELSH COURTS (OATH).
  WELSH COURTS (OATH).
  "SUNDAY WORKER" NEWSPAPER.
  "SUNDAY WORKER" NEWSPAPER.
  BAKING TRADE (NIGHT-WORK).
  BAKING TRADE (NIGHT-WORK).
  RUSSIAN TRANSMIGRANTS.
  RUSSIAN TRANSMIGRANTS.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  CHILD ADOPTION.
  CHILD ADOPTION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ST. MILDRED'S CHURCHYARD BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to the first Bill on the Order Paper I beg to move that Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill. Your Lordships are aware that this is the Standing Order which lays down certain dates within which a Bill has to be read a second time. This Bill has been delayed for two reasons. We were waiting for the Report from the Government Department, and I desired to consult the convenience of my noble friend who desires to move an Amendment to the Second Reading Motion. I beg to move the first Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH had given notice to move, as an Amendment, That this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings upon a disused burial ground in contravention of such Acts. The noble Earl said: My Lords, no attempt has been made by the promoters of the St Mildred's Churchyard Bill to conceal its objects, which are quite apparent. I may therefore pass these over and explain why the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, of which I am the representative, opposes this Bill. The City of London Corporation, I understand, also oppose it, but I leave to other speakers the

479
explanation of their reasons. The Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which was formed by me in 1882 and which since that date has laid out, or has assisted to lay out, over 200 places in the Metropolis, was largely concerned, forty-one years ago, in the passing of the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, which rendered it illegal to build on the sacred soil of these grounds.
The Midland Bank, which occupies a palatial building overlooking the last small remnant of this ancient burial ground, has, since the passing of the Act of 1884, cast covetous eyes on this small protected spot and the Bill asks your Lordships to alter the law of the land, to remove your protecting shield, and to allow money to override reverence for the dead, sentiment, historic authority, the law of the land and the interests of the living, to scatter in every direction the bones of the ancient inhabitants of St. Mildred's and even to erase the recollection of this particular church and parish; for remember that this small resting place is the very last vestige of this historic church and burial ground. The Church of St. Mildred's, Poultry, was pulled down and part of the site and enclosure sold for secular purposes under the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, and St. Mildred's, Poultry, became part of the present united rectory of St. Margaret, Lothbury, with St. Christopher-le-Stocks, St. Bartholomew by the Exchange, St. Olave, Old Jewry, St. Martin, Pomeroy, and St. Mary, Colechurch. Nothing now remains, therefore, of St. Mildred's, Poultry, but this small burial ground with its ancient tombs and decaying bones.
Its position opposite to the present Mansion House is a proof that in former days the inhabitants of this City parish were important citizens of London. Their bones are now to be removed to cemeteries with which they had no connection, and which did not exist in those days. Why is Parliament invited to give authority to such violent action? Forsooth, to enable the Midland Bank to add to its already magnificent offices and increase its business by giving to the public eye a still further visible proof of its financial stability. Who besides the bank will benefit if this burial ground is built over? Will the citizens of London in any way benefit? Certainly
480
not. Will the congestion of population be diminished? No. Will those who now can find no roof under which to sleep be accommodated? No.
Who then, if this Bill be passed, besides the Midland Bank, will be benefited by the £5,000 which under the Bill this wealthy corporation undertakes to pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners through the hands of the Lord Bishop of Stepney, the present rector of the united parishes? The answer is that the rector, the churchwardens for the parish of St. Mildred's (which does not materially exist) and the parochial council of the parish of St. Margaret, Lothbury—which is about an eighth of a mile distant from St. Mildred's burial ground—and the scanty congregation of St. Margaret, Lothbury, are the only people who will benefit by this large sum of £5,000' proposed to be paid by the Midland Bank in order to override Acts of Parliament. £2,300 are to go towards paying off debt incurred in the restoration of St. Margaret, Lothbury—not St. Mildred—and the balance of the £5,000 is to be invested for the future repair and upkeep of the Church of St. Margaret, Lothbury. £5,000 is a large sum to be given for a diminutive spot of earth which at present is valueless. How is it that that which is valueless to-day can be worth so large a sum to-morrow? It can only be made valuable and worth £5,000 if you pass the Second Reading of the Bill. I feel assured you will not permit yourselves to become accessories to such a transaction.
Since the passing of the protecting Act of 1884 Parliament has three times upheld its decision. The first was in May, 1903, when the House of Commons, in rejecting the Bridewell Disused Burial Ground Bill, passed the following Resolution:—
"That this House declines to sanction a Private Bill in contravention of general public Statutes concerning open spaces for the express purpose of enhancing the value of a private estate."
That applies word for word to what is being done to-day. Secondly, in April, 1910, in rejecting the St. James Vestry Hall Bill for building on Piccadilly Churchyard, the House of Commons again successfully defended the Open Spaces Acts and passed a Resolution which is identical with the Resolution

481
which I submit to your Lordships this evening. Thirdly, in March, 1918, on the Second Reading of the St. Olave's Church Bill, the House of Lords successfully secured an open space equal in area to half the church site and half the churchyard.
Here are three instances where attacks on the Open Spaces Acts have been successfully repulsed by Parliament, twice in another place, and once in your Lordships' House. I hope your Lordships will to-night add a fourth repulse, thus making your total of victories equal to those in another place. No money passed in any of the cases I have mentioned. In addition to these three victories there was a fourth occasion, in 1889, when the Midland Railway Company sought to obtain powers to utilise a part of the disused churchyard of Old St. Paneras parish church. The Bill was opposed, and an arrangement was made by Section 20, and embodied in the Act, that in return for the ground taken the company should acquire and lay out other grounds adjacent to the burial ground, as an open space for the use of the public, and in addition should pay £12,000 to the London County Council for securing other open spaces in the parish for public recreation.
I represent to-night the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association of which I am the Chairman, and I only speak in regard to the Metropolitan area, but your Lordships are well aware that these Acts apply to the whole kingdom. Previous to the passing of the 1884 Act some 115 disused burial grounds in London alone had been built over for lack of protection. One hundred and fifteen grounds have disappeared altogether from London. Since that date, that is to say during forty-one years, my association believe that this Act has been the means of preserving some 320 disused burial grounds which still remain unbuilt on. My contention is that if you pass the Second Reading of this Bill you will find that a great many of those 320 burial grounds will be attacked by speculators and others. As far as the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association knows only one disused burial ground, on which is partly built the General Post Office, has been lost during those forty-one years. And why was that lost? Because the Government of the day required the site
482
of this burial ground for national purposes for the building of the General Post Office. And although it was opposed by our association we did it simply, like the Spartans at Thermopylæ, in order to give an example of what we believed ought to be done.
So long as the Disused Burial Grounds Act and the Open Spaces Act exist and are maintained by Parliament intact these grounds are valueless, and gradually the London County Council, the local authorities and our Association and others, as funds permit, are able from time to time to transfer them into spots of beauty and joy for the benefit of the living and to protect and show reverence to the ashes of the dead. But if it be known that money can influence the future of these grounds, there are hosts of speculators who will tempt the local ecclesiastical authorities to accept large sums which they may use for the maintenance of churches or for other purposes.
It should be observed that none of the grounds or portions of grounds taken or proposed to be taken in the instances I have given were open to the public, and that in all cases the church authorities wore assenting parties, whilst in the case of St. Olave's, Southwark, they were actually the promoters of an attempt to make money out of the sale and conversion of a disused burial ground. In the one case in which money passed—namely, that of a part of the churchyard of Old St. Paneras—the money did not go to the Church authorities, as is claimed in this case, but had to be utilised by a public body for acquiring other open spaces in the parish. I trust that my life's record may exonerate me from any accusation of hostility to the Church. I cannot believe that the Church as a whole desires that its edifices should depend for their erection, restoration or repair on the sale either of churches or of churchyards.
As I have, already said, the area of the remaining portion of St. Mildred's burial ground is small, but not so small as to be useless. I use that word because it is the word used by some of the promoters of the Bill. The Metropolitan Public Gardens Association at present undertakes the maintenance of two such churchyards which are as small as, if not smaller than, that of St Mildred's, and I can assure you that in the summer time you

483
would be astonished to see what spots of beauty they are. The City Corporation have petitioned against the Bill and intend to oppose it, I am told, in every way. I am informed by one of their officials that although the City authorities have not yet considered the question of maintenance, there is reason to suppose that should the Bill be rejected by your Lordships, and should the ground be handed over to the Corporation, they might be willing to consider the matter if they obtained the co-operation of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association. This co-operation I can, as Chairman, take on myself to promise under these circumstances. There is therefore no reason to suppose that there is no alternative to the destruction of the burial ground. It might easily be made into a beauty spot in the heart of London.
I appeal to your Lordships on behalf of these still-existing 320 grounds. If there had been no principle to defend which affected these grounds, I might not have considered the matter of the maintenance or destruction of such a small burial ground as that of St. Mildred's of sufficient importance to occupy your attention, but the case is one of extreme importance in regard to the future health of the Metropolis. The value of City and town property is so immense that these 320 lungs of London are really the only areas which are capable of being gradually converted into resting places for the living, quite irrespective of all sentiment as regards the protection of resting places of the dead. It is as much in the interest of the living as of the dead that I entreat you to take no action that may encourage speculators and corporations, companies or rich individuals, to tempt ecclesiastical authorities to endeavour to rid themselves of heavy financial burdens connected with their churches, selling their rights over these disused burial grounds, which at present under the law are practically valueless.
Surely the interests of the public cannot be entirely neglected in this connection. Parliament, by passing these Open Spaces Acts, clearly demonstrated that they were of this opinion. If public opinion has changed, and Parliament considers the Acts to be unnecessary, let them be abrogated and erased from the Statute Book, but, until this be done, surely it should not be possible for
484
money, and money alone, to be able to obtain a relaxation of the law. For remember, no voluntary organisation, such as the one I represent, can possibly hope to find funds adequate to fight continuously Private Bills supported by powerful moneyed organisations. Let us remember that "health is the second blessing that we mortals are capable of; a blessing that money cannot buy." Might I add to these words—"Though it can destroy it." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert "this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings upon a disused burial ground in contravention of such Acts."—(The Earl of Meath.)
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I desire wholeheartedly to support my noble friend in his opposition to this measure, and for this reason. Having lived in London for more than thirty years, during the greater part of which I represented a London constituency in another place. I know that there is nothing the Londoner resents more than any interference with the open spaces which he is fortunate enough to possess. He resents it rightly because it affects him in his health and his amenities. On the question of health, how comes it that London is distinctly healthier and has a lower death-rate than Paris? Those best able to judge—the municipal authorities, the medical profession and the sanitary officials of Paris—declare that it is due mainly to three causes. Firstly, to the fact that London is closer to the sea than Paris is; secondly, that London has a large tidal river bringing large volumes of ozone daily; and thirdly, and more important still, that London has large open spaces which act as lungs for the City. It is an established fact that in the poorer parts of Paris it is the exception for a child to be born and, continuing to reside in Paris, to arrive at maturity. In London children are successfully reared and brought to maturity in the poorest parts of the town.
Those are reasons why the Londoner attaches importance, so far as his health is concerned, to these valuable open spaces. But there is another reason—the amenities of the place. I know from

485
some experience that large numbers of the most industrious and the poorest of London citizens, many of whom dwell in the outskirts of London, use these three hundred and odd places of which the noble Earl has spoken, more especially during the summer, in their dinner hour in order that they may get a little ease and rest from the turmoil of London and the dust and noise of the places in which they work. Many of those people snatch their scanty meals in these open spaces. For those reasons I object to this measure.
But, most important of all, is the question of principle. If it is right to take this space, be it ever so small, there is no reason why the three hundred other spaces throughout London should not be dealt with in the same way. Because it happens to be a particularly small space there is no reason why it should be treated in the way suggested in the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will not be influenced by the Jesuitical plea that the funds which are to be derived from the sale of this piece of land are to be used for a good purpose. That is no reason why it should be carried into effect. I entirely agree with my noble friend that if funds are needed for the Established Church in this country there is plenty of money to be obtained for the purpose. We have had an example in what has happened in reference to the condition of St. Paul's. Is it right that citizens of all denominations who now enjoy the amenities of this open space should be deprived of those amenities in favour of one particular sect or religious community? Again, is it not the fact that the majority of these churches were at one time in possession of the Roman Catholic Church? And if those who now derive benefit from these open spaces are to be deprived of the amenties it is certainly unjustifiable that the money should be used for the benefit of one particular religious community.
There is a stronger reason still for opposing this measure. Is it right that a Private Bill should be introduced to override two important Acts that have passed through another place into your Lordships' House and have given complete satisfaction to the community at large, because, forsooth, some particular industrial concern sees this little
486
Naboth's Vineyard and is anxious to annexe it? If this piece of ground, small though it be, were placed upon the open market immediately it would fetch much more than the sum which I understand is to be given for it. Therefore, viewing it from every standpoint, I hope your Lordships will not be parties to depriving the people of London at large of something which is extremely valuable to their health, on the one hand, and to their amenities, on the other.
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl's Amendment and to oppose this Bill on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London. From whatever angle the Bill is regarded, it seems to me to be opposed to the public interest and to definite enactments of Parliament. The fact that we have the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, the Open Spaces Act of 1906, and the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act of 1878, together with various Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, should be enough to protect this open space from being used in the manner suggested by the Bill. As recently as 1918, on the Second Reading of the St. Olave's Church Southwark Bill, your Lordships' House passed an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill was referred that the Bill should be amended so as to preserve the disused burial ground unbuilt upon in compliance with the Act of 1884. In another place the following Resolution was passed without a Division on the Second Reading stage of a Bill concerning the old Bridewell Burial Ground in the City of London—
"This House declines to sanction a private Bill in contravention of public general Statutes concerning open spaces for the express purpose of enhancing the value of a private estate."
Why, it may be asked, should there be such objection in respect of so small a piece of ground? The objection is to the precedent and the principle. It is for this very reason that the citizens of London in this most congested district fight jealously for every cubic-inch of air space that may serve them as a lung. This particular spot may be only a thousand square feet, and if a building is erected on it there will be perhaps 80,000 cubic of air space occupied. But there is a principle involved. The Corporation

487
considers that this Bill should not be sanctioned. Once fritter away the principles laid down by the Statutes and weaken the authority of those Statutes, and the door will be open to other business institutions to seek leave to encroach upon other burial grounds, of which the City has many. I know a case in which another great institution has an eye on another burial ground in the City of London, and once you admit the principle that these burial grounds may be built over, it will be most injurious to the City of London.
In the City, where land is so fully occupied, the lungs of the City, inadequate though they are to-day, would be still fewer but for this Disused Burial Grounds Act. The principle involved is one on which the health and well-being of workers and citizens of London is much concerned, and I am sure the House will pause before it does anything to diminish that great boon to health which the City of London at the present time enjoys. I speak to-day as a member of the Corporation of the City of London, which Corporation is the local authority under the Open Spaces Act, and as the guardian of the citizens it strongly objects to this Bill, has deposited a Petition against it, and, through me, earnestly begs your Lordships to refuse a Second Reading to the Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I would like first to say that it is a very great grief to mo to oppose anything that is proposed by my noble friend Lord Meath, especially after his splendid record with regard to public gardens. He and I have worked together on that matter for many years. I think he will remember Bethnal Green cemetery and how we turned it into one of the most beautiful public gardens you could possibly have, and how the poors' land in Bethnal Green of twenty or thirty acres has become a beautiful open space by our co-operating together.
What I want your Lordships to do, before you make up your minds, is to go and see this little bit of ground referred to in the Bill. You might imagine from the speeches that we have heard that we were going to take away some beautiful open space with a flourishing garden, and use it for building purposes. It is nothing of the kind. The size of this little place
488
is 40 feet by 25 feet, and it is shut in by large buildings all round. It is not as if it was at present open to the public. It is not, and never has been. I feel inclined to ask my noble friend why he has not made it a garden long ago, as he has made many others. I suppose it really means that it has not been found possible-to do that with it. I cannot imagine why, with all his enterprise, he has not long ago asked me and others to start subscriptions, as we are only too willing to do, in order to convert this into a garden. This piece of ground is not accessible to the public, and is, I think, unsuitable for a public garden. It is being left entirely in a derelict condition, with four or five old tombstones round about, and is really not fit for anything. The City might have done something before now if they are so keen about this place. As it is it has been left perfectly useless and a disgrace to the City.
As a matter of fact, I did not know until yesterday very much about the proposal. This is a noble church. People sometimes accuse me of disregarding the noble churches of our City. This is one of the finest churches that has been built in the City. A large sum had to be spent upon restoring it. £8,000 had to be raised for that purpose. My friend the Bishop of Stepney, the rector, raised £6,000, and there is still £2,000 to be raised. The City has not given that £2,000. In addition, there ought to be a fund to keep this beautiful church in repair. We love these City churches. We delight in them. This proposal did not occur to me, but it did occur to some one that this was a perfectly useless bit of land, 45 feet by 25 feet, and that it might be sold and money obtained, not to enrich any parson or Bishop, but to spend upon this church, and to provide a fund for future needs. £2,000 is to be spent in clearing off the debt on St. Margaret's, Lothbury, and £3,000 to be set aside as a fund for keeping this lovely church in repair. That is the whole thing, and what I would like to plead would be that your Lordships should pass the Second Beading of this Bill to-day, and then, before the Committee stage, go down and see the place. I am quite prepared, if you do that, to abide by your verdict.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I think it would be convenient if at this stage I said a word recalling to your

489
Lordships, perhaps a little more fully than has been done up to now, what has been the practice of Parliament in these matters. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity of at once, expressing the gratitude which I know all your Lordships feel to my noble friend Lord Meath for the consistent way in which he has greatly benefited the public through a long and useful life in displaying a utility which I hope may be long continued. My noble friend, the right rev. Prelate, has recalled you to the facts of the case. I find very little to disagree with in the generalities of the noble Lord, Lord Rathereedan, and of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Clipstead, but they must allow me to say, with all respect to them, that really those generalities have very little to do with the 40 feet by 25 feet piece of ground with which we are concerned this afternoon. I always like on these occasions to go down and see the site, and upon several occasions when similar discussions have taken place have done so. I am sorry to say on this particular occasion I have not found the leisure to visit the place, but I have seen a large scale plan, and I can confirm the description given by the right rev. Prelate.
May I say one word now as to the practice of Parliament? Parliament has very often departed from the policy of the Public Acts quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Meath. He mentioned to your Lordships three rejections of proposals in accordance with the policy of those Acts, and he mentioned that he only knew of one in London the other way against him, the case of the General Post Office. I cannot pretend that I have got an exhaustive list here. Your Lordships will understand that it is not a practical thing to go through the history of these matters ever since the year 1884, and identify every case, but I have here fourteen cases, some of them in London. I will go through them all very briefly, because I think it is my duty to do so. These are fourteen cases where Parliament has departed from the policy laid down in the Acts quoted. The conclusion I draw from this is that Parliament, wisely I think, goes into every case on its merits; and my recommendation to your Lordships is that you should do the same in this case this afternoon. I will go through the cases very rapidly, saying
490
only a word or two about the London cases as they are the cases with which we are more immediately concerned.
There was the St. Bartholomew Hospital Act of 1904, in which power was given to build on the burial ground, proper provisions being made as to the removal of human remains, just as they are made in the present Bill. Then, in the St. Mary Woolnoth Church Act, 1904, power was given to sell to the City and South London Railway Company. In 1905 there was the Nottingham Corporation Act; in 1910 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act; in 1911 the Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Water Act: the Grosvenor Street Chapel, Manchester, Trustees Act in the same year; the Manchester Corporation Act in 1914; and the St. John's Church Kingston-upon-Hull Act in 1916. Then, in 1918, there was the St. Olave's Southwark Church Act, and, perhaps through inadvertence, the whole facts in connection with that case have not been mentioned to your Lordships.
I see opposite my noble friend who presided over the Committee which considered the proposal, and by Section S of that Act it was enacted that:
"Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to allow any building to be erected on so much of the disused burial ground forming the churchyard attached to the old church and of the site of the old church being not less than one-half of the whole area.…."
Your Lordships will see that the Committee made what seems to be a wise compromise. I do not carry in my head the size of the ground with which they were concerned; but I can produce more recent precedents. There is the Bank of England Act, 1923, where the Bank was authorised to build on disused burial ground forming part of the Bank premises and again providing for the removal of remains. There is also the Westminster City Council Act, 1923, in which authority to do the same thing in Cleveland Street was given. Your Lordships will see that there are precedents both ways, and I suggest——
LORD CARSON: Can the noble Earl tell us whether in the cases to which he has referred the local authority who may have charge of the open spaces were opposing or assenting parties?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I cannot say from my own knowledge, but

491
I can ascertain the information if it is of any interest to the noble and learned Lord. I do not carry all the details of these cases in my mind.
LORD PARMOOR: Can the noble Earl tell us to whom the money was paid in these cases?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Obviously to different parties in every case.
LORD PARMOOR: The question is whether in any case the disused burial ground was regarded as a source of profit.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite appreciate that point, but at the moment I am answering the point put forward by the Earl of Meath—that it is the policy of Parliament to forbid this. I do not want to put it any higher than this: that Parliament has frequently departed from this policy, doubtless for wise reasons in every case, and I think your Lordships will be wise to follow the same practice this afternoon. Your Lordships can be assured that the case will be heard. The Corporation of the City of London have deposited a Petition against the Bill. I have the Petition here. It raises the point which we are discussing this afternoon, and also the important point with regard to preserving anything of valuable historical interest. It is obvious that the Committee will give every consideration to a Petition of that kind.
I think I should also inform your Lordships of this. Bills of this kind are submitted to the Attorney-General, who makes a special Report to Parliament whenever he thinks fit. That Report has been made in this case, and it is only right that I should quote the opinion of the Attorney-General in the matter. He says:—
"I am informed that this disused burial ground consists of a small flagged space containing a few old tombstones stacked against a wall and confined within railings and a locked gate. The ground is too small to be of any use as an open space, and it appears to be really useless."
He concludes by saying:—
"I see no objection to the Bill."
This, I think, reinforces my claim that it would be wrong to deny to the promoters of the Bill the usual right to have their case heard in detail by the Committee
492
upstairs. That is my advice to your Lordships on form and procedure.
When I see the formidable array of speakers against the Bill I confess that I am tempted to say a word on the merits. This is a small open space, as your Lordships already know, with high buildings all round it. The public has no access to it now, and I cannot conceive that it ever would be that which Lord Meath describes—a beauty spot. If it has any value at all, it is to the Midland Bank who now have buildings on three sides of it. If the matter is pressed to a Division I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether the House would like to hear why it is that this succession of deviations from the principle of the Statute of 1884 are upon record. It is for this simple reason. The Act of 1884 concludes with a section which has not yet been quoted by any speaker who has spoken against this Bill. This section runs as follows:—
"Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to any burial ground which has been sold or disposed of under the authority of any Act of Parliament."
Parliament itself clearly contemplated, in 1884, that there might be cases in which the facts obviously require that some dispensation should be made. On the question of merit, if you are going to take the view that you would rather decide the case here and now at the instance of those who have locus standi to appear before the Committee, surely your Lordships can trust the Committee. Are you going to accept the balanced opinions and testimony even of eye witnesses, unfortified by the usual precautions taken in Committee?
Let me say that I visited this so-called open space yesterday. It has never belonged to the public, it has always belonged to the church, and it is a space for which nobody except the promoters of the Bill has ever proposed to give anything to the church. It is closed in on the south, and it is closed in on the west, a" well as on the north, and I doubt whether it ever sees anything of the sun, except, perhaps, in the early hours of the longest days. It is just in the opening of a little space called St. Mildred's Court, which itself is a cul de sac. The width of the opening which connects

493
it with the street called the Poultry is just wide enough, I should think, to admit one wheeled vehicle. If you think that an airless space surrounded by high buildings, a space into which the sun never shines, is either an amenity, a beauty spot or a source of health, I must say that there is room for great difference of opinion, and I think it is just that sort of difference which Parliament contemplated when it passed the fifth Section of the Act of 1884. It is clear that the present restriction of light and air is going to be even more accentuated by the action of the people who propose to reconstruct the buildings with which it is surrounded. These buildings are going to be demolished and reconstructed and, no doubt, those who do this work will go to the full length of their powers under the existing London Building Acts. Consequently, the sky line will be even higher than it is now, so that this spot, unhealthy as it is at present, will become unhealthier still.
May I venture to suggest to your Lordships that I think, and have thought ever since I have been in Parliament, that it is rather unfair that parties, whether they represent local authorities, or whoever they may be, should think fit to come and try to defeat Bills upon Second Reading which they have locus standi to oppose before the Committee. That seems to me to be an extremely unfair procedure. What is my locus standi? The noble Karl who moved the rejection of the Bill said that this money was going to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he said this without comment and without any sequel. It would at any rate be for a good purpose if it were going to go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a corporation In which, to use a sort of simile, the ordinary stock is held by the poor clergy of the country who have not living wages to subsist upon. At least that is a good purpose.
LORD CARSON: Why?
LORD STUART OF WOBTLEY: I do not know why I should be asked why. This is a very great trust—
LORD CARSON: I will tell the noble Lord why I asked why. It is because,
494
if people value their Established Church, they ought to contribute the money themselves.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: If you want this open space, cannot you spare the Church the value of it? I was going to say that, if it be a question of the right of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to speak in such a matter, I can appeal confidently to their record in respect of village greens, open spaces, playgrounds and recreation grounds in large towns which they have either given or improved, or have contributed to their improvement, among the great estates which they administer. I think it fair that one of the Committees of your Lordships' House, which I think you have still reason to trust, should decide this case, at all events so as to give your Lordships a further opportunity of reviewing it when the facts have been really looked into.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I must admit that I am a little surprised at the speech which we have heard from the noble Lord who has just sat down. I do not share with him at all the view that people who desire to oppose a Bill that is contrary to existing Statute Law should be confined to the expensive course of proceeding before a Committee of the House. I quite agree that in ordinary circumstances Private Bills should be discussed in detail away from the full assembly of the House, but this is a Bill which proposes to do something that an Act of Parliament has deliberately forbidden, and before the Committee stage is reached I think it is right that this House should decide whether they should permit a Statute—it may be to a small extent, but at least to the definite extent that this Bill provides—to he overridden by this proposal. I must say that I see no reason at all why it should.
It has been pointed out that the space is small. I quite accept that, but if the space is small the principle is a very large one, and I am not at all easy upon the illustrations which the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, gave concerning spaces where the Act of Parliament has been interfered with. I say that for this reason. What happened in the case of St. Olave's I do not know, but I have here the Journal of your Lordships' proceedings, and I find that on March 14,

495
1918, a definite Instruction was passed in this House to the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred to amend the Bill so as to provide
"that the disused burial ground, described as the churchyard, attached to the church. …shall be preserved unbuilt upon in compliance with Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884."
The noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Chipstead, was, at any rate, perfectly justified in the statement that he made that such was the procedure here.
How that Instruction was subsequently departed from so that the Act finally emerged in the form which the noble Earl quoted, I find it a little difficult to understand, but there is no doubt whatever either of the accuracy of this record or of the accuracy of that which the noble Earl has said. I should like to see more of these cases and to know a great deal more about the matter. For myself, I should doubt very much if Parliament was ever prepared to sanction, for the purpose of assisting a private venture by private persons in the direction of private building, the infringement of this Statute. Personally, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not assent to the Second Beading of this Bill nor allow a space in the City of London which, small though it is, is none the less an open space, to be built upon. I think that the more these spaces are preserved the better.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, stated the case of the Bank of England. What happened in the case of the Bank of England was that inside the Bank of England there was a small garden which was surrounded by the offices of the Bank. This garden was built over. I venture to say that this is a very different thing from taking an open space which adjoins a street and building over that. After all the Bank of England is more of a public authority than a private bank like the Midland Bank. My noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley suggested that this ought to go to the Committee. While I had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons I have often expressed a similar opinion, but always provided that the question that went to the Committee was not the principle of the Bill, but the details of the Bill. In this case all that your Lordships have to decide is the principle of the Bill; there really are no
496
details. The only question is whether this open site shall be built over or not, and whether we are, by private Act, to override two Public General Acts. I think that if you were to sanction this particular Bill the result would be, as the noble Earl said, that you would have a large number of people coming down and offering to give certain sums in order to obtain these sites to build over.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London said that the site is only a little one. The argument has been used before that it was "only a little one," but I am not aware that this excuse was adequate, or that, because this is only a small site, it is right to disturb the bones of the citizens of London, who were put there by their relatives many years ago, merely because a private undertaking desires to add to a new building which it proposes to erect. As regards the advantage to the Midland Bank, might I very respectfully suggest to them that with the modern convenience of lifts it is quite easy for them to put on another storey and obtain accommodation, without moving the bones of the old citizens of London and without infringing two Acts of Parliament and setting up an extremely bad precedent. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I hope that the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate will be acted upon and that the Bill will be given a Second Beading to-day in order to give us time to go and view the ground. With great respect to your Lordships' judgment, I do not think that we ought to decide this matter under the stress of emotion. We have heard a great deal about the possible use of this site, but, if there is such a desire for more air, why do not the City of London, a great wealthy corporation, come forward and give the money to save it? I believe that we are under no great stress of time. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, laid great emphasis upon not overriding the Act of Parliament, but Acts of Parliament cannot take cognisance of all the possibilities that may arise some years later. Great good has been done, as I think has been admitted, by different Acts concerning the conversion of burial grounds for recreation purposes, but there are exceptions to every rule. And surely, before we commit ourselves to giving no

497
permission for the use of this ground for one particular object, there should be given time for us to come to a clear understanding and knowledge of the case. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Heading to this Bill.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I venture to hope that an opportunity may be given to a Committee of this House to consider this question on its merits. I must make a confession at once, that I am not quit disinterested in this matter, because I happen to be a member of the board of the bank which is offering to buy this ground, but I can say most honestly that there is not a member of this House who is a keener supporter of the principle for which Lord Meath made so good a fight. I am almost a fanatic as a preserver of open spaces in our crowded cities, and as a defender of any ancient monument at all worth preserving. If I felt that this little bit of a burial ground—for, as I can explain to you directly, it is not a burial ground as a whole, but an accidental corner of a suppressed burial ground which still exists— had the slightest value as an open space, or felt that it had any interest as an ancient monument, or was an attractive thing to look at, and not, as it really is, rather an eyesore, I should not for a moment support the action of the board to which I belong in trying to obtain possession of it. I think the importance of keeping open spaces in these great, crowded cities is a vital matter.
Now, it has been argued that although this particular case may be an inconsiderable one, yet, if your Lordships approve the Second Reading of this Bill, you will be giving away a principle. Lord Meath made a strong appeal to your Lordships. He admitted that the particular case is not in itself important, but he said that if you allow the Bill to pass it imperils all the existing burial grounds in the Metropolis and other cities, which he says number 320. If I thought that, I would not plead in favour of this Bill, but it does not seem to me that, by giving this Bill a Second Beading, you do weaken any principle at all, because in spite of the Public General Acts to which reference has been made, it is perfectly clear that Parliament has always retained the right of considering upon its merits every proposal to appropriate a burial ground.
498
Since these Public General Acts have been passed there have been, I think, fifteen or sixteen cases in which Private Bills taking possession of burial grounds have been submitted to Parliament, and have been dicussed and decided upon their merits. The majority of those Bills have been approved and passed by Parliament, and therefore I cannot see that, if you approve this Bill, you will be doing anything to invalidate the principle for the protection of open spaces, because this House would be simply doing what has been done over and over again. Lord Donoughmore cited several such cases.
The real principle in this matter is that it is impossible to appropriate any disused burial ground for any purpose, however useful and however desirable, except after the matter has been submitted to, and has received the sanction of, Parliament. All that I plead for to day is that the proposal to utilise this piece of ground should be fairly considered; that it should go before a Committee who Mould be able to go into details. I am absolutely convinced that if a majority of your Lordships could see the spot which it is proposed to take there would be a great majority in favour of allowing this proposal to pass. It is perfectly valueless from the point of view of open spaces. You could no more lay out a garden there than you could lay out a garden in the area of any big house in London. You might just as well attempt to make a public garden m an area surrounded by big buildings in any big city. It is not even a place which could be seen. It is inside gates which could be closed at any time, and by the side of an alley which only leads into the bank building. Then I am told the Corporation objects to this proposal. If they can make out a good case against the proposal, they will have an opportunity of doing so if you give the measure a Second Reading; but the matter has been considered by the London County Council, which decided, by a great majority, not to make any objection to this measure. That being the case, I think there really is very strong grounds indeed for allowing the matter to be considered on its merits, as has always been done with similar proposals of the king during the last twenty or thirty years.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I only desire to make one observation. I asked

499
Lord Donoughmore during his speech whether, in the particular cases to which he referred, the local authorities who were the custodians of open spaces as set up by Parliament had acceded to the proposal to dispose of the site, and he very naturally said that he was unable to give me that information. But that information is of importance.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I do not think he put his question quite in the same way. I in fact quoted one or two cases where the local authorities actually promoted the Bills.
LORD CARSON: That is my very point. In some of these cases he now says that the matter was proposed by the local authority. How different that is from this case. What have you done by Act of Parliament? You have enacted that these disused burial grounds should be retained as open spaces. There is not a word in the Act, as far as I know, about the smallness or the largeness of them, or whether they might bring money to a church or a bank, or anything else. The point is that they are not to be enclosed or built upon, and that was the object of the Act. But you did more by the Act. You appointed a special local body to look after the carrying out of the Act, and to see that these open spaces are preserved, and here to-day we are asked entirely to disregard, not merely the Act itself, but the opinion of the City Corporation, whom you have set up as the proper custodians and advisers in relation to these open spaces. I venture to think that that is a very strong order.
When I am told by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London that I had better go down and look at the place. I think the Corporation are quite as good judges of it as I am. They know as much about the City of London and its necessities as I do, and, so far as I am concerned, I decline entirely to consider as the principle that arises on the Second Reading of this Bill the question, first, whether it is a very small space or a very large space, or, secondly, whether it will be of benefit to a particular denomination for the property to be sold. I think neither of these issues has anything whatever to do with the Public General Act that was passed. It is said that you
500
would be enabled to pay off a debt on the church, and I am sure I hope the debt will be paid off, but all I can say is that, if you have an Established Church, as I hope you always will have, I trust that people will value it sufficiently to subscribe the money for making these necessary alterations and improvements without having to go to Parliament, as a private commercial matter, to try to raise money in breach of an Act of Parliament which has been passed for the public good.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, may I be allowed, not on behalf of the Government, but on my own behalf, to say a few words to explain why I propose to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. These debates in the House on Private Bills are very often difficult because we get statements on one side or the other and we have really little chance as members of this House of testing them. The present case is very simple. This little piece of land is the property of this church. The church desires to sell it for what seems to most of us a very large price, in order to use that money, not for any private benefit but for purely church purposes. That is the interest on one side. On the other we are told that this is at present an open space and comes under the Disused Burial Grounds Act. Of course it does, but that Act says that disused burial grounds shall not be built over unless Parliament otherwise determines: in other words, the power is left to Parliament to consider in each case whether there is or is not a ground for making the case an exception.
Though there is an open space here, does it really come to anything at all? Forty feet by 25 I think. A Law Officer of the Crown has gone into the matter and he says the land is perfectly useless as an open space and he sees no objection to the Bill being passed. Between these statements I cannot judge, and I do not think your Lordships can judge. The right thing, it seems to me, is to send the Bill to a Committee where the promoters will not only have to prove the details of the Bill but also to make good the Preamble of the Bill. I would much rather take a verdict of that kind than go into this matter and determine it to-day.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations, because when the Bill dealing with St. Olave's Church was before the House I took an active part, unfortunately only at the latest stage. I was not in the House before the Bill went to a Committee, but it went with an Instruction, and that Instruction, I think, was a great disaster for the Committee which had to investigate the matter. The Bill came down, and the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, was not satisfied with it, and a number of noble Lords, including Lord Crewe, discussed whether the recommendations of the Committee should be adopted. They were opposed to the form in which the Bill came down, and when it went to a Division we had a very small number of supporters, but among them were the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, Lord Lamington, Lord Hylton, Lord Denman and myself. Those who voted in the majority voted because they said: "Unfortunately, we have come to an arrangement, and we are bound to stick to the arrangement we have made." With regard to this Bill, certainly let it go to a Committee, but without any Instruction, so that the hands of the Committee shall not be tied.
In the case of the St. Olave's Bill I thought the site an absolutely unsuitable
one for the purposes of an open space. If that arrangement had not been carried out, and the Committee had not been tied by an Instruction, a new church could have been built, or the church would have been removed, a splendid site would have been provided for an open space, and the money would have been at the disposal of the authorities to pay a proper stipend to a clergyman. All those advantages were lost through having an Instruction sent to the Committee, and now nothing can be done in regard to St. Olave's. If noble Lords would refer to the debate on that occasion and read the speeches made by the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, and others, they would spend a most interesting half hour. As I said in that case the passing of that Instruction ended disastrously. In the case of the present Bill it may be right or it may be wrong to preserve this open space, but I consider that the Bill ought to go to a Committee, as the Lord Chairman advised, so that the matter can be properly thrashed out.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

London, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Avebury, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Devonshire, D.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Eldon, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan William.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lovelace, E.

Phillimore, L.

Lucan, E.

Clinton, L.

Raglan, L.

Midleton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Romilly, L.

Powis, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sinclair, L.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Somers, L.

Desborough, L.

Southborough, L.

Chaplin, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Southwark, L.

Falkland, V.

Dynevor, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. E. Galloway.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Haldane, V.

Emmott, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Harris, L.

Sumner, L.

Milner, V.

Hindlip, L.

Templemore, L.

Novar, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Treowen, L.

Peel, V,

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lansdowne, M.

De La Warr, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Russell, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Strafford, E.

Aberconway, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Farrer, L.

Shandon, L.

Hemphill, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Joicey, L.

Strachie, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Leigh, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Carson, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Sydenham, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) [Teller.]

Olivier, L.

Wharton, L.

Parmoor, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, this Bill, of which I now move the Second Reading, deals with certain arrangements made for the mutual recognition of rules. The Merchant Shipping Act contains certain sections which provide for the conclusion of agreements with foreign countries for the mutual recognition of regulations relating to the safety of ships, the agreement being, as a rule, limited to cases in which the foreign Power has given similar terms to British ships. Such an agreement can only be made where the laws and regulations in the foreign country in question are equally effective with, or substantially equivalent to, our own laws, though they may not be in exact agreement with them. The power to make those agreements is of great advantage to us, as it enables our ships to avoid the great inconvenience of having to obtain similar certificates in foreign countries.
Recently, however, the French Government passed a law relating to wireless telegraphy on ships, and this law differs appreciably from our law on the subject. The French Government offered to make a reciprocal arrangement with us providing
504
for the acceptance in French ports of compliance with our law as equivalent to compliance with the French law, on the understanding that similarly we accepted in our ports compliance with their law. When the matter was gone into, it was found that the French requirements were substantially the equivalent of ours, but we also found that the Government had not Dower to make such an agreement, because the British law on the subject of wireless telegraphy on ships required foreign ships to comply strictly with the British requirements while they were in the ports of the United Kingdom. The main object of this Bill is to give us power to make reciprocal arrangements with France or other Governments on the subject of wireless telegraphy on ships; but the Bill goes a little further than that and gives power also to make those reciprocal arrangements on other matters as they may arise.
Of course, this condition giving us the power as regards reciprocity is very convenient indeed in providing us with bargaining power in dealing with foreign countries, and it becomes of great value in connection with the 25th Article of The recent Treaty of Commerce with Germany relating to the measurement, fittings, equipment and safety of ships. This Bill, if it is passed, will put us into the position of being able to carry out that undertaking. By a further provision of the Bill power is given to recognise the provisions of a Dominion or of a Colony relating to safety requirements as being equivalent to the provision required by the Merchant Shipping Act. There is power already to accord such recognition in regard to certain matters, such as passenger certificates and load line. It would be very useful indeed if the Government had a similar power with regard to other matters affecting merchant shipping. It appears that the French law with regard to these wireless telegraphy provisions comes into force this month, and there are in it substantial obligations which would, apart from this Bill, be laid upon certain

505
British ships—small British ships, which are really, I believe, exempt from these regulations under our law. It is very important, therefore, that we should be put into a position to be able to negotiate with the French Government as soon as possible. I hope your Lordships will pass this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have read this Bill and I see no objection to it. So far as I am concerned, I am anxious that it should pass.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION 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 Newton.)
House in Committee accordingly:
[The KARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extended powers of making by-laws.
1.—(1) The powers of a local authority under Section two of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall include powers to make by-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

(a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or

(b) the amenities of villages in rural districts; or

(c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely or chiefly on account of its beauty or historic interest.

(2) In Section two of the principal Act the words "or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape" are hereby repealed without prejudice to the validity of any by-law in force and valid at the passing of this Act.
(3) This section shall not apply to the exhibition of advertisements on or upon any railway station, yard, platform or railway
506
approach belonging to a railway company, or elsewhere than in a rural district upon any dock, quay, pier, landing stage, wharf, dock or toll station belonging to any harbour, dock or canal undertaking.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), after "landscape," to insert "so far as they are applicable to rural districts." The noble Earl said: Subsection (2) is intended to repeal certain powers which have been found to be both cumbrous and unnecessary in the case of rural authorities. As it stands, however, it goes a little further than I think the noble Lord must have intended, for it will weaken the already sadly deficient powers of the London County Council and other urban authorities. My Amendment will remove this defect by excluding the repeal of the urban powers. As the object of the Bill is to increase rather than diminish the scope of the existing legislation, I hope that the noble Lord may see his way to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("so far as they are applicable to rural districts").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD NEWTON: I have no objection in principle to the Amendment of the noble Lord, but I must remind the House that over and over again I have stated that this Bill is the result of a compromise, and of elaborate negotiations conducted with various bodies, and I am afraid that it would be rather rash of me to accept an Amendment of this kind unless I could be sure that no opposition to it would be raised in another place. I would suggest to my noble friend, if he sees no objection, that he should postpone his Amendment to a later stage, and in the meantime ascertain whether there is any opposition to his proposal. If there is no opposition, or if he is able to conciliate any opponents that there may be, I shall be most happy to accept the Amendment, but in the meantime I think it would be to the general convenience if he would consent to postpone his Amendment.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I should like to raise one point upon this. So far as the Department for which I speak is concerned they see no abjection to this Amendment so far as it attempts to solve the difficulty between the words "natural beauty of a landscape" and

507
"rural scenery." There may be cases where there is natural beauty of landscape in a town to which the words "rural scenery" are hardly applicable. I should like to bear out what has already been said by my noble friend Lord Newton that the best chance for this Bill passing is that it should remain what, owing to his incessant labours, it has become, practically an agreed measure. I should like to ask my noble friend opposite, if he is going to bring forward his Amendment at a further stage, whether his object would not be secured if the second part of Clause 1 were wholly omitted from the Bill, and urban and rural districts had one description applied to them. I only throw that out as a suggestion for consideration at a future stage.
EARL DE LA WARE: I will certainly consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. I fully realise the difficulties with which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is faced in having to deal with very difficult people. I am, therefore, willing to withdraw my Amendment in order to help him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"For the purpose of the principal Act and this Act, any hoarding, structure or apparatus erected or fixed and used only for the exhibition of an advertisement shall be deemed to be part of the advertisement."
The noble Earl said: During the Second Reading debate on this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned the case that has made this Amendment necessary. Briefly it is this. The East Sussex County Council has compelled certain obnoxious advertisements to be removed from downs in their county. By a legal quibble advertisers claim the right to leave their equally obnoxious hoardings where they are, and contend that the Council can only enforce the removal of the advertisements themselves. Such quibbles as these, quite apart altogether from the issues at stake, only serve to bring the law into contempt, and deservedly so. The Amendment which I move is drafted in order to make this matter quite clear for the future, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD NEWTON: I am in complete sympathy with the object of the noble Earl, and I recognise with him that apparently the working of the present Act is comparatively futile. It stands to reason that a person who is maliciously disposed can defeat, without very much ingenuity, the purpose of the Act. But I must again remind him that the only chance for this Bill is to secure some kind of general agreement. Although there is no open opposition, I have no doubt that there are certain persons, more especially in another place, who will be glad to wreck this Bill if they can. I am much afraid that if I accept an Amendment of this character they will make it the excuse for declaring that it is a contentious Bill, and its passage will be endangered in another place. I make the same suggestion on this Amendment as I did on his previous Amendment—that he should get into touch with the bodies who represent the advertisers and see if he can arrive at an agreement with them. If he is able to do so I shall be only too pleased to accept the Amendment. In the meantime I hope he will be good enough to accept my suggestion and postpone his Amendment to a later stage.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am sorry to have to criticise the noble Earl's Amendment, but I rather doubt whether in this case his object will be carried out by the words he has proposed. What he wants to prevent are hoardings remaining after the advertisements have been removed, and I am not at all sure that his Amendment would produce this desired result. According to his Amendment, the words are these: "Used only for the exhibition of an advertisement." It might well be argued that if you take the advertisements away the hoardings are no longer used for the exhibition of advertisements, and I should like to suggest that he should alter his Amendment—subject to the same proviso as has been already stated—and that it should read in something like this form: "Hoardings intended and designed wholly for the exhibition of advertisements shall be deemed to be included in the word 'advertisement'." The Government accept no responsibility

509
for this Bill, although they view it with much favour and hope that it can be got through by agreement.
EARL DE LA WARE: I again thank Lord Desborough for his suggestion. It seems to me to be an improvement. I shall have to consult my friends on the matter. Being friendly to the Bill and not wishing it to be lost, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment. But I really must protest that this is a most unsatisfactory way of carrying on public business. In so many words we have been told that some mysterious body behind the scenes is threatening to kill this Bill in another place without discussion, if any Amendments are made. The effect of this is practically to transfer the control of public affairs to some such association as the Bill Posters' Association, who, I presume, are at the back of the opposition.
The House of Lords may not be a democratic body, but I think we have more right to deal with these matters than the Bill Posters' Association. Surely if there is a real case to be put up against the Amendment, the Bill Posters' Association can find some noble Lord who would be prepared to state their case, and it is a matter of courtesy to your Lordships to have the case stated, or an attempt made to put the case before the House, where if could be considered on its merits. As they do not take this course we can hardly be blamed if we conclude that they have no case at all, or that the cause of their silence and their recourse to these backdoor methods is that their case will not bear public scrutiny. They have preferred not to accept this challenge, and I again appeal to the Government to offer such facilities in another place as will give a full opportunity for that fair consideration and fair discussion which the Bill deserves.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The last speech of the noble Earl is a very strong one. This Bill has been through your Lordships' House three times and the Government has never interfered at all in its behalf. Surely the time has come when they might grant reasonable facilities for its discussion in another place, when it would be possible to have these questions, these useful questions, properly considered and determined. It is not a very desirable method of conducting legislation
510
to bring in a Bill and say: "You must take this or nothing at all because there is a body of people who are not here, they are outside, who will wreck the Bill if you do not pass it as it is." I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, appreciates that. His anxiety is to get the Bill through, and he knows that unless he can get a measure of agreement beforehand, or get the Bill under the protection of the Government, the chance of success is slight. That position is not a very creditable one, and ought to be removed by the Government saying that this is a Bill which deserves some consideration and either take charge of it themselves or let some private Member in another place have a reasonable chance of passing it into law.
LORD NEWTON: I quite agree that we are placed in a most humiliating position: but what are we to do? We are told that we can only get a measure of this kind through by general agreement. If the Government would only give some sort of undertaking, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the position would be quite different. I do not feel the least certain that we shall get any definite undertaking from the Government, and, therefore, I think it much better to proceed cautiously. In fact, I am only imitating the procedure of the noble and learned Lord himself. He prefers to get his measures passed through by degrees rather than venture upon an open contest with the enemy. On the whole, it seems to me that the safest and most practical course is for the noble Earl to postpone his Amendment, however disappointing may be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
"3.—(1) A county council may delegate to any rural district council the power of enforcing within the rural district any by-laws made by the county council under the principal Act and this Act.
(2) The rural district council shall thereupon become, to the extent of such delegation, a local authority for the purpose of the principal Act and this Act.
(3)A county council may revoke any delegation under this section, and such delegation

511
shall thereupon cease to have effect, without prejudice, however, to any action that may previously have been taken by the rural district council thereunder."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment will, I think, help the Bill in another place. Under this measure county councils have power to delegate powers to local authorities. The proposal is to go a step further—and in this I am speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association—and to give these same powers to urban district councils. Under the Bill, as it stands at present, rural district councils would be unable to be the authority, and I am sure it will assist the passage of this Bill in another place if rural district councils have this power.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 27, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD NEWTON: Before accepting this Amendment, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has received any assurance from the London Chamber of Commerce, who have practically been the opponents of this Bill. There is a noble Lord who usually represents that body here. I refer to Lord Southwark. I do not see him present now.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord refers to Lord Southwark. My noble friend Lord Southwark has told me that he quite approves of my Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: Is the noble Lord satisfied that he has explained the matter to Lord Southwark properly, and that he has a definite statement—because I find the noble Lord a very ambiguous speaker as a rule, and I never feel quite certain as to which way he intends to vote nor what his opinion is? But if my noble friend is satisfied I will take his word for it, and I will also take the chance of accepting his Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I am quite satisfied.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether this measure applies to Scotland?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, certainly.
LORD LAMTNGTON: I notice in Clause 2 a reference to district councils I do not think that Scotland has district councils. They have district committees.
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to this Amendment, those for whom I speak have no objection to it in principle, but I ought to point out that I think it requires some little alteration. First of all, I think it ought to be made quite clear that the rural district council must be willing to take over these duties if the county council wish to relegate them.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him with regard to that point, the County Councils Association, with whom I am acting, wish to do this only in places where the rural district council so desires.
LORD DESBOROUGH: That ought to be made clear. It should be done by consent. There is one other small point, with regard to expense. Provision should be made that no expenses should be incurred by the rural district councils in this matter. This would involve merely a drafting Amendment, and I think the Parliamentary draftsman could quite easily settle both these points, if the noble Lord agrees.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Would it not be better to postpone this Amendment until the Report stage? I confess that I do not very much like it. I do not know why the county councils should shuffle off upon another body work which has been left in their hands, and I have some doubt as to whether the expense may not be placed upon the rural district councils, who have not the same means of levying rates as the county councils. Surely it would be better to follow the example set by the noble Earl opposite and defer this Amendment for the time being?
LORD STRACHIE: I suggest that it would be quite easy to make necessary alterations on Report. I can assure the noble Lord that the County Councils Association put this Amendment forward because they wanted to do something to please the rural district councils.
EARL RUSSELL: Oh, yes, they may wish to do something to please the rural district councils, but this is a Bill which gives authorities power to do things concerning which a great deal of pressure will be put upon them. I do not often find myself in agreement with the noble

513
Lord opposite, but I am inclined to think that it is better that the larger authority should administer these powers. I hope the House will, at any rate, hesitate to insert this Amendment at this stage.
LORD LAMINGTON: I have had no answer to my question about Scotland. There are no rural district councils in Scotland.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next question which arises is the discussion of Clause 3. I do not know if that covers the noble Lord's Question.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act—
The expression "young person" means-a person who is under the age of eighteen years:
The expression "ship" mentis any seagoing ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship, and includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "But does not include any tug, dredger, sludge vessel, barge, or other craft whose ordinary course of navigation does not extend beyond the seaward limits of the jurisdiction of the harbour or pilotage authority of the port at which such vessel is regularly employed, if and so long as such vessel is engaged in her ordinary occupation." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have given due Notice of this Amendment, which I put down in order to met the point raised by Viscount Devonport and Lord Phillimore regarding the exclusion from these International Labour Conventions of tugs, dredgers, sludge vessels, and so on. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, will look at the Amendment I think he will see that it meets his point.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I quite agree.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should like the noble and learned Viscount opposite to observe the limitation—
"If and so long as such vessel is engaged in her ordinary occupation."
Of course, if tugs, and so on, were to forego their ordinary duties and go on sea voyages, they would come tinder the Conventions. I am advised that this Amendment will bring the law into conformity with the Conventions, and there will be no necessity to have any reservation. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
page 5, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount peel.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill does not yet go so far as I should like, but it is improved, and perhaps we may leave it at that. It will now be looked after in another place.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the original difficulty arose because the Convention was in French and was not very well translated into English. The word maritime, was translated "maritime." If they had said "sea-going," I think it would have made it much clearer.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL RATES (ADDITIONAL GRANT) CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is similar, except in two matters to which I will refer, to the Bill which was passed by your Lordships last year. The pith and marrow of the Bill is to be found in Clause 1, which provides, in effect, that if two unmarried persons have a child and afterwards marry, the child shall, whether the parents marry before or after the commencement of this Act, be legitimated, and the same provision

515
will take effect from the date of the commencement of this Act or from the date of the marriage, whichever last happened. If this Bill is passed it will put an end to a very long controversy. The rule which we seek to enact was the rule in the civil law and in the canon law, and it is to-day the law in Scotland, where, I believe that the old practice of putting children born before the marriage under what is called the cair-cloth, that is to say, under the marriage cloth used at the time of marriage, has not yet quite died out. But the English Common Law-has always been the other way, and at the Council of Merton, held in 1236, when all the Bishops pressed for an alteration of the English law so as to bring it into conformity with the canon law, the assembled Earls and Barons replied that they would not change the law of the realm, which had been hitherto used and accustomed, and they used the expression often heard since, nolumus leges Angliæmutari.
Since that time many changes have occurred in the laws of England, and I think in the opinions and feelings of this country, and the feeling has grown that where parents have erred and seek to repair their error, they should be encouraged and allowed to do so to the full extent, and by their marriage to remove from their children the stigma of bastardy. Many Bills for that purpose have been brought in. Bills having this effect have been accepted more than once, so far as the principle is concerned, by both Houses, and I think that the Government are interpreting the feeling both of Parliament and the country in taking charge of this Bill and recommending it for the acceptance of Parliament. It is a subject which lends itself to rhetoric, but I have no rhetoric, and therefore I am content to say that in my view the change proposed is both just and wise.
I must refer to one provision of the Bill—namely, subsection (2) of Clause 1, which provides that
"Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born."
That subsection reproduces the Scottish law, which has always declined to extend the rule as to legitimation by subsequent marriage to the issue of incestuous or
516
adulterous intercourse. The proviso has in this country provoked deep and, I am sure, sincere differences. Some people say that the child alone is to be considered, and that this exception does injustice to the child. Others say there are other matters to be considered, and that the omission of this proviso would introduce new difficulties and new dangers, and strike a blow at the Marriage Laws of this country. This House has always taken the latter view. Twice last year this subsection was the subject of discussion and decision in this Houe. On each occasion the House decided in favour of the insertion of this provision, and on the second occasion so decided by a majority of two to one. I do not know whether that controversy will or will not we renewed in Committee on this Bill, but I will not argue the point to-day and will only say that I could not have introduced a Bill which did not contain this provision.
There are two clauses in the Bill which are new. One is Clause 2, the effect of which is this: There was inserted in the Bill of last year an Amendment which provided that legitimation by marriage should not take effect unless the parents avowed the parentage within some definite time. That was inserted at the instance of my noble friend Lord Midleton. I was never quite satisfied with the form of the Amendment, although I always felt sympathy with the object. The effect of the Amendment as then drafted was that if the parents, either from caprice or forgetfulness, or some other reason, did not register the parentage within a limited time after their marriage or the passage of this Bill, the child could not afterwards become legitimated. I think that that might have acted hardly upon some children. We propose to put in place of that provision the second clause of this Bill, the effect of which is to make it the duty of the parents to register the birth of the child as their child; that is to say, when they marry, to re-register it within a limited time after the marriage, and if they fail to do so the penalty will fall upon the parents who neglect their duty, and it will be still possible to register the child as a legitimated child of its parents. I hope my noble friend and the House will think that that covers the substance of the arguments which he put before the

517
House, and will consider that this is a good solution of the difficulty which he raised.
The other new clause is Clause 3 of the Bill, which authorises any child affected, or his parents, to ask for a declaration of legitimacy under the Legitimacy Declaration Act of 1858: The object of that is that if parties interested so desire they shall be able to bring forward evidence and prove their case while the evidence is still to be had, and not to postpone it until the evidence may be lost. The rest of the Bill deals mainly with questions of property and is substantially in the form in which you passed the Bill last year. I am satisfied that the Bill will effect a useful and long-desired change in the law, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—[The Lord Chancellor.]
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, as I was responsible for a former Bill which passed your Lordships' House I may perhaps say a few words on this measure. First of all, I recognise with gratitude that the Government have adopted the Bill in substance, and that they are prepared to make an effort to remove what I have always thought to be a very grave injustice. But in one particular respect they have felt themselves constrained to retain a provision, which was undoubtedly introduced into the measure I have referred to as my Bill, but which I greatly regretted. But after what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when my Bill was formerly discussed, it was not to be expected that he would introduce a Bill omitting a clause such as that to which he has referred—that clause, I mean, which provides that the benefits of this Bill shall be denied to a child who has been guilty of no greater wrong than having one of its parents married to a third person at the time of its conception.
People have odd opinions of justice and they may reconcile this to their own consciences as they will, but to me it is a flagrant wrong. I cannot see why, if you are going to legitimate children at all, you should set up a special class and brand them with a special stigma for something for which they cannot be in any way responsible. I know it is urged
518
that this is done in the interests of what is frequently referred to as "the sanctity of the home." I can only repeat that this is another instance of what the reading of history has often taught me—that some of the greatest injustices are perpetrated in the name of the highest ideals. So be it. I shall not attempt to challenge this Bill now, nor shall I attempt to invite your Lordships again to discuss the old matter upon which you have already passed an opinion on two occasions, but I could not let this Bill go by without repeating my protest against that provision.
With regard to Clause 2 I am bound to say I think the Lord Chancellor has discovered a very fair and a very humane solution of a great difficulty. As the matter stands no negligence on the part of a parent will rob the child of the benefit which this Bill confers, and that appears to me to be just and fair. On the whole, I am sincerely grateful to the Government for the distance they have gone, and I only regret, although I foresaw it, that they were unable to go one great step further.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend I also am grateful to the Government for having gone as far as they have gone, and I very willingly assent to the Second Reading. But I cannot speak too strongly about what seems to me to be the iniquity of Clause 1 where you penalise the innocent children for that for which they have no responsibility. It is said that this is done to strengthen the sanctity of the home. I do not think it has anything to do with the sanctity of the home. It is a question affecting the children and we are left with the responsibility of allowing to remain under this stigma those who contributed nothing to what is objected to. It is said that is only following the Scottish precedent. If so, they must be old Scottish Acts before the Union. Nobody pays any attention to these things now in Scotland, and if these Acts exist it is only because of the inaction which has very long pervaded the minds of the legal profession in Scotland with regard to legal reform. Anyhow, no foundation built upon old Scottish legislation is really worth anything in the times in which we live.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, everybody will sympathise with the object of this measure and, as I said on a previous occasion, I heartily support it. One is tempted to stray a little after the speeches of the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken. If one were to listen to them, every bastard child should be legitimated straight away. You are considering only the interests of the innocent child. But the noble and learned Lords have forgotten a decision of your Lordships' House of quite recent date, in the case of Russell v. Russell. Suppose the case of an adulterous wife. Under your Lordships' decision that child is the child of the marriage. The adulteress afterwards marries a paramour, and then she says it is the child of her paramour. Under which law is it to come, if you are to have the clause which the two noble Lords desire, and at the same time the decision of your Lordships' House is to stand?
But I did not really rise so much for that purpose, as to submit to the Lord Chancellor and to the Government a consideration with regard to Clause 2, and, in connection with that, with regard to Clause 3. I had the honour of helping the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and of speaking in support of his proposal on the last occasion, and he has desired that I should speak first now, though I hope he will also address the House. I quite feel the difficulty, we always felt the difficulty, that the parents might be lazy or indifferent or ignorant, but the danger which we saw is not in the least met by the amendment. The danger which we saw was that of people, years afterwards, coming forward and saying that they were the children of such a union, when there was nobody to contradict them, and we referred to what we understood to be the foreign practice, under which, when two people marry, they at the same time, either in the register or in the contract, or on some other occasion, specify "And we thereby legitimate, etc." This provision does not mean that at all. It puts a duty on the parents, no doubt, but on the supposition in this case, the child is not a child of the parents, and yet there is no presumption against somebody who comes forward later and says: "I was their child."
520
It has occurred to me in the course of this evening that something could be done to meet the difficulty of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and the difficulty which the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and others, who voted with us on the last occasion, felt. If I remember rightly there was a Division, and a considerable majority of your Lordships voted with us. It now occurs to me that it might be worded in this manner: Unless the child was declared at the time of the marriage—in the language proposed by the noble Earl last time—it should have the burden of proving under Clause 3, not before the Registrar-General but before a Court, on an application under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, that it was a child of the marriage. That is merely a suggestion which has occurred to me, but I wish to point out to the Lord Chancellor that the risk which we anticipated, and which certainly had a great effect upon your Lordships' House on the last occasion, is not in any way met by Clause 2 as it stands.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in support of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore. I confess I was very much astonished, after what passed last year, to find that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, having undertaken to introduce this Bill, had really so very little regard for the principle which was adopted in this particular matter by your Lordships and was accepted as a compromise by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, who was in charge of the Bill last year. I was still more astonished when I heard the arguments by which the Lord Chancellor supported it. He said that the Bill was intended to put an end to a long controversy. It was conclusively shown in the debates last year that the Bill as drawn and as introduced into your Lordships' House would have had the effect in one direction of terminating a long controversy, but of opening in another direction a variety of much longer controversies.
It stands to reason that if, after the lapse of thirty or forty years, you have to hunt up the validity of the birth of a person who is the offspring of two people who were not married, you will have to go into a number of most difficult and devious calculations for which there is

521
really no material, on which to found the arguments to be put before the Court. On whom has that to fall? On the legitimate offspring. On persons who have regarded themselves up to that moment as being the sole legitimate offspring of their parents and upon whom is suddenly sprung a demand by one parent that any number of children that she may claim to have had in some period long past by the father of the legitimate children should be placed on an equality with themselves. That was shown in the debate last year by one lawyer after another to be likely to be fertile in controversy.
How does the noble and learned Viscount deal with that matter? I am astonished when I consider his statements. He said that the penalty for not making this declaration was to fall upon the parents. What does that mean? At present, if a child is lawfully born there is a penalty, though not a very serious one, if it is not registered. But that is a case which is known to everybody. It is not very likely that two persons who are married by a registrar and then, perhaps, leave the country directly afterwards, will ever be made amenable by the registrar, and if they are not made amenable at the time when the question arises the penalty will never be exacted of them, but it will fall on the legitimate heirs who, at enormous expense, will have to try to prove the illegitimacy of claims made by people about whom there is no evidence that can be relied upon. I cannot imagine a less defensible or more onerous duty being put upon any one.
In regard to the clause itself, I think that practically everyone voted last year against it and in favour of the provision which I moved. I think it was almost universally supported by noble Lords opposite. If the Government intended to deal with this question it was their bounden duty to take care that there should be something which could be referred to at the time by those who seek a legitimacy order. The burden of the whole discussion which we had last year was as to whether the legitimate offspring or the illegitimate offspring were the more important. Under the Bill as it stands these bastards may lay claim and acquire rights to property which have never been suggested during the lapse of thirty or forty years and about which the legitimate
522
offspring have no proof and no means of obtaining evidence.
For that reason I earnestly trust that the noble and learned Viscount will give us a little time before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken. I regard Clause 2 as most objectionable from many standpoints. I do not know whether it is in accordance with the Scottish law and I hope that we may have an opportunity of seeing how far hat is so. Certain it is that if at this late period the law of England is to be changed in this manner it ought surely to be done with proper safeguards. By "proper safeguards" I mean something which is not only an obligation on paper with no penalty in case it is not met, but something which will really prevent these questions being made the sport of legal action for years at distant periods, without any chance of testing the evidence by which they ought to be supported.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I desire to say one word only and to raise one small point only in regard to this Bill. So far as Clause 2 as a whole is concerned, I entirely agree with the description of it which was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck master—that it seems to meet this difficulty as well as possible. But in subsection (2) (a) it is provided that the parents of a legitimated person shall have the duty of furnishing the Registrar-General with information with a view to obtaining the re-registration of the birth of that person—
"… If the marriage took place before the commencement of this Act, within two months of such commencement …"
It seems to me that this Bill may very likely affect a considerable number of persons who do not take any great interest in public affairs, who are, very likely, not advised from day to day by solicitors or other legal advisers, and have no knowledge at all of the passage of Acts of Parliament. The period of two months in their case seems rather a short one.
Your Lordships will realise that knowledge of when am Act of Parliament has been passed, particularly a new Act of Parliament like this on a new subject, is apt to take some time to penetrate to what I may call the masses at large, and I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that he should

523
make that period something like six months. So far as I can see, there is no question of principle involved. It is merely that you desire to have some finality and some period given. I should not think of putting down an Amendment on the subject, but I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider, before the Committee stage, whether it would not be on the whole fairer and wiser to extend that period.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Midleton is mistaken in saying that anybody in the House voted against this particular clause last year. This clause was not proposed by anyone nor, I think, was there any Division upon the clause proposed by the noble Earl. I think it went through without any Division at all and, therefore, nobody expressed any opinion upon it except those who spoke. I have taken note, of course, of what has been said by noble Lords against the substitution of this clause for the clause of last year. If a claim to parentage should be made in years to come by a child who has not been registered under this clause I think there would be some presumption against that claim by reason of the fact that the duty of registration had not been performed. I think it would go to that extent in the direction desired by my noble and learned friend. Lord Phillimore, but if it is possible for the Committee to strengthen the clause in any way I shall be pleased to consider any proposal that may be made with that object in view. I do not think, however, that the House would sanction a provision taking from the child who is not re-registered in the limited time the chance of proving parentage in the years to come. I recognise that difficulties may arise. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I can only say that I will take note of what he said, and will carefully consider the point to see whether it is possible to meet him.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANGLO-ITALIAN (EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ORDERS REQUIRING RESOLUTIONS.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. My noble friend Lord Denman has communicated to me that owing to the state of his health he has to be abroad during the next few weeks. My sympathy goes out to him and I wish him a speedy cure from his trouble. He suggested that we should replace him on this Committee, which I am glad to say is within sight of a Report, and it is desirable therefore that our numbers should be full for this purpose. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Allendale has consented to serve, and I beg, therefore, to move that this Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That the Lord Denman be discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and that the Viscount Allendale be added to the Committee in his place.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Earl of Oxford and Asquith be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that Lord Oxford will be a very desirable member of the Offices Committee.
Moved, That the Earl of Oxford and Asquith be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia:—

1. GRATUITY TO LKGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MB. J. B.HOTHAM (DECEASED).
The Committee heard with the deepest regret of the death on the 30th December, 1924, of Mr. J. B. Hotham, who was transferred to the Northern Ireland Parliament from the staff of the Parliament Office on the 16t'h of September, 1921.
Mr. Hotham was one of the most efficient clerks that has ever served in this House, and during the war great responsibility fell on him for nearly every department in the

525
office. Combined with efficiency was a disposition which endeared him to every person with whom he came in contact.
At the time of Mr. Hotham's transfer to the Northern Ireland Parliament, the Committee agreed (in February, 1922), that a portion of his pensionable rights would be due from the House of Lords. After consultation with the Ministry of Finance of Northern Ireland the amount due from the two Governments to Mr. Hotham's legal representative has been agreed upon as a gratuity of £1,664 14 s. 9(d). This sum is calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts of 1909 and 1914, and is at the rate of one year's salary, plus 75 per cent. of the current bonus. As Mr. Hotham's total service amounted to twenty-six years, twenty-two years and ten months of which was in the House of Lords, the Committee sanctioned the payment by the House of Lords of £1,472 13 s.0d., being 23/26ths of the total gratuity.

2. Mr. A. O'N. C.CHICHESTER'S PENSION RIGHTS
Owing to the fact that at the date of Mr. A. O'N. C. Chichester's transfer to the Northern Ireland Parliament, he had only completed two years in the service of the House of Lords, the question of any pensionable rights due to him from the House has been raised by the Government of Northern Ireland. The Committee agreed that in accordance with the rules made by the Treasury under the Superannuation Act, 1892, the House of Lords will pay, on Mr. Chichester's ultimate retirement after not less than ten years' completed service, such part of his pension and additional allowance calculated on the amount of his emoluments at the date of his resignation from the House of Lords as is proportionate to the time of his service in the House of Lords.

3. EXAMINER FOB STANDING ORDERS
The Committee were informed by the Chairman of Committees of the death, on 8th February last, of Mr. J. F. Symons Jeune, Examiner for Standing Orders since 1900.
Mr. Jeune originally entered the Parliament Office on 1st December, 1869, and he thus had been in the service of the House for over 55 years.
He will be long remembered for his efficient services to the House, and it will be the desire of all with whom Mr. Jeune was associated to record their keen regret at the loss of his services.
The Lord Chairman has appointed Mr. E. C. Vigors to succeed Mr. Jeune as Examiner for Standing Orders.

5. RESIGNATION AND APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. Cuthert M. Headlam, Clerk of Public Bills, having resigned from the Parliament Office on his election as Member of Parliament, the vacancy in the Public Bill Office has been filled by the appointment of Mr. F. W. Lascelles. Mr. Lascelles's position
526
will not be quite similar to that of Mr. Headlam, and the Committee sanctioned the payment to him of a salary of £600 per annum, with an annual increment of £25 per annum, to a maximum of £1,000.
Mr. Geoffrey Hugh Eastwood has been appointed to fill the vacancy as Junior Clerk in the Parliament Office.
Both these appointments will date from the 1st of January, 1925.

8. REASSESSMENT OF (BALANCE OF) CIVIL PAY OF CERTAIN CIVIL SERVANTS WHO SERVED WITH H.M.FORCES DURING THE GREAT WAR.
The Clerk of the Parliaments brought to the notice of the Committee a circular received from the Treasury with reference to the reassessment of the civil pay of certain Civil Servants who served in His Majesty's Forces during the war. This reassessment is a consequence of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Sutton v. Rex, and also of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Petitions of Right of Pidduck and certain other Post Office servants.
The Committee adopted the recommendation of the Clerk of the Parliaments that no action should be taken on the circular.

9. REMUNERATION OF PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE.
The Committee sanctioned a special payment to the present Principal Clerk of the Judicial Office of £100 a year, and also approved an arrangement by which this officer will be enabled to retain, in addition to his present emoluments of £1,200, this special allowance, and also £100 a year which he receives as joint supervisor of accounts.

10. CUSTODY OF RECORDS IN THE VICTORIA TOWER.
The Sub-Committee appointed last Session to consider the custody of the Records in the Victoria Tower was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—Marquess of Bath, Earl of Clarendon and Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford).
The Committee were informed that the Sub-Committee had visited and inspected the Tower, and that they would report in due course.

11. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed, consisting of the following Lords:—Earl of Ilchester, Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford), Lord Colebrooke, Lord Stuart of Wortley, Lord Ernie and Lord Darling.
12. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—Marquess of Lincolnshire. Lord Main Mackenzie and Lord Lambourne, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

13. ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS IN THE HOUSE.
The Committee appointed a Sub-Committee to consider a proposal which had been made to place in convenient positions in the House acoustic instruments for the use of Peers who may have difficulty in hearing the proceedings.
The following Lords were appointed to be the, Sub-Committee:—Marquess of Lincolnshire, Earl of Clarendon, Viscount Peel, Lord Stanmore and Lord Muir Mackenzie, with the Viscount Knutsford.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be considered and adopted.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.