Sitting of 10 March 1927

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Yeadon Waterworks Bill [Lords].
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords].
  Bills to be read a Second time.

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

    CHILDREN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number and amount of the grants made by the Special Grants Committee for the education of children of deceased and disabled officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, during 1926?
    The MINISTER OF PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The total number of grants (including both first and subsequent grants) made by the Special Grants Committee under their regulations for the education of children, during the year 1926, was, in the case of deceased and disabled officers, 736, and in the case of deceased and disabled non-commissioned officers and men, 6,318. The actual amount of these grants cannot be stated, but the expenditure by the Special Grants Committee on grants
    1334
    for education during 1926, was, in the case of officers, £12,926, and in the case of non-commissioned officers and men, £79,232.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the advisability of revising the regulations to make it necessary, in cases of applicants far disability pensions, for the Ministry to prove that the disability was not caused or aggravated by war service, rather than the applicant should he made to prove that the disability was caused or aggravated by war service?
    Major TRYON: My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. The admission of a claim under the Royal Warrants is not dependent on the production of proof by the claimant. On the contrary, the claim in every case is considered on its merits as a question of fact and it is the practice of the Ministry to seek all such evidence as may be obtainable in regard to the validity of the claim. I could not recommend that the fundamental principle of pensions administration should be altered in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend for the reasons which I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham on the 19th April, 1923, in a reply of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. CROOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter again in view of the fact that last year nearly 70 per cent, of these appeals were turned down?
    Major TRYON: The proposal would mean that, in the absence of any evidence, we should have to pension any man who had served for even one single day in England during the Great War which legally ended in September, 1921, whenever he fell ill of almost any complaint at any time in his subsequent life.

    EX-OFFICERS (WOUND PENSIONS).
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions what is the estimated amount of savings which will result from the reduction of the pensions of those ex-officers who were awarded a wound pension and retired pay equal to the half-pay of their rank, under the provisions of Article 539, Royal Warrant of 1914?
    Major TRYON: For the reasons given in my reply of the 9th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend, it is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the results of the procedure of review which is part of the normal work of my Department.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of ex-officers who, having been awarded a wound pension and retired pay under Article 539, Royal Warrant of 1914, have been allowed to commute any portion of their pension?
    Major TRYON: No classified record of pensions commuted has been kept by my Department and I regret therefore that I am not in a position to furnish the desired information.
    Major 'COHEN: Am I right in understanding that in commuting a pension the Ministry take into consideration these two joint things retired pay and wound pension, or is it based on only one of them?
    Major TRYON: Commutation in any case can only take place on a pension which is secured, and that is the regular rule.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any case in which a wound pension has been commuted?
    Major TRYON: The general feeling in all parts of the House is against commutation.

    COMMUTATION.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of ex-officers whose pensions have been reduced after they have been allowed to commute a portion of their pension awarded under Article 539, Royal Warrant of 1914?
    Major TRYON: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that under the normal rules of working, commutation is not allowed unless the Ministry is satisfied that the retired pay or pension should be regarded as permament. It has not been part of the general practice to review decisions thus arrived at and there is no intention of introducing such a review.

    PENSIONS DISALLOWED.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has any
    1336
    statistics or whether he can give an estimate for each year up to the present, as to the number of ex-service men who, having failed either before his Department or before the appeal tribunal, stated separately, have died of the complaint as to which they applied for a pension in the same year, and also at any time up to the present?
    Major TRYON: The records of mortality in my Department relate only to the deaths of pensioners. I regret therefore that I am unable to give statistics with regard to the cases referred to in this question, nor is there any material on which an estimate could be framed.

    HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Pensions whether there is adequate hospital accommodation for the immediate treatment of all ex-service men who are entitled to such treatment; and whether there have been any cases during the last six months, and, if so, how many, where, before treatment is given, a waiting period has been inraosed?
    Major TRYON: I am satisfied that the accommodation available is fully adequate to the requirements of the Ministry. There is, in fact, always a margin of beds over and above the average demand. With regard to the second part of the question my hon. Friend will understand that a brief interval is in ordinary cases necessary in order to secure accommodation of a type appropriate to the particular case, and also, to meet the convenience of the pensioner who is not usully prepared to leave his home at a moment's notice. But notwithstanding this, the average waiting period for admission to hospital does not exceed three to four days.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: If any accommodation is arranged for will it be provided at a reasonable distance from the residence of the pensioners?
    Major TRYON: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Member's question, but I think the geographical distribution of our hospitals is as good as we can get it, and we always keep that point in mind.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I know a case where a roan has been stationed in Durham and has been called upon to go to Kendal for treatment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be giving information in regard to a particular case. I think he had better put that question down.
    Major TRYON: Of course I cannot answer a supplementary question with regard to a particular case without knowing the name of the man. But if the hon. Member will give me the necessary particulars, I shall be very happy to go into the question.

    AREA OFFICERS (SALARIES AND BONUS).
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that the salary and bonus payable to pensionable officers appointed as chief or deputy chief area officers is considerably in excess of the amount payable to non-pensionable officers occupying similar posts in other areas, he will consider the desirability of raising the salaries of the latter officers who are performing similar duties in areas of equal importance elsewhere?
    Major TRYON: The question of the salaries of permanent unestablished officials and temporary officials throughout the Ministry is already under discussion with representatives of the staff concerned, and I am not, at the present moment, in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    MEDICAL BOARDS (NOTICE OF DECISIONS).
    Mr. PALING (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the general discontent amongst ex-service men due to the long period of time which expires between a medical board and the result being communicated to the applicant; and will he explain the reason for this, and take what action is necessary to expedite decisions in future?
    Major TRYON: I have no evidence of the existence of any such general discontent as is suggested by the hon. Member. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases any decision that has to be conveyed to a claimant is so conveyed without avoidable delay. In a few eases, as the hon. Member will appreciate, expert opinion or additional evidence may have to be obtained, and some unavoidable delay may ensue, but the number of such cases is steadily decreasing and every effort is made to reduce the delay to a minimum.

    POLICE PENSIONERS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the series of articles appearing in the "People" newspaper over the name of a pensioned ex-chief inspector of Scotland Yard; and whether, having regard to the effect of such literature, he will see whether it is possible to prevent pensioned officers writing such articles?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I dislike this kind of journalism, but at present it is not illegal. I am, however, considering the whole matter.
    Mr. BAKER: Is not the material for these articles really a Departmental matter, which comes under the official Secrets Act?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member will probably recollect drat I did prosecute in a recent case, and I was successful; but in this case, as far as, I have the information at present, it is not of sufficient importance to put the machinery of the Official Secrets Act into operation.
    Colonel DAY: Is there any difference between this ease and the book published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has many official secrets in it?

    DEATH PENALTY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Rome Secretary whether, in view of the Report of the Commission on Juvenile Delinquency, he is now prepared to introduce legislation giving effect to the Commission's recommendation that no person may suffer the extreme death penalty under the age of 18 years?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not yet received the Committee's Report.

    TAXI-CABS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary in how many towns in England sidecar taximeter cabs have been licensed; and whether he has any information as to the success or other wise of these experiments?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. Outside the Metropolitan police district, the licensing of hackney carraiges is for the local authority. I know that some local authorities have licensed these vehicles, but I have no information as to their number or the success achieved.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether he is taking any steps to deal with the crawling taximeter cab nuisance?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. The subject of crawling taximeter cabs has been under consideration by the London Traffic Committee for some time past, and I am awaiting a Report from them, which I hope to receive very shortly. I am afraid I cannot make any statement on the subject until I have had an opportunity of considering any advice the Committee may offer.

    ALIENS (SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary what measures he has undertaken during the past 12 months to deal with alien Communists; and what proportion of those convicted of anti-British propaganda have been deported?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot attempt to deal with so large and general a subject by way of question and answer. I will only say that the policy of His Majesty's Government is based upon the principle that an alien who engages in subversive activity of any kind while here is abusing the hospitality of this country and' merits expulsion. This policy I have steadily pursued for the last two years, with the result that it is most rare to find an alien at the present time who indulges in such propaganda.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that description ordinary political activities?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I certainly do not, unless the hon. and gallant Member considers that ordinary political activities are subversive. The expression
    1340
    I used was "subversive propaganda," and where I find aliens abusing the hospitalities of this country by engaging in subversive propaganda I turn them out.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that his answer is entirely satisfactory, and will he now turn his attention to the home-bred variety?
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Socialist propaganda is intended to be subversive of the capitalist system of society?

    LARKS (PRCTECTION ).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the home Secretary whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent larks being exposed for sale for food in this country during their close season, thus extending to them the same protection during their close season that is provided for certain other birds?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HCKS: The Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 and 1881. already place certain restrictions upon the sale of larks during the close time. There is no power at present to acid to those restrictions but as the House may shortly be considering a Private Member's Bill on the subject of wild birds' protection, an opportunity should be afforded to my hon. Friend to raise the question.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to give Government facilities for this Bill, in order to protect these birds?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

  EDUCATION.

    BLIND CHILDREN.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education how many education authorities have made special provision for the education of blind and partially blind children under their jurisdiction; how many have made partial provision; and how many have not yet made any provision?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): It is not possible to give exact figures. The provision made in certified special

    1341
    schools for totally blind children between the ages of five and sixteen is, generally speaking, complete. In the case of partially blind children the provision is not generally complete. Thirteen authorities have provided special schools for their partially blind children, and, in addition, there are some 15 to 20 authorities who either admit all their partially blind children to, their own schools for the blind or send them to other blind schools or institutions. In a number of the smaller areas no partially blind children have been ascertained.
    Mr. MORRISONalso asked the President of the Board of Education the present estimated number of blind or partially blind children who might benefit by admission to special schools; how many of these children are at present in special schools; how many in public elementary schools; how many in residential institutions; and how many are not attending any school?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question consists largely of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    Partially

    Blind.

    Blind.

    Total number of blind and partially blind children ascertained by local education authorities in 1925

    2,000

    4,692

    Number attending special schools

    1,642

    2,258

    Number attending public elementary schools

    63*

    2,069

    Number in other institutions

    33

    26

    N umber not attending any school

    262*

    339

    * The fact that these children are not attending special schools is due in the main to the unwillingness of the parents to have their children sent to residential schools.

    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education what was the number of sightless children of elementary school age on the 31st December, 1926?
    Lord E. PERCY: The number of totally blind children between the ages of five
    1342
    and 16 ascertained by the local authorities during the year ended 31st December, 1925, the last year for which complete returns are available, was 2,000.

    CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Education the number of certificated teachers who are unemployed?
    Lord E. PERCY: Information is not available as to the total number, but the hon. Member will find some statistics bearing on the question in the reply which I gave, on 3rd March, to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Mr. Rhys) and Moseley (Mr. Hannon), a copy of hich I am sending him.

    SCHOOL BUILDINGS (DURHAM).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education how many elementary schools, provided and non-provided, there are in the County of Durham which fall short of the Board's standard set for sanitary provisions?
    Lord E. PERCY: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to schools on the Black List. There are 26 provided and eight non-provided schools in Class A, and 37 provided and 38 non-provided schools in Class B.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education the number of new schools and the number to be re-modelled, respectively, in the schedule submitted to him by the Durham County Local Education Authority for 1926 and 1927, or the latest date, and the number where the Board have given sanction to them to proceed with for the same period?
    Lord E. PERCY: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 29th July last, the authority's proposals for 1926–27 included the provision of 14 new schools and the remodelling of 11 others; and the bulk of these proposals have been carried forward to 1927–28. The uncertainty as to the financial position of the county, owing to the coal stoppage, has hitherto prevented the Board from giving the same general approval of the authority's proposals for the first programme year as they have been able to give to most other authorities; but I have approved four new schools and the extension of two

    1343
    others, and I have informed the authority recently that I am prepared to approve their building proposals up to a stated sum, pending the outcome of the inquiry now proceeding into their resources and capital commitments on their various services.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Has the Noble Lord given that approval for the procuring of sites for other schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: In regard to this stated sum for which I gave them authority, I gave them complete freedom as to what they were to spend the money upon. I thought that that was the best thing to do.

    TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to publish the Report of the Board's Committee of Inquiry into technical education; and whether he proposes to make any recommendation to education authorities as to the steps to be taken so that such industrial districts should be in a position to meet the requirements of their area in technical education?
    Lord E. PERCY: No such Committee of Inquiry has been set up by my Department. Possibly the hon. Member is referring to the unofficial Committee over which the late Lord Emmott presided. I am not aware that that Committee has yet issued a Report of its findings.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the Committee still considering the problem, and will it in due course advise the President?
    Lord E. PERCY: I really do not know. This is a Committee which was set up purely on voluntary initiative. I have some information about it unofficially, but I have no official knowledge.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it functioning?
    Lord E. PERCY: I really do not know.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Noble Lord make inquiries?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will make any inquiries I can, but I think the hon. Member would be able, from his intimate acquaintance with certain members of the Committee, to find out for himself.

    TRAINING COLLEGE SCHEME, LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the President of the Board of Education how many pupils were awarded grants under the London County Council's training college scheme for teachers in 1921–26; how many received appointments on completion of the training; and whether, in view of the smallness of the percentage of those who find appointments commensurate with their qualifications, he will consider any steps to improve the position?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table based on information supplied to me by the London County Council, showing the numbers of students awarded Senior (Teachers') Scholarships in the years in question. A considerable number of these students attend training colleges outside the area of the county council, and no figures are available as to their success in securing employment other than those circulated with the reply given by me on 3rd March to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Mr. Rhys) and Moseley (Mr. Hannon), a copy of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member. I am not however, aware of any evidence which would support the assumption made in the last part of the question.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be well to keep track of those who take their training outside the area of the London County Council so that we may, know how effective the scheme is in securing employment?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the previous reply to which I have referred, he will see that we do do our best to keep track of all training college students; but I cannot allocate particular training college students to the particular authorities who may have given them scholarships.
    Following is the Table:
    The following are the numbers of-students awarded Senior (Teachers') Scholarships in the years in question:

    The following are the numbers of students awarded Senior (Teachers') Scholarships in the years in question:

    1921

    364

    1922

    557

    1923

    576

    1934

    602

    1925

    570

    1926

    536

    ADOLESCENTS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Education if he has received from the Brighouse Town Council a resolution protesting against the proposed abolition of Part III authorities; and whether it is intended to submit proposals to this House in connection with the training of the adolescent?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on 14th February last to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), a copy of which I am sending him.

  HOUSING.

    EMPTY HOUSES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is still a large number of empty houses withheld from occupation in overcrowded areas; and will he reconsider the desirability of taking further steps to secure the use of such houses?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that there is always a certain number of unoccupied houses which are held for sale. I would point out that local authorities already have power to purchase or lease houses suitable for the working classes, and I do not consider that it would practicable to promote further legislation on the subject.
    Mr. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the proposal of the London County Council that empty houses should be subjected to half rates?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have considered various proposals at different times. The difficulty about most of them is that it would appear probable that they would exercise some hampering effect upon the building of new houses.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a scandal that houses should be held up for sale for three or foul months at a time when people cannot rent houses, and cannot he do something in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that I would call it a scandal. I think it is a pity, which is quite a different thing.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that local authorities have no power to make a landlord change his position from selling to leasing?
    HON. MEMBERS: Why should they?

    DECONTROL.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Health what is the total number of houses decontrolled under the operation of the Rents Restriction Acts: and, failing exact data, will he state what is the approximate estimate of his Department of the number of houses decontrolled from the commencement of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923, to the end of 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are no statistics on the point referred to by the hon. Member, and there is not sufficient material available to enable such an estimate as is suggested to be made.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not a matter of common knowledge throughout the country that, ever since the decontrol of houses under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923, house-owners have taken advantage of the Clause regarding decontrol, and have deliberately held up houses from being let, so that they can be sold at exorbitant prices? Is not that part of the housing scandal arising out of the administration of this Government?

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Health whether it is the policy of the Government to allow Part II of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923, to come into operation in due course, or whether it is proposed to extend the operation of Part I of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923, for a further period of years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy to be adopted by the Government in regard to the Act in question is under consideration, but I am not at present able to make any announcement on the subject.
    Mr. JONES: In view of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands at least, if not millions, of tenants coming under the Rent Restrictions Act, who are anxiously awaiting some decision, is it not advisable to take an early decition, especially in view of the fact that the Minister must lay on the Table

    1347
    Regulations under Part II if he is not going to continue Part I of the Act of 1923?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Part I of the Act does not expire until December of the present year, and I think, therefore, it is desirable to wait a little longer and see what the conditions are nearer that time before taking any final decision.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not a condition that the Regulations that may be made under Part II must be placed on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for discussion, and Resolutions passed by both Houses to make them operative? That is going to take some time, and there are plenty of data now available.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Will my right hon. Friend give grave consideration to the hardship to owners of single houses who come under these Acts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have been having a considerable number of letters from owners of the character described by my hon. Friend, and I shall have to give that matter consideration.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the expiration of the Rent Restrictions Act this year, he is considering the desirability of gradual decontrol, especially in the cases of houses which have been long since purchased by those wishing to live in them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure my hon. Friend that, before deciding on their policy in regard to a continuance of rent restriction, the Government will very carefully consider all aspects of the question.

    HOUSING SCHEMES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health the number of housing schemes at present under consideration by his Department; and how many of these have been under consideration for three months or more?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Decisions applications for approval of proposals under the Housing Acts are given by my Department as soon as possible after their receipt. The number of applicacations outstanding necessarily varies from day to day, but I am not aware of
    1348
    any which have been under consideration for three months or longer. If the hon Member has any case in mind and will send me particulars I will inquire into it.

    ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if the Rochford Rural District Council is now granting subsidy certificates for the building of houses in their area?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

  POOR LAW.

    SINGLE YOUNG IN1 EN (RELIEF).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that single young men who are unemployed and unable to get relief from the Employment Exchanges, having exhausted their unemployment insurance money, are not eligible for out-relief, he will consider the introduction of legislation to amend the law so that those persons could be granted out-relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to introduce legislation to amend the law in the sense suggested. The grant of outdoor relief to all able-bodied persons, including the class referred to, is prohibited, but provision is made under which the guardians may, subject to certain conditions, depart from the Regulations upon consideration of the special circumstances of any particular case.
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statements made by guardians all over the country with regard to the contents of this question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen any comments on this question by guardians.

    GRANTS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase in the amount of the Poor Rate in many industrial areas in England and Wales, he will recommend the Government to make grants to the Poor Law authorities in England and Wales similar to those granted to the Scottish parish councils?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. As has been fully explained in recent Debates, the considerations which led the Government to make provision for grants to Scottish Poor Law authorities in no way apply to England and Wales.
    Mr. THOMSON: Why should Scotland have preferential treatment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Debate.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a grant to England similar to that made to Scotland?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Debate to which he refers there was no satisfactory answer given to the question why Scotland should have preferential treatment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the answer did not satisfy the hon. Member.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Do the Government contemplate making any block grant to these industrial areas at an early date?
    Mr. BARR: Is it the case that this is a small reparation to Scotland for the, fact that for generations she has been supporting the able-bodied poor in England?

    CHIPPENHAM CASUAL WARD.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the fact that the casual ward at Chippenham is unheated and so cold that casual vagrants have absconded; and whether the matter will be investigated?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These casual wards are, where necessary, heated by three open fires. I have not received any complaints on the subject, but will make inquiries.

    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE (LOAN REPAYMENT).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the serious increase in the rates and consequent depression in the trade of Newcastle-upon-Tyne if the enforcement of the ultimatum to the guardians becomes effective, he can see
    1350
    his way to extend the period for repay ment of the £266,000 outstanding to five instead of three years?
    Mr. CMAMBERLAIN: I have given this question my careful consideration, but it seems to me that, having regard to all the local circumstances, three years is a reasonable, if not indeed a generous period to allow, and I cannot see my way to extend it.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the expression of opinion of every branch and section of opinion in Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the point, and may I not press him to give this relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid my experience shows that there is always unanimity among ratepayers as to the desirability of keeping down the rates, but I have to consider broader issues than that.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think a complete cancellation of these debts is necessary?

    CHESTER-LE-STREW GUARDIANS (REPORT).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the Report issued by the board appointed by him last September to take over control from the Chesterle-Street Guardians; and whether, as this Report contains charges of maladministration and other irregularities, he will state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report is receiving my consideration, but my hon. Friend will realise that I have already taken the most effective action by removing the former guardians from office.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to institute any proceedings, in view of the terms of the Report, against these people?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will not be for me to institute proceedings, but, if anyone, for the Public Prosecutor.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already put down two questions on this point, one to the Attorney-General and the other to the representative of the Public Prosecutor, neither of which was

    1351
    allowed at the Table? I should like to know to whom I am to address my questions on the matter.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is it not the fact that a Court of Law would require something more than an ex parte statement?

    RELIEF, PONTYPRIDD AND MERTHYR TYDFIL.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Health if he will state the

    Pontypridd Union.

    Merthyr Tydfil Union.

    Financial Year.

    Number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st January in the financial year

    Rate in the pound of overscers' contributions out of the poor rate to the common fund of the union during the financial year.

    Number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st January in the financial year.

    Rate in the pound of overseers' contributions out of the poor rate to the common fund of the union during the financial year.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1911–1912

    …

    …

    7,059

    1

    1½

    4,289

    1

    7

    1912–1913

    …

    …

    7,754

    1

    8½

    4,691

    1

    11¼

    1913–1914

    …

    …

    7,634

    1

    4¼

    4,704

    1

    11¾

    1923–1924

    …

    …

    18,164

    6

    7¼

    11,573

    8

    1½

    1924–1925

    …

    …

    22,364

    5

    5¾

    15,994

    7

    7½

    1925–1926

    …

    …

    32,097

    6

    5

    21,882

    7

    5

    RELIEF.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the amount of relief administered by the overseers in England and Wales during the last five years was less than £500 in all; why he has done away with the system by which an order for medical or other relief could he obtained in every parish in case of sudden urgent necessity or dangerous illness, in view of the delay while an application is being made to the relieving officer, seeing that often a village is four or five miles from a relieving officer, and sometimes eight or ten?
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Poor Laws reported that one reason why applications were not made more frequently to the overseers for emergency relief was that in many parts of the country the poor did not know that the overseers had these powers and that the Commission pointed out the mischief arising from non-resort to the overseers and recommended
    number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief and the average amount of poor rate levied in the Pontypridd and Merthyr Tydfil Poor Law Unions for the three years ending 31st December, 1914, and for the three years ending 31st December, 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the desired information.
    Following is the statement:
    that Poor Law medical relief should be made more accessible to all who needed it; and whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Ministry of Health to make the powers of the overseers, in case of sudden and urgent necessity and sudden dangerous illness, known to the poor?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I may say that the Commission also reported that this particular function of the overseers was hardly ever exercised and then badly, adding that in these circumstances it was questionable whether, so far as the Poor Law was concerned, there was any necessity for continuing the office of overseer as a separate office. Under the Rating and Valuation Act the overseers will cease to exist on the 31st instant and their functions are being transferred to the relieving officers, whose powers and duties are well known throughout the country. It must be remembered that means of communication and transport in rural areas have- been much improved in recent years, and I see no reason to anti-

    1353
    cipate any serious delay in obtaining relief in urgent cases by reason of the transfer of powers to the relieving officers.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is as much as nine or ten miles distance between some villages and the office of the relieving officer and what is to happen in the case of an emergency that might result m the loss of a life?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only point to the fact that these powers which have hitherto existed in the hands of the overseers have been used to a very small extent and I do not think they will be used to any larger extent in the future than they have been in the past.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is not the saving of one life worth all the money you would save?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose one life will be lost.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Would not the risk be very much reduced if the right hon. Gentleman considered with his colleague the Postmaster-General an increase in rural telephones?

    CROYDON GUARDIANS (EMPIRE PRODUCE).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Croydon Guardians in future to include a Clause in their contracts that Empire produce shall be supplied wherever this is possible; and whether he will take steps to draw the attention of other boards of guardians to the desirability of following this example?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not been drawn to the decision of the Croydon Guardians, but that decision is evidently based upon a view which I have more than once communicated to, local authorities. I do not think any further action on my part is necessary.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (UNINSURED PERSONS).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received a copy of a Resolution, passed by the Leigh Local Pension Committee, urging the Govern-
    1354
    ment to introduce legislation to amend the Old Age Pensions Act by providing that uninsured persons shall be entitled to a pension on attaining the age of 65; and what steps he intends to take on this question?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) on the 3rd March.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman sending me a copy of that answer?
    Mr. McNEILL: I can send the hon. Member a copy, but he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
    Captain GARRRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that, by the refusal of the French and Italian Governments to accept the disarmament proposal of President Coolidge and thereby permit the forthcoming meeting of the preparatory commission to be turned into a plenary body, the American proposal in its original form is nullified, he will institute inquiries o amend and, if necessary, to expedite the arrangements for a meeting of the three Powers, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As the initiative in this matter was taken by the Government of the United States, His Majesty's Government must await the consideration by that Government of the replies returned to their proposal by the four Governments concerned.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Because the initiative has once been taken by the United States for disarmament proposals, is it to rest for ever with them, or will the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative action himself in this and correlated questions of disarmament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There may be several initiatives, but the first initiative has been with the United States, and His Majesty's Government must await the consideration which the United States Government will give to the replies to their proposals.

    ELECTORAL MACHINERY.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if, in addition to the question of the extension of the franchise to women on the same terms as men, he is also considering the question of the reform of the electoral system?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative, unless the hon. Member has in mind certain minor or consequential amendments of the electoral machinery.

    AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to lay the agricultural policy of the Government before Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The agricultural policy of the Government was presented to Parliament in the form of a White Paper—Cmd. 2581—on 2nd February, 1926.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the last word of the Government in regard to agriculture?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very much more effective word than any that has been said by any other political party.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of another bribe on the eve of the next General Election?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLEANSING AND SALVAGE INSPECTOR.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if he will state the duties of the public cleansing and salvage inspector; and whether it is proposed to abolish this post?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The duties of this officer comprise the holding of public inquiries into, and giving advice on, questons relating to refuse collection and disposal, and other kindred subjects. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

    INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE BOARD (EXAMINATIONS).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is
    1356
    aware that such outside bodies as the Industrial Fatigue Board are examining civil servants on official premises, and of the desire of the staff side of the National Whitley Council that this procedure should not be permitted, except after discussion and agreement through the appropriate machinery of national or departmental Whitley Councils; and whether he win make inquiries with the object of meeting the views of the staff on this matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: Representations have recently been received from the staff side of the National Whitley Council on this matter and are now under consideration.

    CIVIL AVIATION (CHIEF OF STAFF).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the chief of the Civil Aviation Branch of the Air Ministry is a director of the Trindad Frendship Petroleum Company, Limited, which is to be or has been renamed the Venezuelan Consolidated Oilfields; and whether such an interest is allowable under the rules and policy of his Department?
    Sir S. HOARE: The reply to both parts of the question is in tie affirmative.
    Mr. BAKER: May I ask whether the policy of the Air Ministry in this respect is in line with the policy of other Departments as regards the Civil Service generally?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, exactly.

    POST OFFICE (ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in connection with a recent promotion in the engineer-in-chiefs Department of the Post Office, an officer reported as eminentiy fitted for special and early promotion was passed over, and that an officer certified as fitted for promotion, but not for exceptional promotion, was promoted; and why all officers declared to be within range for promotion were not given equal consideration by the promotions board?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I am not aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish me with fuller particulars I will have inquiry made in the matter.

    BLIND PERSONS ACT.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Health what is the number of local authorities who have availed themselves of the provisions of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and provided schemes for the welfare of the blind; and the number of persons involved?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are 145 local authorities in England and Wales under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and all of them have made, and put into operation, schemes for promoting the welfare of the blind. These schemes cover all the registered blind persons in the country.

    LUNACY AND MENTAL DISORDER.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Health if any action is being taken to incorporate the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder in an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Steps are being taken to examine the Report with a view to incorporating in a Bill such of the recommendations as the Government are able to adopt. It will not, however, be practicable to prepare such a Measure in time for introduction in the present Session.

    SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received representations from the Abertillery Urban District Council urging that the use of mechanically-operated instruments for the purpose of slaughtering cattle should not rest on and be optional to local authorities but should be dealt with by national legislation; and will he therefore promote legislation placing the matter on a national basis at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a copy of the resolution passed by the district council, but I do not see reason to introduce the legislation suggested in the question.

    ILLEGAL BETTING.
    Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to set up a Committee to consider proposals submitted to him by various betting asso-
    1358
    ciations suggesting an alternative scheme of taxation that would stop illegal betting?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir; I do not consider such procedure necessary.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous amount of illegal betting that is going on, and will not the Department take any action to stop it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Everyone has been aware for the last 50 years of the amount of illegal betting that has gone on.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it not a fact that the whole of the police evidence before the Select Committee went to prove that it is quite impossible to stop illegal betting?

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that since payment of Members of Parliament, was introduced free railway travelling facilities to their constituencies have been granted, and that this is an increasing burden on public funds, he will consider reducing the Parliamentary salaries by 10 per cent., and thus give a lead to the movement for national economy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The main justification for the provision of free travelling facilities was the inequality of the necessary expenditure on travelling as between Member and Member, and that inequality is reflected in the large variations in the extent to which those facilities are used by Members. Apart altogether, therefore, from any question of the sufficiency or otherwise of the payment made to Members, any all-round reduction of that payment would bear no relation to the facts of individual cases; it would be particularly unjustifiable in the case of those Members who do not use the free travelling facilities at all.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing by 10 per cent, the salaries of Army officers who also enjoy private incomes for which they perform no services?
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is it not a fact that any Member of this House is at perfect liberty to refuse his salary?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that Members of this House enjoy fewer facilities than are enjoyed by Members of any other House of Parliament in the world?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe that is, in the main, true. As to the question of Army officers, their pay has been reduced on several occasions, and certainly no taunt at their expense can be made.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Members of Parliament are refusing their pay at the present time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.

    SPIRITS (DUTY).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the quantity of raw spirit sold as whisky; and if he will consider the possibility of reducing the duty on spirits which have been matured six years, with a further reduction for spirits matured 10 years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I would point out to the hon. Member that under the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1915, whisky may not be delivered for home consumption as a beverage unless it has been matured for three years. With regard to the general question it is my duty always to consider every tax in all its aspects.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (FERRO-SILICON PURCHASES).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the sale of ferro-silicon by the Surplus Stores Department at £4 per ton and its repurchase by his Department at £22 and £20 14s. per ton, respectively; and whether he will state the steps he has taken to tighten up the machinery in his Department?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but as regards the difference of price I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to, the Treasury to the hon. Member for Dundee on the 16th February. As regards the second part, the Public Accounts Committee, who accepted the assurance that the Departmental officers concerned in the transaction were endeavouring to supply the public service in the most economical manner, came to the conclusion that further inquiries should have been made before the ferro-silicon was purchased. Note has been made of this conclusion, and it will be borne in mind in any future similar cases that may arise.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his official witness stated that the price secured by the Disposal Board had no relevance to his Department?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot keep that in mind off-hand, but if that statement was made, it was certainly accurate. I do not think that any ferro-silicon has been sold by the Disposal Board for a considerable time before.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Attorney-General the total number of borough and county justices of the peace on the 1st January, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Doublas Hogg): It is net possible to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.
    The number of magistrates appointed in the years 1924 to 1926 was given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Melton Division on the 7th instant. The number of appointments for 1923 is 1,001, particulars of which shall be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether before the appointment of a man as a magistrate any steps are taken to ascertain whether he proposes to give reasonable time to the discharge of his duties?
    Following are the figures:
    The number of appointments made 1923 was

    —

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Counties, England and Wales,

    504

    42

    546

    Boroughs, England and Wales.

    172

    29

    201

    Scotland

    226

    28

    254

    902

    99

    1,001

    Sir F. NELSONasked the Attorney-General if any record is kept of non-effective justices of the peace, i.e., those who do not sit, and have not for some time sat, on the bench for reasons of illness, infirmity, old age, or by reason of their having left the area?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No record is kept by the Lord Chancellor of non-effective justices of the peace, and my Noble Friend does not think it possible to prepare such a record. The Lord Chancellor receives annually a list of the names of those magistrates who have died during the year, as far as this information is known to clerks of the peace and town clerks.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the Attorney-General take steps, through the Lord Chancellor, to see into the effectiveness of these Justices, on the ground of the inadequacy of their service and the cost to the various guardians of getting their services when necessary?
    Mr. EVERARD: Is it not a fact that, besides sitting on the Bench, Justices do a great deal of other useful work?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the last Supplementary Question is the effective answer.
    Mr. TAYLOR: What are the practical difficulties in obtaining information with regard to non-effective Justices? Surely it would be quite easy to obtain that information.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The first practical difficulty is to find out what is a non-effective Justice, and the second practical difficulty would be that you would be spending a great deal of money
    1362
    and getting very contradictory reports in from different areas according to the definition of a non-effective justice.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that some of those who do sit arc the most ineffective?

    ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC, SLOANE SQUARE.
    Sir F. MEYERasked the Minister of Transport whether it is necessary to the working of the roundabout traffic system in Sloane Square that taximeter cabs and private cars should be prohibited from stopping for the purpose of setting down their occupants at any point in the Square; and whether he is aware that this rule is being enforced by the police?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no instructions have been given to the police to prohibit either cabs or motor cars stopping in the Square to set down or to pick up passengers.
    Sir F. MEYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police have, in fact, been stopping cars from setting down people before certain shops on the West side of the Square?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will undertake to inquire.

    CANADA (IMMIGRATION).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what was the total of migrants into Canada in 1926 from this country and from Continental countries, respectively; and what proportion took advantage of the £2 rate available for British migrants?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The total number of migrants to Canada from Great Britain in 1926 was 39,151; the total number of immigrants to Canada from foreign countries (other than the United States of America) in 1926 was 66,221; total, 105,372. The number of migrants assisted under the Empire Settlement Act in 1926 at the £3 rate was 19,039; at other rates, 2,305; total, 21,344.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been refused unemployment benefit because the family income was deemed to be sufficient to provide for such unemployed persons?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): In the period of 18 months between 25th August, 1925, and 14th February, 1927, 272,262 applications for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by local committees on the ground that the family income was deemed to be sufficient to provide for the applicants concerned. The number of separate individuals included in this figure cannot be stated.

    SEEKING EMPLOYMENT (OFFICIAL INQUIRIES).
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of cases in which local unemployment committees send officials to the houses of insured persons cut of employment in order to ascertain if such persons are going about seeking employment; whether this practice is customary; and whether it has his approval?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Local employment committees from time to time desire cases to be investigated, with a view to obtaining evidence as to the fulfilment of the conditions for benefit. Where a committee expresses such a desire steps are taken to comply with it, and these steps may include a personal visit to the house of the claimant. In my view such visits are necessary in certain cases.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CAVALRY.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is considered that a cavalry regiment consisting of two squadrons and a few machine guns is a large enough unit to mobilise for war; or whether it is intended to make one regiment out of two on mobilisation with four squadrons and machine guns?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A cavalry regiment consisting of a head-
    1364
    quarters wing, a machine gun squadron of eight guns and two sabre squadrons is considered a large enough unit to mobilise, for war.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that in every other country they provide at least four or five squadrons in every cavalry regiment?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We think that this new unit will be as powerful and worth mobilising.

    REMOUNT DEPOT, ARBORFIELD (HOUSING).
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the extra stabling for horses he is providing at Arborfield Remount Depot, he intends to provide accommodation for the extra employés who will be needed to look after these horses; and whether he is aware of the shortage of houses there for the present employés at the depot?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first part of the question the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The horses, for which stabling is being erected at Arborfield Cross, are already there, but the temporary war-time structures in which they are at present accommodated, owing to the loss of accommodation previously existing in Ireland, require replacement. No increase in the number of civilian employés is therefore contemplated. As regards the latter part of the question, the Rural District Council of Wokingham made representations to this effect last November, but the housing of the civilian population is primarily a question for the local civil authorities, nod I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect of providing houses at the expense of Army funds.

  CHINA.

    INDIAN TROOPS.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Secretary of State for War why the cost of the despatch of Indian troops to China is not included in the Supplementary Estimate submitted to Parliament, in view of the statement made by the Government of India in the Indian. Legislative Assembly on 16th February that no expenditure had been incurred from the Indian revenue in respect of these troops?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made when introducing the Supplementary Estimate last Tuesday. The cost of the Indian troops is included in that Estimate.

    BRITISH CONCESSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether agreement has been reached between Mr. Chen and Mr. O'Malley regarding the British concession at Kiukiang; and what other foreign concessions are under discussion as to their future between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese authorities?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Agreement was reached between Mr. Chen and Mr. O'Malley regarding the Kiukiang concession on 2nd March. Discussions are now in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Wai Chiao-pu with regard to the British concession at Tientsin.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the policy of the Government only to negotiate after a concession such as Wupu has been occupied, or is it the policy of the Government to negotiate before a place is threatened?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We made it quite clear in our declaration to the Southern and Northern Governments on 28th January that we are prepared to negotiate in regard to all the concessions.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further reports on labour conditions in China since those published in 1925 in Cmd. 2442; and, if so, whether these further reports will be published?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The question of laying further papers is now under consideration.

    SHANGHAI.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the protest sent to this country by Mr. Chen respecting the occupation
    1366
    of Chinese territory outside the international settlement at Shanghai by British troops, and the Foreign Secretary's reply to the protest?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The text of Mr. Chen's protest against the despatch of troops to China was communicated to this House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 21st February. Mr. Chen has made no specific protest with regard to these troops taking up positions outside the International Settlement.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government can persuade both the Northern and Southern Governments of China to stop the murder that is going on between the two armies?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (ABOLITION OF BOUNTY).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the proposal, supported by certain members of Territorial associations, that the economy on the expenditure of that force might be secured rather by cutting short the annual camp training by one day than by discontinuing the bonus, of which he proposes to deprive the rank and file of the force, nearly all of whom are men of modest means to whom the bonus is of importance?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I stated in my speech on Army Estimates, the abolition of the bounty was not decided upon without full consideration of possible alternatives, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of reducing the period of annual training was not overlooked in this connection.

  INDIA.

    BOMBAY BACK BAY SCHEME.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the alternative revised schemes for the completion of the Bombay Back Bay reclamation scheme; if so, how far the responsible Government propose to carry out all the recommendations of the recent committee of inquiry into the

    1367
    working of the original scheme; and whether these proposals have received the approval of the Government of India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but will inquire.

    INDIAN NAVY BILL.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government to leave the Indian Navy Bill to the free vote of the Indian Legislature?
    Earl WINTERTON: I presume the hon. Members refers to the consequential legislation which, as I stated, will be required in India if the Indian Navy Bill become law. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Indian authorities in the exercise of their discretion as to the procedure to be adopted.

    COMMISSIONERS (UNITED PROVINCES).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish the posts of Commissioners in the United Provinces, as recommended by the Fremantle Committee in 1921?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Fremantle Committee did not recommend the abolition of Commissioners, but their reduction from ten to five. For administrative reasons, the United Provinces Government were unable to accept this recommendation, though they have recently intimated in Debate their willingness to consider whether the reduction of any particular Commissionership could be recommended to my Noble Friend.

    FORCED LABOUR.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what measures the Government of India propose to take to eradicate the practice of forced labour obtaining in Madras, Bihar, and Orissa?
    Earl WINTERTON: Detailed information is not available to supplement the reply made to the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) on Monday last.

    SLAVERY CONVENTION.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to present the Slavery Convention, recently signed at Geneva, to the Indian Legislature for ratification during the present Session of that body?
    Earl WINTERTON: The reply is in the negative, but action can be taken without submission to the Legislature, and the Government of India have agreed to ratification subject to certain reservations which were made at Geneva when the Convention was signed.

    SANDHURST COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when he expects to receive the views of the Government of India on the Report of the Sandhurst Committee; and if he can give any indication as to when the Report is likely to be published?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not yet heard when he may expect the views of the Government of India on the Report. In reply to the last part I would refer to the answers given to the hon. Member for West Leicester on the 14th February and the 7th March.

    AGRICULTURE (ROYAl COMMISSION).
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Under-Secretary of State f pr India the total estimated cost of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India; and what proportion of this cost will be incurred as a result of the visit of the Royal Commission to this country?
    Earl WINTERTON: The total estimated cost is about £98.000. I am unable to say what proportion of the total cost will be debitable to the visit of the Commission to England.

    DETENUS (BENGAL).
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the Bengal detenus in the Insein gaol who have been on hunger strike since 10th February as a protest against their bad housing and food?
    Earl WINTERTON: I regret that I have no information on this matter, but I will inquire.

    TRAFFIC IN ARMS CONVENTION.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to ratify the Convention on the supervision of the international traffic in arms in accordance with the resolution passed by the Seventh Assembly of the League of Nations?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), in answer to a somewhat similar question on 24th November last.

    RHINELAND (ALLIED TROOPS).
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present number of the troops comprised in the various armies of occupation in the Rhineland?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The latest figures in the possession of His Majesty's Government are for January last, when the total number of troops in the Rhineland was, roughly, 69,000.

    BATTLESHIPS "RODNEY" AND "NELSON."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated total cost of the battleships "Rodney" and "Nelson," including cost of guns and armour and outfit of ammunition?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of the 3rd March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne)—(OFFICIAL REPORT, column 590).

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether, in the event of the death of an insured man, aged 70 years, at the initiation of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and who was in receipt of an old age pension, the widow, if aged between 65 and 70 years, will be treated as eligible for an old age pension on 2nd January, 1928?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the circumstances indicated in the question the widow would not be entitled in right of her husband's insurance to an old age pension until she reached the age of 70.

    RIVER TRENT (POLLUTION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, although a fine of £25 was inflicted on the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, of Colwick, Nottinghamshire, on 8th December, 1926, for polluting the River Trent, this corporation is still discharging into the river many tons of poisonous matter; and what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to this practice?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Colwick beet sugar factory has completed its manufacturing season and is now closed down. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that improvements to the plant are to be carried out before the next manufacturing season, which, it is hoped, will remove any cause for complaint. Investigations financed by the Government are also in progress which I hope may lead to the discovery of effective means for rendering the effluents from such factories harmless.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has not sufficient information been already accumulated by the Committee which are conducting research to warrant the Government adopting a considered policy with regard to pollution generally?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is true that we have information about industrial effluents in connection with factories which have been long established, but in the case of this new industry, the water in which the beets are washed before the manufacturing process starts develops a condition which while it does not actively poison the fish suffocates them by causing deficiency of oxygen, and we have to discover what the constituent is in that effluent which has this effect before we can hope to secure an effective method of dealing with it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates, and consider Votes A, 1, 10 and 2 in Committee; Committee stage of the Civil and Revenue Departments Excess Votes.
Tuesday: Until 8.15 p.m., further stages of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill, Second Reading of the Diseases of Animals Bill [Lords] and of the Royal Naval Reserve Bill; Committee stage of the Royal Naval Reserve Money Resolution; Report of the Army Supplementary Estimate, and other Orders on the Paper.
Wednesday: Until 8.15, Second Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.
Thursday: Report of the Air Estimates, and, if time permit, of the Army Estimates.
The Navy Estimates were circulated with the Votes this morning, and copies of the Cinematograph Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members by Saturday morning.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 125.

Division No. 39.]

AYES.

[3.43 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cope, Major William

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

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

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

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Albery, Irving James

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

Herbert, S. (York, N.H., Scar. & Wh'by)

Apsley, Loro

Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsay, Gainsuro)

Hills, Major John Waller

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hilton, Cecil

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

Balniel, Lord

Davies, Ma). Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Holland, Sir Arthur

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Senn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Berry, Sir George

Ellis, R. G.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Sethel, A.

England, Colonel A.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Betterton, Henry B.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

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

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Huntingfield, Lord

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Hurd, Percy A.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fermoy, Lord

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Brass, Captain W.

Fielden, E. B.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H,

Brastey, Sir Leonard

Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fraser, Captain Ian

Jacob, A, E.

Briggs, J. Harold

Frece, Sir Walter de

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Briscoe, Richard George

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Ganzoni, Sir John

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Gates, Percy

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Buckingham, Sir H.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Kinlcch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Goff, Sir Park

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bullock, Captain M.

Gower, Sir Robert

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Grant, Sir J. A.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Burman, J. B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

Loder, J. de V.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Looker, Herbert William

Campbell, E. T.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Lougher, L.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastb'rne)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Lumley, L. R.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S )

Hammersley, S. S.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)

Hanbury, C.

Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Harland, A.

Maclntyre, Ian

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

McLean, Major A.

Christie, J. A.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hartington, Marquess of

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hawke, John Anthony

Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Raine, W.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ramsden, E.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Margesson, Captain D.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Marriott, Sir i. A. ft.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Remnant, Sir James

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Meyer, Sir Frank

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

Tinne, J. A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Ropner, Major L.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Wallace, Captain D, E.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

Salmon, Major I.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wells, S. R.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Sanderson, Sir Frank

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sandon, Lord

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

Savery, S. S.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R.(Richm'd)

Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Nuttall, Ellis

Sxelton, A, N.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Oakley, T.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Smithers, Waldron

Wood, Sir Klngsley (Woolwich, W.).

Penny, Frederick George

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Woodcock, Colonel H, C.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F,(Will'sden, E.)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Phillpson, Mabel

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston,

Price, Major C. W. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

NOES.

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

Hayes, John Henry

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shiels, Or. Drummond

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sitch, Charles H.

Baker, Walter

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfieid)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Barnes, A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Barr, J.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

Batey, Joseph

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Spoor, Rt. Hon Benjamin Charles

Briant, Frank

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Buxton, Rt- Hon. Noel

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

Sullivan, Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Lanebury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Lawrence, Susan

Taylor, R. A.

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Connolly, M.

Lee, F.

Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Cove, W. G.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

Thurtle, Ernest

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

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

Treveiyan, Rt. Hon, C. P.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Varley, Frank B.

Day, Colonel Harry

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dunnico, H.

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Motley, Oswald

Watts-Morgan, Lt..Col. D. (Rhondda)

Gardner, J. P.

Palln, John Henry

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gillett, George M.

Paling, W.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gosling, Harry

Potts, John S.

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Pureed, A. A.

Westwood, J.

Greenall, T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Whiteley, W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Riley, Ben

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)

Ritson, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Groves, T.

Roberts. Rt. Hon. F.O-(W. Bromwich)

Windsor, Walter

Grundy, T. W.

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

Wright, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rose, Frank H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Hardle, George D.

Scrymgeour, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harris, Percy A.

Scurr, John

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charle Edwards.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Sexton, James

BILLS PRESENTED.
  BLASPHEMY LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILLS,
  "to amend the Blasphemy Laws," presented by Mr. LANSBURY; supported by Mr. Snell, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Dunnico, Dr. Salter, Mr. Scurr, and Mr. Wall-head; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
  LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRESERVATION) (No. 2) BILL,
  "to prohibit the erection of buildings and structures on certain lands in the administrative county of London; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. SCURR; supported by Sir James Remnant, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Gillett, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Harris; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL,
  "to amend section forty-six of The Local Government Act, 1894," presented by Mr. WHITELEY; supported by Mr. Batey, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Robert Wilson, and Mr. Welsh; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL,
  "to restrict blind booking and advance booking of cinematograph films, and to secure the renting and exhibition of a certain proportion of British films, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: supported by Sir John Gilmour, the Solicitor-General, and Sir Burton Chadwick; to he read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to he printed. [Bill 80.]
  CROWN LANDS BILL,
  "to amend the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1913," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

  FORESTRY 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 76.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Mason and Lieut.-Colonel Winby; and had appointed in substitution: Rear-Admiral Beamish and Sir Henry Cautley.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.
SUPPLY.
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1927.

    SIR SAMUEL HOARE'S STATEMENT.
    Order for Committee read.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    There are three very significant features in these Estimates to which I should like at the outset to draw the attention of hon. Members. In the first place, there is a proposal to increase the strength of the Air Force by almost 10 per cent. over its existing strength, at a cost that is 3 per cent. less than the sum for which I asked in the Estimates last year. Secondly, there is a further move made in the carrying out of the considered policy of the Air Staff and the Air Ministry of replacing old machines by new types. Thirdly, there is a substantial reduction amounting to nearly £¾ million in the expenditure on the defence of the Middle East. It is not often in these times that you can get more of what you want for less money. I hope, therefore, hon. Members will be pleasantly surprised at the fact that we are able to make a substantial increase in the strength of the force at a less cost than last year. I may say I could only have achieved that result with the fullest cooperation of my staff, both military and civil, from the Chief of the Air Staff and the Secretary of the Air Ministry, down to the most junior officer and the most junior clerk in the Department. I should like also to say a word of warning, that although I have been able to show this reduction this year, yet as the Air Force expands and as commitments become due, expenditure will almost certainly increase in the years to come. None the less, for the time being let us be thankful for what we have got and for the fact that, so far as this year is concerned, we have a bigger Air Force for a smaller sum of money.
    Then there is the move which we are making in our general policy of replacing old types of machines and engines and buying new types. I have never withheld
    1396
    from the House the fact that for several years past we have been living to a great extent upon war stocks of machines and engines. The taxpayer may naturally regret that those stocks are now upon the point of exhaustion. I cannot, however, help thinking that hon. Members who are interested in air development will feel glad that those stocks are now exhausted and that we may make a definite step forward in the replacement of old by new types. As things are to-day, all home defence regular squadrons are armed with the new type of machines and engines, and I hope at the end of this year two-thirds of the whole force will be similarly armed. At any rate, the House ought to know that henceforth it is our intention not to order any old types of engines and machines. Vote 3, which makes provision for technical development and research and in which provision is also made for new types of machines and engines, shows this year a net rise over the Vote of last year of £330,000 and if the overhead cut is taken into account, it shows a net rise of no less than £630,000. I hope, therefore, it will not be said that, in making the reductions which I have made in the Air Estimates, I have sacrificed this very important Vote 3, under which provision is made for scientific development and new machines and new engines.
    There is also the third feature to which I have just drawn the attention of the House, namely, the large reduction which we are making in expenditure upon the defence of the Middle East. That is a reduction of no less than £680,000. I am glad to think that, while, year after year, I have given pledges to the House to reduce our expenditure for defence in the Middle East, I have succeeded in accomplishing what I told hon. Members I would do. Year by year we have been able to make substantial reductions in the Defence Vote for the Middle East. Let me compare the present position with what it was only a few years ago and let me point out what a testimony this comparison is to the increasing stability, the better law and order, and the more stable administration in the Middle East, as it is also to the efficiency of the Air Command in Iraq. In 1921, when it was decided to transfer control to the Air Force, the Imperial Forces comprised no less than 33 infantry battalions, six cavalry regiments, 16 batteries and

    1397
    various miscellaneous army units, in addition to five squadrons of the Royal Air Force. In 1927, over and above the Iraqi units and local levies, there will be not more than five squadrons and two Indian battalions. I hope that that comparison is sufficient to justify the experiment of the Air Command in Iraq, and shows that I have been able to carry out the pledges which I have given in former years to the House by making, year after year, substantial reductions in these items of expenditure.
    4.0 p.m.
    Important as are these three features of the Air Estimates, there is one aspect of the policy embodied in the Estimates this year that I think deserves even closer consideration from the House than the points to which I have just drawn their attention. For the first time in the Air Estimates, proper emphasis is being given to the necessity of developing an Imperial Air Policy. Hon. Members will notice in the White Paper which I have circulated with the Estimates that I draw attention to the interesting discussions that took place on this subject in the Imperial Conference, and as I shall show in the course of my speech, we are in more directions than one making an advance towards carrying out the policy to which we were all agreed last autumn. If air policy is to be of any value, it must be on a big scale. It must be imperial and not local; it must be mobile and not static. We must have Empire air routes over which we can move quickly and safely, both our civil and our military machines. That fundamental doctrine of air policy was fully accepted by the representatives of the Imperial Conference. It was fully accepted there, I think, that a policy of that kind could be carried out successfully only upon a system of co-operation between the various Governments in the Empire, and in these Estimates, for the first time, we are making provision for a co-operative Empire flight from one end of Africa to the other, a flight in which the South African and the British Air Forces will both take part, and in which the link in the central section of Africa will be completed by a civil company subsidised by the Governments of the East African Colonies and the Sudan. That is an illustration of the way in which I hope to see this system of co-operation carried out in the future.
    1398
    There is also a move in the direction of co-operation in the matter of airships. At the Imperial Conference we had a number of most valuable discussions upon the future of airships from the point of view of commercial lines for the benefit of the Empire, and I am glad to say that the Prime Ministers of South Africa and Canada have both agreed to include in their Estimates for this year substantial sums for building masts without which it would be impossible successfully to carry out this programme of airship development. So fully was this principle of co-operation accepted at the Imperial Conference, that it was agreed that some time during the next two years there should be held a special Air Conference at which would be represented the Governments of the Empire. That Conference would probably be held at Ottawa in Canada.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When?
    Sir S. HOARE: Some time during the next two years. The adopting of an Imperial air policy has its reaction upon every field of air development. It turns our eyes, for instance, to the need for the interchange of personnel between the various Air Forces of the Empire. It concentrates our attention upon airships and aeroplanes of such performance and endurance as will enable them to pass from one capital of the Empire to another without having to alight upon foreign territory. It emphasises over and over again the fact that air power is a concentration of force rather than the collection of small isolated fragments. On that aspect of air policy, it seems to me there is great resemblance between the doctrine of the air and the doctrine of the sea. The doctrine of the sea is a great channel of communication that encircles the whole Empire and by which you can concentrate your naval force at any threatened point. It is the same with air policy, with this added fact, that the aeroplane and airship can pass equally over the land as well as the sea. Just as naval strategy does not tie up its force at a number of small isolated points but concentrates it upon two or three great centres from which it can be quickly reinforced at threatened points in various parts of the Empire, so it is with the Air Force. There also yon should have your concentration rather

    1399
    than your small localised units. You should be able to bring this concentration to bear by means of Imperial air routes upon any point that is desired from one end of the Empire to the other.
    If air policy be applied from that point of view, I believe it might be used as an instrument of economy in our system of Imperial Defence rather than as an additional form of expenditure. When you have your air routes organised from one end of the Empire to the other, when you have your three or four great concentrations of air force, perhaps here in the circle of the British Islands, in the Middle East, and in the Far East, when you have your machines with alternative under-carriages that will enable them to fly quickly over either land or the sea, and when you have them armed with alternative armament, may it not then be possible to economise upon some of the localised forms of defence that now cost so much money in our scheme of Imperial Defence? I quite agree that that is a principle that can be applied only gradually and very cautiously, but I mention it to-day to emphasise the fact that, if your Air Force can be applied in that way, if by that means full value can be obtained from the great mobility of the aeroplane and the airship, I believe there is a chance in the future of making economies in our scheme of Imperial Defence.
    In that respect, I should like to say that the success of our Airship Policy has a very direct bearing upon the carrying out of the policy that I am now attempting to outline. The two airships that we are building, and which we hope will be completed during this financial year, are capable of carrying 200 fully-armed men, or alternatively, a whole squadron of aeroplanes. Hon. Members will see at once how airships of that kind, if they prove to be successful, should speed up the concentration of your Air Force at any threatening point in the Empire. I look forward to seeing in the future an aeroplane squadron that is to-day training upon Salisbury Plain, flying next week in the Middle East, and upon the North-West frontier of India the following week. If we can obtain that kind of mobility, I think we may claim that the airship and the aeroplane will not only help to solve our defence problems, but
    1400
    will help to solve them at less expenditure than is involved at the present time. In these Estimates, there is provision for a number of proposals by which we intend to carry a stage further this doctrine of Air Force mobility. We propose, for instance, to make long-distance flights—flights such as those carried out by Wing-Commander Pulford and other Air Force officers last year—as an ordinary part of the training of the Air Force Squadrons. We propose, again, in these Estimates to make provision for landing grounds on the route to Singapore, and we propose, further, to form a flight of flying boats upon Far Eastern waters, one of whose duties it will be to co-operate with the Royal Australian Air Force from Australia. These proposals may seem not of very great importance at first sight. They are none the less important as an illustration of the policy of mobility which, as I say, is the essential principle of any successful British air policy.
    But I should be misleading the House if I implied that the military aspect of aviation was the only aspect considered by the Imperial Conference. We had a number of equally important discussions upon the civil side of aviation, and those discussions all went to show that this principle of mobility is not only true of service aviation, but is equally true of civil aviation. Just as we must have our air routes organised, if we are to give full value to the mobility of the military machine, so we must have our air routes fully organised if we are to get the fullest advantage of civil aeroplanes over the existing means of communication, and I am glad to think that in the Estimates of this year I have included provision—£93,600—for the section of the Indian air route between Egypt and Karachi. It is only a section of the route that we hope to see completed, but none the less it is the first section and a very important section, a section that, though incomplete in itself, still enables letters to go from this country to India in a week's less time than was formerly the case. I attached such importance to the formation of this section that I felt it was worth while making the first journey upon it, with a view to emphasising its importance. I will not trouble the House—it would he egoistic, if I attempted to do so—with a detailed account of the

    1401
    journey, but I will only allude to it in so far as it illustrates the particular points that I am trying to make to hon. Members in connection with this year's Estimates.
    I made the flight with three definite objects. I wanted, first of all, to make the opening journey upon the first section of a great Imperial airway; secondly, I wanted to discuss with the Government of India a number of questions connected with the increase of the Air Force in India and also with the development of civil flying; and, thirdly, I wanted to show to the world, and particularly to the British world, the advance that had been made during the last two or three years in civil machines, and to show them that the modern civil machine of to-day can carry out a long distance flight of this kind with every reliability. As regards the opening of the route, I am glad to say that the service is now running with passengers and freight between Baghdad and Basra, and it is interesting to note that the business men of Karachi are already sending their express communications by this service, and that on more than one occasion during the last two or three weeks there have been straphangers in the machine between Baghdad and Basra. Then there were important discussions with the Government of India, discussions of very great value to me, and whilst I should be the last person in the world to suggest that anything that I said or did in India influenced the decisions taken by the Government of India, it is worthy of note that during the last 10 days proposals have been accepted, both by the Government of India and the Assembly, that will be of great value to India and also, as I believe, of great value to the Empire as a whole, as helping us to form another link in the chain of Imperial air communications.
    Then there was the third object of the flight, namely, my desire to prove to the world the reliability of British machines, and what better proof could there be than the fact that my wife and I were able to make a journey of 10,000 miles, in the face of every kind of weather, flying through all kinds of climate, and to make that journey not only without the need of a single spare part for either the machine or the engines; but without keeping anybody waiting at any landing
    1402
    ground where we attempted to land? So confident indeed were we in the pilot and the navigator of the machine that we flew just as confidently over the sea as over the land, although, as hon. Members will remember, we were flying in a land machine. I remember one day in Particular, when we were flying from Italy to Malta, through, very bad weather, with very indifferent visibility, so bad, in fact, that the pilot thought it best to fly below the clouds at a height of only 500 feet above the sea, we passed from time to time over the destroyers of the Fleet at Malta that were there to look out for us. We exchanged with them wireless messages, and the message that came back from the commanding officer of one of the destroyers ran as follows:
    "You may think it bumpy up there; it is nothing to what it is down here."
    We flew not only during the daylight, but we flew quite a considerable distance in pitch darkness. For instance, our flight from Palestine to Egypt was carried out almost entirely on a perfectly starless and moonless night. The whole way through this journey we never had the least anxiety, and we felt complete confidence in the personnel and the machine—we felt complete confidence also in the three engines that went on, the whole of this 10,000 miles, purring like three kittens It is this regular arrival up to time, this keeping of a scheduled programme, that I think impressed public opinion in the countries through which we passed, and I think it is that fact that lent a distinctive character to this flight, namely, that for the first time an ordinary civil machine, not built specially for this particular flight, but for carrying on the ordinary service of a private company, could carry out a programme of this kind without a hitch and without a delay.
    And, Mr. Speaker, was it not fortunate that at one period of our flight we found, on a landing ground upon the Persian coast, those true sportsmen, Messrs. Stack and Leete, members of the Manchester Light Aeroplane Club, showing the paces and the power of the tiny Moth to the world, just as we were showing to the world the performance of the City of Delhi? I remember very well upon the landing ground at Bushire going up to these two young men and introducing myself to them, and on looking into their

    1403
    cockpits, which hon. Members know are about the size of a perambulator, I said to them: "What do you do about luggage?" Their answer was: "We have taken an attaché case each and a ukelele between us." Has there ever been a better example of the mobility of the modern British aeroplane of whatever size? At the end of this journey one of the most satisfactory and pleasant features was that amongst the first congratulations that I received were congratulations from the Prime Minister of Canada and from the Air Forces of Australia and South Africa. That made me think that perhaps this journey was something more than a picturesque incident of travel, and that it may in the future have some small influence upon developing Empire air routes and carrying out the policy of mobility to which I have just drawn the attention of the House.
    Hon. Members may say: "All that is interesting, and the programme sounds attractive, but how are you trying to carry it out in a practical way? Is your personnel capable of meeting these great Empire tasks? Is your materiel capable of carrying out these long distance military and civil flights?" Well, as to the personnel, I do not think I need speak at any length. It is a fact accepted by everyone, British and foreign, that British pilots are the best in the world, and if I had needed any further proof of that fact, I could not have found it better than in the experiences that I gained during my flight. There our civil pilots never failed us. There again, when I arrived in India and made an extensive flying tour over the North-West frontier, the military pilots never failed us either. I think that sufficient attention may not in the past have been given to the very remarkably high standard attained by the Air Force in the very difficult conditions of the North-West frontier of India. Not so very long ago many people would have said that that mountainous and rugged country made aviation impossible. Not so very long ago the activities of the Air Force in India were so closely restricted as to make them of little importance in the system of Indian defence. That state of affairs is now changed, and the Air Force to-day plays an integral part in the defence of the North-West frontier. Pilots
    1404
    are showing that they can carry out their duties quickly and effectively in this rugged and jagged country of high mountains, tiny landing grounds, and difficulties of climate, with as much success as they would under far easier conditions in other parts of the world.
    Last year, I remember alluding to the fact that, for the first time in the history of Indian defence, the Air Force was given the opportunity of carrying out independently a military operation. They carried it out so successfully and so quickly that it was suggested by certain people that it should not be treated as a campaign, because there were no, or scarcely any, casualties, and that they should not receive a medal, because it had been so quickly concluded. I saw one of the officers who took a prominent part in this campaign, and I asked him how it came about that the Air Force was able to finish, in the course of a few weeks and with scarcely a casualty on either side, a campaign that in other conditions would have cost much treasure and human life and might have lasted many months. His answer was a rather surprising one. He said, "We first drove the enemy into their caves, and the fleas were so bad that they drove them out of the caves and made them surrender." Fleas or no fleas, the campaign was successfully ended, and, as I say, with scarcely a casualty on either side.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have you made Keatings' powder contraband?
    Sir S. HOARE: I will certainly give attention to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. Then there is the other question as to how far we have made progress with material. Can it be said that our material is adequate for the Imperial task for which we wish to use it? In the matter of material, if I am asked, I would never give a categorical answer. There is no finality in the field of aeronautical science, because new discoveries are constantly being made. All one can say is that, comparing the present state of affairs with a few years ago, a definite and substantial progress has been made in most important directions.
    Let me give one or two examples. First of all, there is the great progress we have made in airship research. Both in their design and in their construction the two

    1405
    airships that we are building are very far in advance of any airship built during the War or since the War. The use of stainless steel and heavy oil engines, and new methods of bracing and girder construction all differentiate these two airships most definitely from any airships formerly built. Now, as to aeroplanes. In 1919 the best type of civil aeroplane took six passengers and went at a speed of 90 miles per hour. The new types now take 20 passengers and fly at a rate of 110 miles per hour.
    With regard to military machines, a few years ago a military machine took as long to climb 5,000 feet as the newest type of machine takes to climb 20,000 feet to-day. As to the engines, in 1923 the average weight of engines for every unit of horse power was over 2 lbs.; now that has been reduced by over 25 per cent. If you take the question of overhauls, which is a very important question from the point of the economical working of machines, whether for military or civil purposes, an engine in 1923 required to be overhauled after 75 hours' running, but the latest types can be relied upon for 250 hours' running. Therefore, although we may be a long way from finality in this matter, we have, at any rate, made substantial progress in very important directions during the last two or three years.
    Then there is another field of development that is scarcely of less importance, and that is meteorology and wireless, which bear so directly upon aeronautics. I do not say that here we have made any spectacular advance, but we have made very definite and useful progress. Time after time during my recent flight I have had impressed upon me the immense value of good weather reports. Whenever we were in wireless communication with our neighbours and received prompt and clear weather reports it was in a literal sense plain sailing, but when our wireless failed or our reports were inadequate we felt, bewildered and uncertain. I remember, Mr. Speaker, Wing-Commander Pulford, after his flight from Cairo to Cape Town last year telling me that the inadequacy of weather reports was one of his chief difficulties in his flight across Africa. Even when you have reports you do not always get the kind of report that you want. For instance, on one occasion in Central
    1406
    Africa, when Wing-Commander Pulford telegraphed an inquiry asking what the weather was like in the country where he proposed to land, the answer he got back was, "The roads are very muddy." Of course, the pilot was anxious to know the weather conditions in the air, and therefore that kind of information was not of very much value to him. I have had a similar experience myself, because when we were debating at Delhi as to whether or not we should start in a thick fog, we telegraphed in many directions, and one of the answers we got was "Everything is up to time. The express just went through 21 hours late!" Of course an answer of that kind was not of any great value to me, because I was wondering whether or not I should start that morning from Delhi to Karachi. I am glad to think that the principal Governments of the Empire, including India and the Dominions realise the importance of improving the system of weather reports, and the Meteorological Office in London is in close touch with them with a view to making the system much more complete than it is at the present time.
    I hope that I have now given to the House a general picture of the, lines on which we are moving. I have purposely not attempted to go into great detail in regard to particular items in these Estimates. I have already circulated a White Paper drawing attention to the details, and, as hon. Members will see, I have published the Estimates for the first time in a new form, with a, detailed explanation in the interleaving. I hope, I say, that I have said enough to emphasise the essential features of our air policy, mobility of the air arm, and the need to get the fullest possible value from that mobility whether in the case of the aeroplane or the airship. I think if we develop our policy on those lines we shall find that aviation will be of real value to the Empire. It will be more easy to concentrate our Air Force at a particular point and on the civil side it can be used as a great instrument for making Imperial intercourse closer than it has ever been before.
    For the air can bring the capitals of the Empire nearer together than ever before. There is no technical reason why you should not by means of aeroplane and airship bring England within two days of

    1407
    Canada, five days of India, six days of South Africa, and 11 days of Australia. Our policy, whether it be expressed in the training of pilots or in the scientific and technical improvement of machines and engines, ought to be focused upon this objective. On the one hand, the Air Force must be made as mobile as possible; on the other civil aviation must direct its aim not on to the enclosed spaces and the storms and fogs of Europe, so much as to the boundless expanses and wide horizons of the British Empire. By this means I see a prospect of using the Air Force as an instrument of economy and not as a stimulus to greater expenditure. I see a prospect of making aviation an asset and not a liability to the British Empire. It is from this point of view that I would ask the attention of the House to these Estimates. It is with this touchstone that I would ask hon. Members to test air policy.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to the House which has been interesting from the beginning to the end, and it is as clear as his statements from the Treasury Bench always have been. The story of his travels which he has told us shows that he has evidently been gripped by the fascination of this new epoch in human adventure, and from what I have heard, his travels have stimulated the professional pride and spirit of all the air services in the land. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by explaining that he had been able to effect a saving in expenditure and by thanking his staff at the Air Ministry for their co-operation in this direction. The Air Ministry is, I think, an adventurous, progressive and competent body but it is certainly not an economical Department. I have been reading the Report, issued a few days ago, of the Public Accounts Committee for last year. The Air Ministry was under examination in that Committee, I think, on four different occasions, and if Members will read that four days' cross-examination, they will realise I am not exaggerating when I say that not for a generation has the Public Accounts Committee dealt with any Department as it dealt with the Air Ministry six months ago. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman himself will contradict that.
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, I shall contradict it.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman, having contradicted that fact, I make bold to say that Members of the Public Accounts Committee, either this week or in Debate on Votes next week, will pursue this subject, and express the very grave apprehension which the witnesses raised in their minds. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that this expenditure on the Air Ministry must not be regarded as a net addition to the expenses of the country, because it was met, or was being met, by corresponding reductions in the military expenditure, and, in particular, he referred during his speech to expenditure on the confines of the Empire in such places as the North-West Frontier of India. Any expectation that the expenditure on the Air Ministry has led to a corresponding decrease in military expenditure is, I am afraid, shattered if you look at the Army Estimates. In 1913, there was, of course, no substantial expenditure on the Air, but the expenditure on the Army was £28,000,000. Since then the expenditure on the Air Force has risen, and the gross expenditure on that Force this year is, I see, about £20,000,000. But the expenditure on the Army has not diminished. It has increased to £42,000,000, which, taking into account the rise of prices is just about equivalent to the expenditure in 1913. So that this £20,000,000 upon the Air Force has not up to the present resulted in any corresponding diminution in military expenditure, but must be regarded as a net addition to the burdens of this country as of other countries in the world.
    The right hon. Gentleman has announced this afternoon a further moderate, but still a genuine expansion programme, and that expansion programme is, I see from his White Paper, to be increased next year, and to be subsequently increased to a further indefinite extent. The question that we put to ourselves on this side of the House is, where is all this finally going to lead? I have been trying to get some picture of the progress in the last few years of the competition in Air Force development between this country and France. In 1919, the Air Ministry laid it down that the normal pre-War situation had been established,

    1409
    and they put before this House their final scheme for the permanent organisation of the Air Force, for an expansion scheme which gradually was to increase up to a total maximum of 31 squadrons. A couple of years later that scheme was thrown aside. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), when he was Air Minister, got permission, I think, to increase it by 15 squadrons, and the present Minister of. Air followed him. He absorbed his 15 squadrons, and announced in 1923 a programme adding a few more. Then later on, in 1923, the Prime Minister, referring to the French Air Fleet and to the French expansion Estimates, which were then going through the Chamber of Deputies, announced a great new expansion programme for home defence, and the results of that expansion programme are now showing themselves. In 1925, the number had increased to 54, in 1926 to 61 and this year, according to the White Paper, at this moment the number is 63. Next year, according to the White Paper, it will be 69, and then there will be an indefinite increase which will finally give us, I calculate, a number well over 80, which the Prime Minister in 1923 regarded as a figure which would put us more or less on an equality with the Air Force of France.
    That is one side of the picture. While our expansion programme has been carried out, what has been happening in France? The French programme, upon which this present expansion is based, was to have been completed in 1925. It has not been completed. It has been decelerated. It is disintegrating. It is falling to pieces. Last year the Rap-porteur on the Air Force to the French Chamber issued a report to that Chamber containing, as far as the general public can obtain it, by far the fullest information that has yet been forthcoming with regard to the Air Force of France. This is what he said:
    "Two-thirds of the observation machines date from 1918, and the remaining one-third are insufficiently armed. The fighters date from 1920 and do not fly high enough or fast enough to cope with an enemy. The day bombing machines were originally intended for observation purposes, and have serious defects of bombing. The night bombers have, so small a range that in Morocco it was necessary to borrow machines from the Navy fitted with British engines."
    1410
    The correspondent of the "Times," in dealing with this report and with the Debate upon it which followed in the French Chamber, sums it up by saying:
    "The report and the debate in the Chamber ought to demolish many of the delusions with regard to French aviation which are cherished in certain quarters in England."
    It is clear, then, that the original programme in France, on which this whole series of Estimates is based, has, in fact, broken to pieces, and when our expansion programme is complete, we shall be the first Air Force in the world. Then, when the French are stimulated by that fact into taking up their programme once again, the whole process will begin over again.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman say one word about that very vital fact—the number of pilots in the respective Air Forces of England and France?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The question of the efficiency of Air Forces depends on pilots, and it also depends on machines. I have dealt with the extract from the French Rapporteur on the Air Force. I have dealt with the Debate in the Chamber which covered pilots as well as machines, and I have dealt with the general conclusion of the "Times" corespondent that, taking the two together, our anxiety with regard to the French Air Force need no longer be entertained. What does all this mean? The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are great similarities between the strategy of the Air Force and the strategy of the Navy, and there are great similarities in the speeches of the Ministers at the head of both of the Services. I listen to both sets of speeches, and each year I find the Minister of Air arguing for an expansion of the aeroplane programme, and the First Lord of the Admiralty arguing for an extension of the cruiser programme. These speeches, to anyone who was in this House before the War, are absolutely identical with the speeches which used to be put forward in the years leading up to 1914. The same expansion programme, the same race in armaments, the same competitive building—against Germany then; against our allies to-day—leading eventually and irretrievably to the same final result.

    1411
    5.0 p.m.
    As a matter of fact, it is not only Members who speak from this side of the House who utter warnings and predictions such as this. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken to-day about certain operations in air warfare, where, apparently, the greatest inconvenience amounted to biting by a number of fleas. But he has not always, in previous speeches from the Treasury Box, spoken of air warfare in that sense. I have listened practically to all the Air Force Debates for some years, and I have noticed that each Air Minister, behind his statement with regard to the Air Force, appears to be almost terror-stricken at the horror which, if one more war occurred, would be unloosed upon the world by the instrument which he is building up day by clay. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that in another war, owing to the Air Forces and the instruments which they would use, our civilised life might be completely blotted out. The Prime Minister has spoken in the same terms. Sir Hugh Trenchard has said that the potential horrors of air warfare are greater than the advantages we are securing, and that, if it depended on his vote, he would abolish every aeroplane in the world. What impresses us is the difference between the terrible pictures which were drawn by the right hon. Gentleman and others, and the timidity and the poverty of any efforts which they suggest by which these evils can be defeated. In a few weeks there will be open the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, and, by this time next year, Europe will have definitely selected the part which will determine whether aviation is or is not to become a new scourge and infamy to mankind. We wish the British Government to go to that Conference with bold, dramatic proposals by which, as the United States did at Washington, they can, right at the beginning, capture the imagination of the world. The question of the reduction of aeroplanes for naval and military cooperation, for reconnaissance, for wireless, for photography and so on, will be dealt with as part of the discussion on military and naval limitations. But when one comes to the independent Air Force and the fighting machines of which it so largely consists, we realise that the only object of fighting aeroplanes is to fight
    1412
    other fighting aeroplanes, and, if our purpose is to achieve equality with France, then we would be equally safe if we had no fighting aeroplanes at all, provided France were in the same position as ourselves. Therefore, this is a matter in which, in our sphere, we must be as bold as the airmen are in their sphere.
    We hope the British Government will stand for the abolition of the fighting aeroplane and accept limitation and reduction only as a step towards that result. The Secretary of State for Air has, in the last two or three years, I am glad to say, devoted a part of his speech to a discussion of the possibilities in this direction, and he has explained to the House what the difficulties are. The subject will be fully dealt with later, and I do not wish to go into it at great length. The right hon. Gentleman has explained, as it is his business to explain, the difficulties in their technical aspects. I would first say this, that the difficulties which he puts forward were difficulties attaching to proposals for limitation, and most of them were not difficulties which would exist if you had complete abolition. They would be met by the bolder step. But he has based his case upon one difficulty which, I admit, under present: conditions, provides no answer, and that is the difficulty presented by commercial aviation. I understand that a bombing machine requires, broadly, two capacities; it requires speed and it requires weight-carrying capacity, and these, I am told, are the two main qualities required by commercial transport machines, with the result that a commercial machine can be turned into a bombing machine in a few hours or a few days. What does that mean? It means that this competition in the development of civil aviation, in which all nations are taking part, is in fact a competition between the different nations for the provision of a reserve of bombers in the contingency of the next war. As long as that is the case, it is quite clear that a limitation in fighting aeroplanes will not necessarily lead to any corresponding limitation in the aeroplanes which could be utilised for war, and the whole of our case in this direction would be blocked at the very commencement.
    There is only one solution, which is that these Air services should be transformed into an international service

    1413
    under the League of Nations. The Air services, as a matter of fact, are almost by nature marked out for international control. The right hon. Gentleman's speech has shown that. How could he develop his Imperial air service except by international assent? By their very nature, Air services, in order to be developed, need long routes, and these can only be provided by international arrangements which ignore national frontiers. I remember someone explaining that we ourselves experienced that difficulty and could not develop our air route to Prague because, owing to the international situation, Germany could not come into the necessary agreements. As a matter of fact, there is now an international commission for the regulation of aviation, and I think the Air ports, such as that at Croydon, are under international arrangements. I notice that some hon. Members on the other side seem to be amused, but it is not anything very revolutionary to transfer a system from national to international ownership and control. If that were done, the air traveller of the future would travel as he does now by the service provided by the international company which is under British control, with headquarters in Brussels, and with an international staff. It ignores national frontiers and takes you right across Europe and into some parts of Asia Minor. The fact is that this problem can be solved. There are no insuperable technical difficulties in the way. It is a problem of polities, and it is in the hands of politicians. If hon. Members are amused and think that the difficulties are so great that the idea is fantastic, I can only say that if, in their sphere, the members of the different Air forces had not overcome far greater difficulties, then the right hon. Gentleman would not have been discussing the route to India to-day. On Monday, the representative of the War Office in this House said that this country is not going to consider any reduction of armaments until other countries took the came step. That is not a good enough reply. We want to know whether this country itself will accept this plan, and whether it will take the initiative in suggesting it to the other nations. If it will do that, then it will be the greatest step towards the reduction of armaments that has ever been taken yet, because this country, with its unparalleled position, if it took the
    1414
    lead and steadily maintained the lead, could eventually lead the nations of the world on to that road where, in fact, the majority of their people already wish them to move.
    Captain GUEST: I think the House will not blame me if I do not follow into the realms of thought and speculation to which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down devoted his time. Although there may be many things in his hopes, and perhaps in his fears, they will be a long time before they are achieved, and in the meantime we have to deal with practical politics. The Secretary of State for Air has been so modest in the account which he has given of his journey that it is not unreasonable for speakers who follow him to congratulate him on the performance. It was a much bigger performance than is understood, I think, by the average man in the House of Commons, much less by the average man in the street, and I would like to add my congratulations to the gallant lady who accompanied him. I have never flown myself at a stretch more than 900 miles, and it seemed to me a very long way; but, when you multiply that by 10, I think it must be regarded as one of the finest performances that have been undertaken for many a long year. I feel that the personal contact which he established in India and all other places through which he passed will be invaluable to the Ministry in the future.
    The Secretary for State touched lightly upon the greatest performance of the Air Ministry since its inception, and I think an extra word on that point would not be amiss. I refer to the situation in the Middle East. Not so many years ago the Middle East was costing this country, apart from India, between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 a year. The Air Ministry was told that it would be very dangerous to entrust such a responsibility to it. I can remember that it had some misgivings in undertaking the task, but, having plucked up its courage, it faced it. Not only has it saved the taxpayer well over an average of £14,000,600 a year—and we are now down to a figure of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000—but tie success of the enterprise is demonstrated by the fact that only five squadrons are left there. Some hon. Members may say, as was hinted more or

    1415
    less by the last speaker, that the Air arm is an additional extravagance. I would answer that by pointing out that since the War the responsibilities of the Empire have increased also, and if anyone can suggest any method of carrying out more cheaply the responsibility of the Mandates in the Middle Eastern areas we accepted under the Treaty of Versailles I would be glad if he would make a practicable suggestion.
    I would like, in a, sentence, to congratulate the Ministry on its economy in administration. It may not be great, but it is apparent. If you can get a, bigger service at less expense, and with a reduction in your overhead charges, I am quite satisfied that you are on the right lines. The news that the War-time stocks are exhausted is, of course, perhaps the greatest news to those of us who look into the future. The five or six years during which the Ministry has been trying to economise, and living on almost obsolete machines and obsolete weapons, has been a heart-breaking period. I think it will be found that, as it has done so well with that material, when it gets new material and designs it will advance by leaps and bounds. Further, I think the Ministry is to be congratulated on having got through a difficult period in relation to the other Services. It has kept its head up and has gained respect from both the older Services, largely due to the manner in which the personnel, both officers and men, have behaved during the last six years.
    I must pass now to a slightly more serious side. We in this country, and the parents of flyers in this country, have heard alarming reports of air accidents. We must face that issue, not burke it. We have got to train the country to understand that it is a dangerous game, and it is no good pretending it is not. But we must also satisfy people that the utmost possible safeguards are employed to protect the lives of the pilots and those who are learning. I want the Ministry to be adamant on one point, and on no consideration to give way to Press pressure, which is in the direction of trying to pillory the young squadron leaders, whoever they may be, in some particular squadron where unfortunate accidents have occurred. The responsibility must be borne by the Secretary of State and
    1416
    by him alone. The defence must be made here in the House, where proper attention will be given to it, and the country will be reassured as to what is being done. A year ago the Secretary of State was good enough to listen to some suggestions I made as to the supply of parachutes. I am delighted than, he responded so rapidly to that suggestion. They are in use, and although accidents still occur, several lives already have been saved by their compulsory employment. On the question of insurance, I am not yet satisfied that the most strenuous efforts have been made to assist flying officers in this connection. It is more a Committee point than a point worthy of this occasion, but it is so closely linked up with the question of accidents that I hope it will receive attention from the Ministry.
    From that I turn to another point to which I think we can usefully give some little thought in passing. It is intimately connected with the question of economy, and I hope it will receive support from the hon. Members on the Labour benches. I refer to the estalishment of the Auxiliary Air Arm. A citizen army should, I think, receive the support of even the Socialist party, because it is not asking a great deal of a man, whatever his walk of life may be, to give a reasonable number of days each year to learn how to defend his home. The Territorial Army does not go abroad until several weeks or months after the outbreak of war, and the bullets are a long way off from the home centres and the great industrial districts. That is not so with the Air Arm. The enemy bombs may he on our heads much more rapidly than some people realise, and therefore I suggest that it is right and patriotic to support the Auxiliary Air Army. It should not be in any way compared with the Territorial Army. I take it that the Territorials would have a reasonable time in which to perfect themselves and proceed to their allotted places. There would no time in the ease of the Auxiliary Air Force. It has at once to take its place in the home defence squadron arrangements. It cannot be ready to go off within, perhaps, 24 hours to play its part unless it has the efficiency of a regular squadron. If it has to be left behind, through lack of efficiency, it would be like a division going off and leaving its guns behind. I only bring

    1417
    this question up because I wish to impress upon the Secretary of State, now that we have launched this policy of auxiliary squadrons, that it is up to him to make them perfect, and to supply them with the highest possible supplementary personnel he can afford to spare. Then, I think, he will find that he has cast his bread upon the waters.
    The Territorial movement has, in the past, received great help from those who could afford to support it financially in their respective areas. At one time or another most of us have been to Territorial messes and Territorial headquarters and have been struck with the generous way in which the movement has received financial support locally. The result is that young officers have not been afraid to join lest they should be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to pay for this, that and the other. They knew they would be able to mess cheaply and would be in decent conditions. This consideration applies also to the men. There are five auxiliary air squadrons, two in Scotland—at Glasgow and Edinburgh—one in Birmingham and two in London, and they are absolutely destitute, on the doorstep of fate. I do not think they have got enough crockery to go round I may have put that a little extravagantly, but it is very nearly true. I wish to enlist the support and help of any well-to-do and well-meaning Londoner who would like to become the patron of one of these London movements. Other towns must do their own propaganda. I think we ought not to make it difficult for any man, either officer or man, however small his means, to join these auxiliary squadrons, upon whom some day we may greatly depend.
    Civil aviation will be dealt with by other speakers, and I do not want to take up more time than is necessary, but I would say that I think it depends more on public support than anything else. I ask myself "On what does public support depend?" It depends on the public liking of flying. That public liking depends upon the dissipation of fear; and that, in turn, depends on the growth of air travel. From that I am going to draw this conclusion, that the more assistance that can be given in the way of subsidies to civil aviation the better. We welcome the
    1418
    additional grant this year; if more could be given so much the better, because every passenger carried is a propagandist in flying. Every year more and more people are able to say, "I flew with complete safety from London to Brussels in 2¼ hours. The weather was good, it caused me no inconvenience and I did my business quicker." We cannot spend too much money on Civil aviation, because every man or woman carried helps to dissipate the fear which surrounds the parents of the young people from whom we wish to obtain recruits. I would prefer to have seen more money spent on Civil Aviation and less on airships. I know that airships are a controversial subject. I retain the views I held five years ago, when I was at the Ministry. I think they are a luxury, but there they are, and I will not go so far as to attack the policy at the present time.
    That we have managed firmly to establish a separate Air Ministry is a matter upon which every supporter of air development must congratulate himself. Every one of us tried in his little way to make it impossible to divide the Ministry, and every year that it stands by itself it gains in stature and in fame. It is through this permanence and continuity of policy that the air sense of the Force has had the chance to develop. It has gradually become a race of bird-men showing that the Britisher is the most adaptable person in the world, and that just as he learned the art of the sea so he can learn the art of the air. It is only because the Ministry has been allowed to stand uninterfered with on its own feet that this great development in the Air Service has been achieved. The esprit de corps of the Force is wonderful. We see in daily life the deportment and behaviour of the men and the type of officers who wear flying uniform. We know the esprit de corps is tremendous, and the quality of the Service is now long past discussion and is admitted all round. To whom, very largely, is this magnificent position due? In my opinion it is due entirely to the service, inspiration and record of a most remarkable officer, Sir Hugh Trenchard. The fact that he has been Chief of our Air Staff for nine years, under five political chiefs, shows the enormous value of continuity of service to continuity of policy. The

    1419
    prestige achieved by the Air Force, both among the public and in successive Cabinets, is largely due to the efforts of this great public servant, who has won for himself, in the administration of the Fighting Services, a position fully comparable to that of the great heads of the civil Departments; and what greater praise can one give?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My right hon. Friend envisaged a future rather like Rudyard Kipling's "A.B.C." —an Air Board Control. There is nothing to be ashamed at in that; there is nothing to laugh at in that. After all, anyone who has a knowledge of aerial warfare must agree that that is the eventual state of affairs which must undoubtedly ensue, just as we must deal, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) said, with the position as we have it to-day. I somewhat regret that the hon. Member for Keighley introduced into the Debate a little party spirit, because this particular subject has been very free from it up to now, and it is, I think, quite impossible to pretend that our programme of aerial development is an aggressive one in any way. Nor do I think it really does good to compare what we are doing with what is being done in France. We steadfastly tried to refuse that comparison when it was somewhat dangerous. The problems of France and ourselves are entirely separate, and, if we do develop in the way that we think wise, I think no one will misinterpret it, and think that it is directed against any country at all. It is a police force of our own.
    I rather regret that the Government have not given us a day to discuss the big question of national expenditure from the point of view of armaments. We are, I understand, going to spend £115,000,000. The baby service, the Air Force, gets £16,000,000, the Army £41,000,000, and the Navy, £58,000,000. There are some very important subjects to be discussed on the relationship of these figures and the totals, and yet it is not the right time to discuss them on the Air Ministry Vote; but I think it is right that, before we get down to the details of the Air Force, the details of the Navy, or the
    1420
    details of the Army, we should have a general discussion of the relation of one arm to another.
    I have, perhaps, an exaggerated respect for the Secretary of State for Air. That is because, when I was a boy at Harrow, he was a monitor, and one never gets over that wholesome respect, not for one's schoolmaster, out for something much more important, a monitor. Consequently, it is to me a very great pleasure to think that my right hon. Friend, net only in a political sense, but actually, has contributed to the advancement of civil aviation by his great journey. If he and his wife had been two cinema artists, like Douglas Fair banks and Mary Pickford, they could have got £10,000 for taking that trip; but the only thing they are going to get is an attempt to reduce their salary by £100. That is the difference between the two jobs. I often think of the Secretary of State and his wife, in their home, saying, "Well, that was the most uncomfortable thing we ever did in our lives." I do hope that, after travelling those 10,000 miles, he will realise that the only gentleman's way of travelling is to go by airship. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about three 600 horse-power engines, with open exhaust, purring like kittens. We have had some of them, we know the discomfort and the noise The sooner we look upon this question of Imperial communications as really an airship problem, the sooner we shall get down to real travelling between one part of our Empire and another. In taking part in these Debates in the past, I have often had a very wholesome scrap with my, Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). He takes the naval outlook on air questions, while I take a purely air outlook. We have had many Debates on the matter, and, although an all-wise Government has decided that this almost garrulous Member should be mute, I think we ought to congratulate him that he is not permanently mute; because, while tobogganing is an excellent pastime, and motoring also is an excellent pastime, when you combine the two it is very perilous.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member

    1421
    appears now to be referring to matters that did not happen in the air, but on land.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I only wish to draw attention to two points on these Estimates. The first is in regard to what I consider to De by far the most important side, that is, supply and research. On the research side, there is an enormous field for development to take place. Even such a primary matter as the inherent stability of machines is not really in any way understood. When a strange gentleman from Spain can come and entirely upset people's ideas of aeroplanes, which were getting on standardised lines, by introducing a horizontal type of windmill, it is very refreshing to know that we are right at the beginning of these things. The supply side, from the administrative point of view, is one of the most important matters for which the Air Ministry is responsible, because the industry really exists to-day on the wise administration of the Air Ministry in regard to the placing of orders, and, if we should want an expansion suddenly in the Air Force, it is very important that there should be the nucleus of an industry always ready to expand all over the country.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that we are no longer going to use war-time designs of machines. I must say it is a cynical reflection on peace-time progress that, the War having been over for nine years, we are to-day making this enormous decision not to use war-time machines, when it is remembered that during the War we changed from one design of machine to another after about three or four months. It has taken us now nine years to change from a war type to a peace type of machine, and I would ask my right hon. Friend if be is really satisfied with the machines he has to-day? Is he satisfied that his scout is faster than any American scout? Could he answer me that question with confidence? Is he satisfied that his best reconnaissance machine is as good as the best French reconnaissance machine? Can he answer me that question with confidence? I very much doubt it. If we are behind in those two very important respects, is it not due to the
    1422
    fact that we have not spent money on new designs for the last nine years, but have been sitting down using up scrap stuff which ought to have been burnt immediately after the War?
    There is no doubt that the supply side of the Air Ministry organisation is by far the stickiest. It is very difficult for manufacturers to make complaints to the Air Ministry, because they exist entirely on the Air Ministry. It is very difficult for them to air their views. But there is no doubt that there is a very great lack of imagination on the supply and technical side. Just take the instance of the Schneider Cup, which, as hon. Members know, is the blue riband for really fast scout machines. After the Americans had won that cup, the Air Ministry technical side said that, with difficulty, they might, in two years, produce a machine which would be 5 per cent. faster than the American machine. What did the Italians do? In six months they did it. It is a very serious thing for a great country, which pretends to be ahead in aeronautics, not to have a shot at it, but to be beaten by the Italian method—a private method—in six months. I hope we are not going to have that very Civil Service outlook on the design of new machines.
    Then I am going to say a thing which I am sure will be rather disturbing to the pundits—though I am not quite sure what a pundit is. That is that the supply side of the Air Ministry should not always be the job of an officer. It seems to me to be essentially the job of a civilian just as much as of an officer. After all, as is well known, it is not necessary to be a hen in order to be a good judge of an omelette, and one need not be a flier to be a very good judge of an aeroplane; nor need a man necessarily be a member of the Air Force to be a good head of that particular side of the Air Ministry. The answer to that is, of course, that he may be a civil servant, and that would be rather worse. I quite agree. The whole designing side is really not a Government function at all. The more the Air Ministry can let the private firms go ahead from the point of view of design, the better it will be for everyone. There must not be that sticky hand of the Government on free experiment all over the country. Our engineers are quite clever

    1423
    enough in their own department, without any stimulation or otherwise from Government Departments. One more point. Can the Secretary of State one day make us a programme, instead of spending from year to year? The same thing happens every year. In the last few months of the financial year, everyone is paid, and they cannot as a rule pay enough, so that some money goes back to appropriations. In the Navy we have a programme of ships; cannot we have in the Air Force a programme of aeroplane construction? It would, indeed, be very welcome in the industry, which is very hardly hit at the present time.
    The second point to which I desire to call attention is that of accidents. Of course, I admit that this is a subject about which there has been a good deal of scare. I am referring not only to military accidents, but to civil accidents, and on this point I must apologise for being, perhaps, a little technical; but since the advent of the motor car we are all technical. There is no doubt that about 70 per cent. of the accidents which take place are due to stalling, and that particular difficulty is being dealt with on three separate and interesting lines. There is the Handley-Page slotted wing; there is the tailless machine, an attempt to keep a constant centre of pressure; and now we have the rotary windmill. I hope the Air Ministry are not going to take sides in one of these very interesting developments. I do hope that the last one I have referred to, the Cierva windmill machine, will really be tried out in a very big way, because it appears to me to show possibilities which are not present in some of the other types. It is, however, so revolutionary, it so shocks the investigators and mathematicians, that it might have been killed before it ever got up into the air.
    With regard to accidents, let me say, in the first place, that there was a scare a year or two ago as to the number of men employed on the ground for every one that flew. I hope the Air Ministry were not frightened to the extent of reducing by too many the men on the ground, because safety in the air is very much dependent on sound groundwork. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that in spite of the attacks on the Royal Ground Force, as it was
    1424
    called, they were not frightened into diminishing the number of men on the ground from the point of view of the safety of those in the air.
    The differences between civil and military flying are things which I dare say are appreciated very much by Members of the House, but they are day by day becoming two entirely separate kinds of flying. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said bombing machines and civil machines were really the same. I do not believe any country has taken a more divergent view of military and civil machines than our own. We have seen in France military machines camouflaged as passenger machines, but in this country one cannot really pretend that our modern civil machines have anything to do with the military side at all. They are going along an entirely different line, and I am certain it is wholesome that they should do that. The two problems are entirely different, and our business on the civil side is to develop the civil machine entirely apart from militay requirements. The commercial pilot has his regular route, he has his communications from the point of view of weather; he knows his lights, he knows his aerodrome, and he is not asked to do any stunts at all. He flies quietly from one place to another, avoiding as many bumps as he can. That is a good type of flying, but it is not in any way comparable with what the military aviator has to do. He has to be an expert from start to finish. Some pilots are asked to fly at very high speeds, very near the ground. They may have to deal with human beings at that height. Some of them are asked to fly at 26,000 or 27,000 feet, and they are asked to do every form of manœuvre that is possible—every stunt—upside down, rolling, and all these different forms of flying—and they are not and never will be equipped with machines that have the ordinary elements of safety that we have in the commercial machines, because in the warlike machines manœuvrability, field of fire, etc., must always be prime consideration. Consequently the two things are really not in any way comparable at all. I hope, just as it was rumoured that there had been an increase in flying accidents, we shall not be told some very misleading statements by people who compile statistics. For instance, I am quite interested in the number of accidents there are for the amount of flying that goes on.

    1425
    I am not interested in the number of deaths for the amount of flying, because an accident is an accident. You may kill six people, but it is only one accident. It is very regrettable, but you are going to give an entirely misleading idea of the whole problem unless you do it by miles flown per accident. I see in the papers that the Secretary of State asked the Prime Minister if he would investigate this subject of accidents occurring in the Air Force. We do not ask him to give us full statistical returns, but I ask the Prime Minister, if he has looked into the subject, whether he would not say a word to us as to what he feels about the whole matter. It would be extremely interesting. I do not think pilots are affected in any way by the accidents. They do not worry about them at all. They are not upset or discouraged, but sometimes in the minds of the relations and friends of those who fly there is the idea that perhaps all is not being done that could be done, and that they are being asked to risk their lives when perhaps they need not do it. I do not believe it, but think a word from the Prime Minister to tell us what he found out in his investigations and what his feelings on the matter are would be of interest and would be appreciated by the House at large.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will reiterate what the hon and gallant Gentleman has said, and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give us a full account of what he has found out in his investigations. I also wish to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the recovery of his freedom. His expert knowledge in aviation matters has been denied to the House while he occupied a position on that bench, and from a Parliamentary point of view we gain what the Ministry of Transport loses. I find it almost embarrassing to be so much in agreement with a prominent Conservative, but I am in comparative agreement with him when he points to the fact that, while we are spending £116,000,000 on defence, the Air$ Ministry only takes £15,500,000 of that. I am all for the reduction of expenditure on armaments, but while we spend money on armaments, I would have it spent to the best possible degree of efficiency, and it is impossible to study the strategical position of the world to-day without realising that we are spending far too
    1426
    much on the Navy—and the Army, for that matter, but particularly the Navy—and far too little, comparatively, on the Air Force. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the Royal Flying Force, if he had spoken of the Royal Office Force, there would have been a great deal in that. It is not the ground personnel we object to, but the people who swarm in the Air Ministry and who hinder efficiency. The young buck ought to be a flying man to-day, as he is in America. He is hampered by the multitude of officials, who issue these ridiculous regulations, making his pass absurd, useless examinations. At present only three people in this country have their own private aeroplanes, where in America there are something like 5,000. I regret very much that we cannot fully discuss the necessity of a Ministry of Defence for the allocation of this £115,000,000. I believe we could get far better defence for under £100,000,000 with far greater efficiency. At any rate, we need a general staff functioning on defence problems, and that we have not got. The Committee of 'Imperial Defence is not suitable for the detailed examination of defence problems, and the Prime Minister knows it better than anyone. It is composed of men who have their hands full trying to keep the Cabinet in order.
    With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said, if I were to-day in the position of the Prime Minister I should bring home to the people of the country and the world the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves owing to the development of the aeroplane and the terrible peril of the civil population of the country. I would ask for an appropriation for the supply of gas masks to the whole population south of the Trent, and I would begin by serving them out to the youngest of the population, the most valuable part of the population whom we wish to preserve. The old people can look after themselves; the young cannot. I would make my first issue—I believe only one would be necessary—to all the nursing mothers for the use of their babies, because the damage is going to be done by the dropping of gas bombs and the use of heavy gas which will hang about for days and will go down into the cellars and sewers and underground tubes where the people will take refuge. That is where they will be gassed. If

    1427
    you do that you will bring home to the people of the country what they are faced with if we continue, as we are at present, building up a military air force against France perhaps and France building one possibly against ourselves—but these vast sums being spent on armaments and at the same time a policy is being pursued which will lead inevitably to another war. Until the people have that brought home to them they will continue to think only of the latest film in the picture house, the latest method of dancing the flat Charleston, what is going to win the next racing event or whatever particularly attracts their attention. You have to do something and that would be a very sound thing to do. In any case the gas masks will be needed, and it is just as essential to provide gas masks for the civil population as to provide fighting aeroplanes for the Air Force. [Interruption.] I have got mine. I have the one I had during the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it on!"] I am sure it is quite useless for the kind of gases we use here.
    May I remark on the extraordinary view of civil aviation and its future that is taken by the head of our Air Service? I also joint with others in congratulating him on his great enterprise and patience and courage in undertaking that great flight. I watched the proceeding with the greatest interest. I was in America at the time, and I was glad to see the accounts in the papers. It was reported that he had gone to Australia. I wish he had.
    Sir S. HOARE: Next time.
    6.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is no technical difficulty in the way, as the right hon. Gentleman told us himself, of the extension of the Cairo-Karachi air route, first to Burma and presently on to Australia. At the Imperial Conference it was talked about and in answer to a question of mine the Under-Secretary told me certain preliminary flights will be taken, but we are lagging years behind. This present link between Karachi and Cairo should have been in constant use five years ago at least. There is no reason at all why we should not also five years ago have linked up Cairo by way of India with Australia. I always thought the Conservative party prided itself on its
    1428
    Imperialistic outlook. I am sadly disappointed in their lack of appreciation of this problem. I should have thought the memories of Joseph Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes, with his dream of a Cape to Cairo railway, would have induced them to pat into force the Cape to Cairo air route long since. We talk of experimental flights and we hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us that preliminary flights will take place, but there is no technical reason why this should not have been done some years ago. I believe the great need of Imperial development to-day is transport, and of all means of transport the aeroplane is the most valuable.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The Rouse went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
Public Works Loans Act, 1927.

SUPPLY.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair."
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The party which received the adherence of the late Joseph Chamberlain and the late Cecil Rhodes, with their great dream of direct communication between the Cape and Cairo, could surely have carried it out to-day by aeroplane, when it has actually been flown by machines of the Royal Air Force. There are no technical difficulties in the way. It is simply a question of lack of drive, lack of imagination and lack of appreciation of the immense importance and economy of rapid communication by aeroplane, especially for the carriage of mails and business letters. I have spoken on this subject before in this House and I make no apology for returning to the subject now. We hear a great deal about developing our own Imperial estate. No single step, and at such a moderate expenditure of money, would do more than the extension of aeroplane routes throughout the Empire. Is it realised, for example, that in future years the

1429
normal means of communication between Canada and India will be by air over the North Pole? That is the shortest way. The recent flight of American aviators over the North Pole has proved that there were less difficulties than we had thought, and, when aeroplanes are further developed, that will be the ordinary way of going from India to Canada or from India to America, because it is the shortest route. It cuts off thousands of miles by taking the more direct route from America to India, and it will be the ordinary way of flying between those countries in the future.
The immediate thing that we can do is to extend the aeroplane mail service from Cairo to Sydney, Australia, and in the other direction down to the Cape. Why do we not do it? It is also immensely important that we must be able to fly direct from Croydon, in a series of comparatively short hops, to Cairo, and then on to India and Australia, carrying the mails in much more rapid time and also carrying business passengers and other passengers when they are pressed for time. When a letter is posted in London, it goes by aeroplane to Paris. That is only a local service. If it is going to India, it goes on from Paris by train to Marseilles, then by a P. and O. Mail steamer or some other steamer to Alexandria, and on by train to Cairo. Next, it proceeds by aeroplane to Karachi, and presently it is taken either by aeroplane or train on to Delhi. At the same time, the French are flying a local service from Paris to their North African colonies. The obvious thing is to link up with the French, who are only too willing to come into such an arrangement. This is the same idea that was dealt with by the hon. Member for Keighley but approached from a different angle. As to the carrying on of a joint Air mail to India and on to French Cochin-China, the French would be glad to come in, because their present restricted local service does not and cannot pay. Our Air route from Karachi to Cairo cannot pay without a heavy subsidy, because it is too short and because the saving is not sufficient; but if you could fly all the way by a series of hops from Croydon to India, and then on to Sydney, the service would pay for itself in a year or two, hands down.
1430
Let us look at the example of the United States arid see what they have done. The distance from London to Bag-dad is approximately the same as the distance from New York to San Francisco. Because they have no Air Minister in the United States who talks about all sorts of problems in the future interfering with the Air Service, and the necessity of adhering to an all-red route and avoiding flying over foreign territory; because they have not that ridiculous nonsense to deal with in the United States, they have every day and every night aeroplanes running from New York to San Francisco, by way of Chicago. That is the ordinary way of sending letters. Every day in New York one sees mail vans marked "Air Mail," and one sees more of them than of ordinary mail vans. The air mail vans can be seen as frequently in the big American cities as the ordinary mail vans are seen in our own cities in this country. That is a service which pays for itself. It was started by the American flying service as a Government service, and now it is let out to contract and is a going concern and one of immense importance to the business men of America. It would be of equal importance to us if we were to link up our Overseas Dominions, especially Australia, with London by air, covering the distance in a week instead of having to spend six weeks in sending a letter from London to Sydney.
Transport is the key to Imperial development; but you must not be selfish. There must be give and take, and we must link up with the existing European stations. To-day there are regular air lines being flown from, Constantinople, Aleppo, and Athens, and it would be perfectly simple to link up with two short flights, or one would do, and by using the existing aerodromes and air lines, with no extra capital expenditure, fly direct from Croydon to India and thus link up with India and Australia. What is hanging this up I do not know, except the extraordinary mixture of military and civil aviation. The question of carrying mails throughout the Empire is a matter purely for civil aviation. Until we rid ourselves of this military obsession, where Empire flying is concerned, progress will be hung up. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about the mobility of a defence force in the air, what he said

1431
about a mobile striking force for the Empire, is perfectly true and sound, but do not mix it up with the other question, do not try to get an "all red" air route for the air mail route because it is absolutely impossible. We cannot possibly develop this great new means of communication, which I believe will be an instrument of peace and of enormous benefit to us, unless we link up with other European countries and capitals, and the more such a grand trunk air line touches and taps the great cities on the Continent the better it will pay. Then, perhaps, the aeroplane will become, as I hope it will, a great instrument for peace and national understanding and break down the artificial barriers between peoples.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I make no excuse for intervening for a short time in this Debate, because I wish to direct the attention of the House to a subject which must have been more or less in the minds of many Members during the past year, and that is the subject of accidents in the Air Force. Before my right hon. Friend left for India I had a talk with him, and he and I were very anxious that an investigation should be made into this matter. We discussed the best means of having it. As a result of that discussion we came to the conclusion that a personal investigation by the Prime Minister would be the best thing. It would be carried out with all the authority of his office, and he would be able to lay the results of his examinations before the House of Commons. I devoted several days during the holidays in making my investigation, during which time I had placed at my service the results of the courts of inquiries, the accidents reports, copies of the technical discussions, criticisms of all kinds, covering every relevant point, statistics, comparisons of machines and of places, analyses of all causes, even of engine failure where no accident had followed. The flying history of pilots I examined, and I had the benefit of a personal discussion with officers in the Force of all ranks from the highest to the lowest, confidentially and privately. I also took the opportunity of paying a surprise visit to an aerodrome to examine for myself
1432
the daily routine of work there, and take the opportunity of informal discussions with officers.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) during his speech, being aware of the task I had undertaken, said he hoped I would give the House my impressions, and that in the first place is what I desire to do. I think the first thing that must strike any layman who conducts an examination of that kind must be the complexity of the work that is performed by the Air Force and fie manifold difficulties that are inherent in the performance of the daily routine work. It is difficult to imagine unless you have actually seen it in practice. Another thing that strikes one is the ground organisation that is required. Many of us with little or no knowledge of these matters may feel that there are too many men on the ground, but that is an opinion which can only be held by those who have had no experience at all. Rather the contrary is the case, as I shall show the House before I have finished. Another thing which strikes the stranger is the great difference between the civil and military work, which was illustrated with a wealth of detail derived from personal knowledge by my hon. and gallant Friend only an hour ago.
It is difficult to realise on the part of those who have never flown or who have never seen the Air Force at work that the primary weapon, the aeroplane itself, is a weapon of immense power, of immense speed, which weighs anything from a ton up to seven tons, that is to say, from the weight of a light motor car to the weight of a loaded London omnibus, and that that machine is driven to its landing place at the speed of an express train. It is good to get these simple facts in our minds before we begin to think about accidents and what causes them. And, in addition to all that, not only are these machines of immense power, but they are machines of the most delicate and beautiful structure, and it is a standing miracle to those who look at these things for the first time how so much power can be controlled by such delicate mechanism. One is struck dumb at the skill of the pilots when you see the innumerable controls with which they have to be so familiar that they can

1433
work them in every case automatically and at the instant. One realises the pitch of training that is required on the ground, and in the air, to make that great force what it is. Let us just remember one more thing about the Air Force in addition to what I have tried to describe. The Air Force, like all our military forces to-day, is striving to make every pound and every penny go as far as it can. Economy has been practised, I am convinced, to the utmost limit. You have a constant drain going on all the time of personnel from the home stations and even from the horn defence force to the garrisons overseas, and that we may well imagine makes the task of responsible commanders in the Air Force one of extreme difficulty. During the last few years, I can assure the House from my personal observation, there is no particular station, no particular unit and no particular type of machine, which stands out over a term of years as either superior or inferior to another. You get a slight variation, in accidents, of course, in this type and that, and in this station and that. It is very much as the run of ill-luck may happen to fall, but there is nothing that you can put your hand on in the detailed figures which will permit you to say that this type is more certain to lead to accidents than that, or that there must be something wrong with the management of this station because it has a worse record than another. There is another thing. The proportion of accidents that are due to remediable causes is a very small percentage of the whole, and I am glad to think that there are very few failures indeed that can be traced to the failure of the human element on the ground, and very very few to faulty design, even including the statistics which are brought in from the experimental stations where the new types are tried.
A question often asked is this: Is it not a fact that research is so improving the types of machines in design and devices and so forth, that the factor of safety is greatly increased? Many people think, and perhaps naturally, that it is possible to eliminate all causes of accidents in a service of this kind. The answer to the question is undoubtedly this" that it is true that research is improving design and is improving devices that make for safety, but there is another
1434
element, and that is that the progress of science is constantly designing improvements in engines, improvements in material, that machines become more powerful and travel at a much greater speed, and so just as you may hope that you are lessening the risk of accidents in one direction you are tending, at any rate, temporarily, to increase it in another. And for this reason. In the air man is still constantly increasing his knowledge. A great deal of knowledge is necessarily scientific knowledge, but a great deal of it is empirical, and can only be obtained by the pilot who flies his machine at greater heights and at greater speeds.
Fast air travelling is not wholly dissimilar in one respect from fast motor travelling. The faster you drive in a motor car, when you get up to high speeds, the greater the risk, for this reason—that if you have suddenly to make up your mind that a certain thing is necessary to he done, you have less time in which to make up your mind than when you are travelling slowly. It is exactly the same in the air, only multiplied by that difference in the speed of air traffic over ground traffic, always remembering that the slightest error of judgment which on land may mean just catching the hub of your wheel against someone else's and possibly your escape with a lucky skid, in the air would probably mean disaster. It is not a fact, speaking of the newer designs, that the older designs are more prone to disaster. I have found no proof of that. But what is the fact, and what we all know is the fact, is that the main cause of accidents, in by far the majority of cases, is traceable to the personal equation. I will explain what I mean.
What type of man makes a great airman? When I speak of a great airman speak of the military airman. I shall have a word or two to say by and by on the subject that my hon. and gallant Friend treated with such exhaustive knowledge. You do not want the phlegmatic type or the type that invariably puts "safety first" as its motto. The type that makes the flying pilot is the adventurous type, the quick-brained man, the man with great reserve of high nervous power. We all know that type in private life. We know the type which, when driving a car at considerable speed, will make a swerve on a greasy road to

1435
avoid a dog, knowing perfectly well what the risk is. The phlegmatic goes over the dog and the nervous type does not. That is the type of which the Air Force is composed.
Remember this; remember the elation of spirit in a young man of that temperament, just having learned the mastery of that marvellous and delicate instrument, the aeroplane, when he rushes up in a moment of time into a rarefied atmosphere and feels that there is nothing he cannot do with his machine. You may say, and it often has been said, "Restrict them and pull them up every time they do anything risky, and keep watching them." I doubt if that would have any effect on the type I have in mind. If it did, it could only make them less fit for the work for which they have been trained.
Here I would say a word about the difference between training for civil aviation and, training for military aviation. Every word that my hon. and gallant Friend said is true about the civil aviator starting from a fixed point and flying to a fixed point, with intimate knowledge of every yard of the course and the necessity of maintaining the rule of "safety first" A man who has to fight has to be trained to get off any ground, to come down on any ground, and to be always flying over fresh country. His work in war is always over fresh country, and also, as was put by my right hon. Friend opposite, who was Secretary of State for Air, he has to be up to every form of manœuvring and stunt in the air. Stunts are not made in the air because they are stunts. They are made because they are very often the only way in which the pilot can escape from the enemy when he meets hostile aircraft, and very often the only way in which ultimately he may hope to dominate the enemy. That is the work for which the man has been trained, and in the course of that he has to undergo a training of such a character that risks in it are unavoidable, even when the utmost amount of care is taken.
There is another thing which I saw at the aerodrome when I went. The pilots in this Service do not only go off the ground singly; they have to go off in groups. They have to go off as many as a dozen together, wing-tip to wing-tip, a
1436
proceeding which has in it elements of danger, unless the utmost care is shown and the utmost proficiency has been secured. That is necessary, because in going up to fight hostile aircraft it is essential that numbers of machines should be together and keep together from the start. Those conditions cannot apply to civil aviation; they do apply and must apply to the Air Force. There are no signs so far as I have been able to discover—I have examined a great many officers on this subjet—there are no signs, and I say that deliberately, of inefficient training in the Air Force. I think that the training, judging by the results, could not be better, and I think that the spirit of the Air Force is one of the marvels of our time. There is no finer spirit in any service in the world than there is in our Air Force.
There is one general criticism which has often been made arid for which I think there is some justification. I spoke a few minutes ago about the efforts at economy which have been made in all the Services, and I think tribute has been paid to the Secretary of State from all parts of the House, even on the other side. If you admit there must be an Air Force, no one would deny that the Air Force is managed economically. But it has been asked, has the staff of the flying units been reduced to somewhere near danger point; has it been cut down too far? I think it has. But let me immediately put this in: It has not affected accidents, and for this reason. If the ground staff be so slightly below numbers that it is impossible to give the supervision to all the machines that is required before they go up in the air, what happens is that flying is curtailed. It does not mean that any machine goes up in the air before it has passed all its necessary tests and has been thoroughly overhauled.
The amount of flying that is done naturally is increasing That makes a greater demand on the ground men and on the officers with whom rests the supervision of that work. If the amount of flying which ought to be done is to be done, and to be done under the only circumstances that will be tolerable to the Force or to the country or this House, then I think that is a question that wants some looking into, and I am glad to think that my right hon. Friend has been devoting time to it, and I believe that

1437
he will be making arrangements soon, if he has not already done it, for allotting a few extra men to these units. Then I think that that difficulty will be a thing of the past. But I do want to impress on the House that, although that is a difficulty which has arisen, it is not one which affects the safety of lives, because the only result is to curtail the amount of flying. It does not mean that unfit machines are allowed to go up.
I think that critics—I am saying this for the third time—do fail to realise the number of men that there ought to be on the ground in the Air Force. If anyone who has any doubts about it will go down to an aerodrome and just have a quiet look over a machine and the inside of it, and examine the machinery of it, then see the overhauling which is given to it, and see on what slender threads a man's life depends, I think he will realise the importance of the ground staff, and that wherever in the Government service money may be wasted, it is not wasted there. I should like to tell the House, because there have been many inquiries made about statistics, that the fullest statistics have been and are being kept in the Air Ministry. They are collated from the reports of the Inspector of Accidents, a civil official of whom I will have to say one or two things in a minute. They are collated from the reports of the Courts of Inquiry which are held on all fatal and serious accidents, both at home and abroad, and from the detailed records of flying in units, and the returns of all forced landings and engine failures, whether resulting in casualties or not. The figures taken from those reports are collected, examined and collated by experienced statisticians, with a view to throwing light on the problem or on any particular features of the problem, and the statistical results are communicated confidentially to the senior commanders for their own use.
I want to say a word about the reports made by the Inspector of Accidents. The Government have been asked, all Governments have been asked, why the reports of the Inspector of Accidents, amongst others, should not be published. Let us consider for a moment who the Inspector of Accidents is and how he reports. He is a civil official. He reports direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is free by virtue of
1438
his office to criticise, any and every individual in the Air Service, from the highest to the lowest, including the staff of the Air Ministry. The publication of such reports as those would immediately restrict his freedom. I think the House will see why. It is not for a moment that he would be restricted by pressure from without, but with everyone—and I ask hon. Members to put themselves in his place—with everyone, there is a natural objection to making the kind of criticism that is necessary in cases like this and to bringing individuals into that criticism, if you know that that criticism is going to be made public. Nor, again, would witnesses—and this is of the utmost importance—speak with anything like the same freedom if they thought their evidence was going to be made public.
The great majority of accidents happen as they must happen, from some error, very often a slight error of judgment on the part of pilots, and it is a most curious and interesting fact that the majority of accidents happen within the first year or two of the pilot flying, after he has become a fully qualified and skilled pilot—which shows that very temptation, of which I spoke a few moments ago, to do everything you can with your machine when you are young and when you feel that you have complete mastery over it, and when you first have control over it, before you get that judgment which comes with time and with time alone. We must think—I am not speaking of the Force at this moment—of the added pain to relatives and sometimes, so are we constituted, the resentment, if at a moment of the deepest personal sorrow parents see in public a criticism that there has been some fault on the part of their son that has led to an accident. I can see no reason—I never have seen any reason and T can see none now that I have examined this matter—why reports of this kind should be published. They can do no one any good. They may do a great deal of harm. With regard to statistics, the same thing is true, if you come to think of it, in a different way. Statistics are most misleading, as anyone who has taken part in the Free Trade and Protection controversy will agree. Anything can be made out of statistics. When you get a run of bad luck, perhaps

1439
two or three accidents quickly and consecutively from a certain aerodrome under the command of a certain officer, and he gets pilloried in every paper in the country, he has his spirit broken and it may be his career is ruined.
One hon. Member of experience speaking this afternoon, said the men in the Air Force themselves do not think too much of these accidents. That is true, and it would have a bad effect on the moral of the Force if people were always looking out to see where accidents came, and were able to say, "That is so and so's' command; they had one last week; there must be something wrong there," it would destroy the confidence and the morale of all the officers and men in that district. As it is, the Secretary of State, and the Air Ministry under him, act as natural buffers between the Service and the rest of the world. They protect the individual commanders; they have to defend the Force and they have to answer criticisms. It is part of their duty, and it is right that they should have to do it An officer criticised in full publicity has no means of reply, and we ought to remember that. It would be an intolerable situation that individual officers or men, or individual stations, should become subject to criticism and attack which they are unable to resist, and that undoubtedly would be the case if the public had full access to all the statistics and reports which are issued. Of course you may ask, "If you cannot publish everything, is there no middle course?" I do not think there is. There is no middle course between the full publication of everything and the present system. If you published partial statistics and information, that would be misleading and would inevitably lead to perpetual pressure for further publication, and once you consented to the publication of a little you would have to give the rest and you would then suffer from those evils which I have endeavoured to describe.
Let me put this to the House, and it is the last word I have to say. Many of were Members of this House during the War, and those of us who were, have a vivid recollection of those nights on which the Whips walked down the darkened passages and said to us, "First warning; you have just time to get home." On our way home, perhaps just when the barrage
1440
was beginning, we knew that those wonderful men of the Air Force were climbing up rapidly in the black sky, lighted only by the baleful rays of the searchlights, into the hell that went on above, into the barrage, hunting about and being hunted, and performing deeds of valour that will be remembered as long as the world lasts. The men who can do that are, as I- said, men whose souls are filled with the spirit of adventure—an adventure and courage which nothing can curb. Those men are still with us in the Air Force, many of them as officers, who performer those feats, and the young men among them who have come since the War, are of exactly the same stuff and would do the same things tonight if the enemy came over London. I ask the House and the people of this country not to hamper these men. Do not indulge—and I beg the Press too—do not encourage the type of criticism which can only make them introspective and nervy. Support them all you can, but do not press for the publication of things which I am certain, as everyone is certain who knows anything of this matter, can only help to turn the edge of that fine temper and depress the most magnificent moral we have in this country.
Rear-Admiral SUETER: I am sure all Members who are interested in the project of a great Defence Ministry welcomed the words of the Secretary of State for Air when he said that certain economies could be made by the introduction of this great air arm. I am one of those Members who think that the Estimates for the fighting services should be considered as a whole. It is impossible that we should consider these Estimates satisfactorily when, year after year, we have to deal first with the Army, then with the Air Estimates and finally with the Naval Estimates. On Monday next, we shall find the First Lord of the Admiralty taking most of the money. He usually does so. I think a great deal of the money taken by the First Lord should be devoted to helping on the air service, and particularly civilian flying. I have looked through these Estimates very carefully and they justify the criticisms which I have offered for some years past.
I am glad to see that the Ministry is going to scrap the old types of machines. I think we have gone on far too long

1441
with those old types, but when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is increasing the efficiency of the Air Service by 10 per cent., would he also tell us how the expansion of the home defence is proceeding? Is it going on normally or has the normal expansion been stopped? I observe that the total amount in respect of aeroplanes, seaplanes and engines is £5,904,000, but there is a "super cut." I hope we are not going to have super cuts and under cuts and big cuts and little cuts introduced into these Estimates, and I would invite the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) to go into that question and see if these super cuts cannot be deleted so that we may know where we are. I observe that there is an overhead cut of £300,000 on Vote 3. Will the whole of this come under Sub-head A, which reduces the total available amount of money to £5,904,000. As expenditure on engines previously was cut to the bone, a further £500,000 is to be spent this year on engines, but we are told that expenditure on aircraft will be less than last year. I should like the Air Minister to tell us if he is going to spend more or less money on aircraft this year than last year.
7.0. p.m.
Turning to the Memorandum, I congratulate the Air Minister, as an old pioneer of the Air Service, on his great flight. I think it is not so much the fact that he is the first Minister to fly to India, or that he has been the first to take an officer to his command in India by air, or that this was the first commercial machine flown to India that counts; it is the feeling of confidence which it gives to everybody who has to go in the air. I think special reference ought to be made to Lady Maud Hoare. Her flight was a very fine thing because she has set an example and there are many women throughout the Empire, particularly in Australia and our distant Dominions, who will have to travel by air on occasions. This great flight to India will give them a feeling of confidence and we ought to be grateful to that lady for undertaking it. The Memorandum indicates that the Air Minister is keen on the development of air rights. I was in Cairo last month and was speaking to that able administrator, Sir William Frederick Gowers, the Governor of Uganda, and I found he was keen on the Khartoum to Coomassie air
1442
route. It has just been started, and I should like to ask the Minister of Air what he is going to do to help it. Is he going to give a subsidy? It would be a splendid thing to connect up Uganda with Khartoum. That is one of the air routes which the Air Minister should subsidise. Sir William Gowers was very keen on it, and his secretary, Major Cavendish-Bentinck, was also very much impressed as to the value of the service. Will the Minister look into it and see if there is anything that he can do to help this new service?
Turning to the question of personnel, I notice in the Memorandum that the Minister is going to increase the number of airmen pilots. I should like to ask him whether these airmen pilots compare favourably with other officers or whether he gets more accidents with them. It is a small point, but it wants looking into, because there has been some criticism about it. Last year we had a large number of accidents. I have a right to talk about accidents, because I did all the submarine experiments for the Navy, and I never lost a man. We had the same problems in the submarine as some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway have in the mines. If you have an accident in a submarine you are just like a rat in a trap. You cannot get out of it. It is very much the same in the mines, and that is why we submarine fellows have the greatest sympathy for the miners when they have an accident. In the mines you have most efficient inspectors, men who go through the mines and do all they can to prevent accidents. In the submarines the Admiralty give us the best possible material they can get and every part which is used in a submarine goes through the closest inspection.
I ask the Air Minister, and I should have liked to have asked the Prime Minister, whether he is quite satisfied he gets proper aeronautical inspection of his machines. I am one of those who think that every squadron ought to have its aeronautical engineer inspector to go through the machines before they go into the air. It may be said that there are not many accidents through engines failing. That is true, but the other day, when we had an inspector from the Air Ministry in a room upstairs, I asked

1443
him how it came about that an aeroplane broke its wings in the He said that it was an experimental machine. You should not lose life through an aeroplane breaking its wings in the air because it is an experimental machine. I have had dozens and dozens of experimental machines, and I have never had such an accident. What is wanted is closer and better aeronautical inspection of machines. It is no good coming down to the House and saying that everything is all right. We all want to try and lessen these air accidents as much as we can. I do ask the Air Minister to go into the whole question of having real expert aeronautical engineers in this service. I should like to ask him, too, whether he could not establish an Accident Research Commission to go into the whole question of these accidents. I noticed yesterday in the Press that in Germany they have flown 4,000,000 miles in the air last year and only had one accident.
Sir S. HOARE: Civil flying.
Rear-Admiral SUETER: I quite agree it is civil flying, but, if we had a real Accident Research Commission with a very good chairman, like Lord Weir or someone similar, who would go and study the question all over the world and make, the same study of it as the Prime Minister has, but, looking at it from the widest point of view, it would be worth while if we saved one or two lives a year. I would like to say a word about Farnborough. I see in the Estimates that it is costing £390,000, an increase of £4,300 on last year. The Minister also says that Farnborough gets a credit of £357,000 and that it is divided between Votes A, D, E, F, and J. I should like to ask how that is allocated between those special Votes. Special Vote G gets £166,000 for general research, including metal construction accessories, etc. Does Farnborough get any of that money? It is an important point, because it may run Farnborough up to well over half a million pounds, and the Air Minister promised he would try to get the Farnborough expanses down.
Turning to airships, I see that a complete section of R.101 has been erected and tested. In that design I understand that the Air Ministry have departed
1444
from the old Zeppelin system of having radial bracing wires. I would ask him to carry out very careful experiments before he does away entirely with those bracing wires. I do not know if in the other airship of the Airship Construction Company, with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) is associated, he has retained the bracing wires. I see any hon. and gallant Friend nods his head. If he has done so, he is quite right. I do not know if the Air Minister has an internal girder running from the bow to the stern in his ship. If so, it is all to the good. I I talked with the late Lord Rayleigh, who was a great scientist on air matters, said he told me it was the most difficult problem of ell to calculate the stresses on a great rigid structure—the small stresses and particularly the torsional stresses. If the Air Minister departs from the Zeppelin system by doing away with the radial bracing, it may be found that, under certain conditions, the great punch of bite gasbag on certain girders and not on others may cause stresses which may fracture the girders. I hope the Minister of Air will look into that point.
I have had many letters about the Airship Construction Company's ship having its gasbags made in L, foreign country. I replied to all of them that I did not think if was so, but there must be some reason for it, and I would ask the Air Minister to clear it up. I think there is some slight danger in having airship gasbags made in a foreign country. They might not have the inspection they should have, and one might have a disaster through that. The Air Minister has also told us about his work at the Imperial Conference and has told us that our Dominions arc going to put up masts. Are they going to put up any hangars as well? When an airship flies from this country to a distant part like Canada, there ought to be a hangar for putting the airship in so that the airship can be overhauled if necessary. A mere mast, in my opinion, is not enough.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he cannot do more or civil aviation. We get very little money provided for that branch of aviation. I have not always seen eye to eye with Sir Eric Geddes, but Sir Eric Geddes is doing valuable

1445
work in his Imperial Airways Company, and he could do with far more money to improve the imperial Airways services. The percentage they get for civil aviation is very small indeed. I should also like to ask the Minister, when he comes to give rewards for these wonderful flights which are made, if he will remember the aircraft constructor pioneers. These men have had very bad times indeed. Before the War we could scarcely keep them going, during the War they were buffeted about by everybody, and after the War some of them went bankrupt. Now they are coming into their own again, but these great flights have been made possible only by the hard work of the pioneer aircraft constructor.
The hon. Member for Keighely (Mr. Lees-Smith) spoke about the limitation of air armaments. I would say to him that air armaments are in too fluid a state to make it possible to limit them at the present time. No hon. Member in this House can say how the aeroplane and airship are going to develop. Are we going to develop great airships with squadrons of planes on them, exactly the same as a Peninsula and Orient liner with her boats? How is the aeroplane going to develop? Into the monoplane, the bi-plane, the tri-plane, the quadro-plane or the gyro-plane? One cannot possibly say. It is all in too fluid a state. This development in the air is largely due to the work of the naval and military airmen, a handful of aircraft constructors, and a few civilians. We cannot say how it is going to develop, and, if you arc going to start restricting it now, it will not be the great benefit which we all hope it will prove. If you develop these great air routes, you link up all the countries in the world. In Italy, Signor Mussolini is encouraging these great flights similar to the flight of the Air Minister. In this way, you link up the peoples of the world, and you do a tremendous good for civilisation. I feel perfectly certain that that will do more for peace than anything else. Nobody can accuse me of advocating bloated armaments. Ever since I have been a Member of this House I have struggled to get the battleship abolished by agreement between the Powers, and I have also tried to get the Washington 10,000ton cruiser accepted as the largest unit for navies. I believe you can do that
1446
in naval armaments by agreement, but it will be false policy to try and limit an arm which will be of such great benefit to humanity and to the peace of the world.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: It is not my intention this evening to detain the House for more than a very few minutes, as I do not desire to refer to more than one subject connected with this Vote. I would, however, venture to make, with all diffidence, one comment upon the speech to which we have listened from the Prime Minister. I am sure there is no one in this House or outside it who will not be grateful to him for the attitude he took up on a question which, as everyone knows perfectly well, has been causing a great deal of discomfort and unhappiness outside. It will tend more than anything else to allay and to stop the ill-founded criticisms which have frequently followed these disastrous accidents, criticisms that have been hurled, alike, at the Administration, at the machines and, worse still, at the ill-fated pilots. This Debate—and I have listened to a great number of Debates in the last 15 years in this House on matters connected with national defence—strikes me as being different in this way, that for the first time, in the main, there has been present no party spirit. We have, of course, had demands for economy, but I am not so sure that those demands have not come as much from this side as from the other. We are all at one with the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who has just sat down, in a desire to cut out expenditure upon unproductive armaments, particularly of the Navy and of the Army, and I am bound to say that there is more cogent reason for urging reduction in them than in the case of the air. It cannot be said, except in so far as that in the building of a ship four-fifths of the cost goes into the pockets of the workers, that that is productive expenditure, but, when we approach the Cinderella of our defensive forces, which, after all, out of £115,000,000 spent upon them during the current financial year, is only to have the odd £15,000,000, we find that that service is actually almost as much for civil work as it is for defensive purposes.

1447
It is to the civil side that I desire to direct attention for a few moments: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon), in the course of his very exhaustive and interesting speech, made references to the sources of supply from which we shall have to draw our machines. How can we keep those sources of supply going? They are, if I may use a parallel expression, the shipbuilding yards of the air. In the case of the Navy, in the event of a great national crisis, we could, if we found that the armament firms accustomed to building war-craft were unable to come up to the war emergency, turn with ease to those yards which had the whole organisation for building commercial craft and ask them, knowing they could do it, to undertake the construction, speedily, of war-craft. We have got no such reserve where the construction and output of aircraft are concerned. The House should remember that, whereas we started the War with, I believe I am right in saying, 11 machines, we ended it with about 38,000 in commission, but the sources of those 38,000 machines have practically been swept away. I am not going to stand up here and speak on behalf of the commercial prosperity of those who are engaged in the construction of aeroplanes, but there is a very vast difference between endeavouring to boost an industry and demanding that the pioneers of this job, upon which the efficiency of our air service is entirely dependent, should be given such support that they do not go under and leave us without the reserves to which we can go in the event of a national crisis.
May I be permitted, on a personal note, to say that I was myself flying in 1909, and that I have followed the whole of this matter right the way through, and I am confident that nothing can be done under these Estimates, or any Estimates of which there is a prospect in the next two or three years, where civil aviation is concerned, which will be sufficient to keep going, by the orders given by the Air Ministry, the necessary constructional firms that we should require in the event of war. We have, therefore, to endeavour to extend the methods whereby we can bring grist to the mills of these constructors, and here I am going to make a suggestion
1448
that has not yet been touched upon in a single speech to which I have listened during this Debate.
There are only three ways in which you can help to keep those firms going. The first is by showing the flag, and by advertisements, to get orders from overseas. That method has been admirably carried out by the wonderful advertising trip—and I mean it in its very best sense, and beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appreciate that, because he said he wished to draw the attention of the world to the fact that it could be done—that was undertaken by him and his wife, and by similar trips that are being undertaken, by long flights, which I hope will be encouraged. That is one way. The second is that we should endeavour to get foreign countries desirous of extending their civil flying to call upon us for flying commissions to train their personnel. We have done that for the Navy for years past, and yet we are at the present time more behind Germany, France, and Italy than it would be possible to believe. What is the reason? The reason is that they cannot take out machines in many cases, that the manufacturers of machines are not allowed to sell them because of the secret list, which, I understand, has now been to some extent eased up, be t far too late, as is so frequently the case where we are dealing with a Government Department. That may be a harsh criticism, but it is there all the same.
There is that point, that we are not sending out commissions to train up the personnel for foreign civil aviation ideals and the third point which I put forward, and hope the Secretary of State will not forget, is that we should encourage foreign commissions to come to us to be trained. It may surprise this House to know that one such foreign commission did ask to come over here. They made an approach to the Air Ministry from one of the South American States, and they were told that we would do what we could, but that they would have to pay £4 per day per head. France and Germany at the present time are making it easy to a degree to get these people to go over there. What is the natural result? Train them in British machines, and they will fly in British machines, and take them out. There you have a way that is going to have an immediate effect

1449
upon the financial stability of those firms that must be kept going; otherwise, we are in danger.
The Secretary of State gave us a very charming picture. I am bound to say have rarely listened to an address in this House that was so interesting during the years that I have been here, but we must get a little bit behind it. The percentage of money that is being devoted to civil aviation is almost infinitesimal, and if we are desirous of getting towards peace, upon which we had an admirable sermon from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), we cannot do it better than by speeding up the comity of nations through international exchange by air. The more we develop civil aviation, and get foreigners to come to us and our people to go to them, the closer are bound to come these international relations. I promised that I would not take up the time of the House, and I think hon. Members will agree that I have kept my promise. I have concentrated upon that one point of civil aviation, and I hope that greater endeavours will be undertaken by the Ministry to ensure that those firms, upon which we entirely depend for the well-being of the Air Force, will not be allowed to lapse or to go out.
Captain GARRO-JONES: It is perhaps proper that a speaker from the Liberal Benches approaching any question on the Fighting Services Estimates should do so, first of all, from the point of view of disarmament. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) talked about disarmament, stating that in his view the present was an inopportune time to discuss disarmament in the air, on the ground that the air weapons are in a state of development. I confess I am unable to see the logic of that argument. It appears to me that when these weapons are in a state of development is a far better time for attempting to suppress their offensive development than when they have reached maturity as destructive weapons, and I do not believe this House or this country realises even yet the destructive power of an aerial offensive.
I was reading the other day about a weapon which has been developed in the United States, which was described as an unmanned aeroplane. In that country
1450
it has been shown possible to launch an aeroplane from the ground, without any pilot in it at all, to despatch it for a distance of 35 miles, and to cause it to fall, loaded with high explosives, within a quarter of a mile of its intended destination. That appears to me to be a very important development. If any possible Continental enemy of ours, though I am not suggesting that such a thing is likely, should develop that weapon to travel a distance of 50, 60, or 100 miles, and should build 10,000 of them, I should like to ask how any defence which we can conceive of would be effective in protecting our great cities from destruction. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) stated that the French Air Force is not really a menace to our own. He did not give figures, but relied for his argument on complaints made in the French Chamber two years or 18 months ago.
Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, in June, 1926.
Captain GARRO-JONES: If that be the case, the occasion to which I am referring must have been a, previous one on which the same complaints were made in the French Chamber. I have here figures, extracted from a number of authoritative sources, which give not only the numbers of French machines but of pilots as well. Italy has 600 first-line machines and 930 pilots, France has 1,280 first-line machines and 3,000 pilots, and Britain has 750 first-line machines and 2,000 pilots. I am well aware that the French machines are not in such a high state of development as ours, and I am willing to concede that French pilots are not as good, bat it is unquestionable that Britain at present is in a state of marked inferiority in the air. That is not an argument which can be used only to suggest that we should build into a position or superiority, but it is at, argument which suggests to us that one of two courses is possible. The position with which this Government is faced, and with which past Governments—because no Government has perfectly clean hands in this matter, for even the Labour Government carried on the air policy laid down by its predecessors, and added to the naval construction policy which had been commenced by its predecessors—have been faced, is that only two things arc possible for any sensible nation.

1451
Either we must build until we have it in our power to defend our cities and our people, or else we must press with all our might for disarmament negotiations in regard to the air, and it is the latter which I should prefer. I Sincerely hope the Secretary of State for Air and the Prime Minister, neither of whom has lifted a finger to propose disarmament in the air, will set about it without delay. I know I shall be told there is to be a preparatory conference on disarmament, but that deals with all armaments, and by the way they are going about it I think they will never reap any achievements. I suggest that the Prime Minister should go to France and Italy and state definitely, "I am in favour of abolishing the use of destructive power in the air." No aeroplane shall be used to carry any weapon; no aeroplane shall be used to drop bombs." If Great Britain made her decision clear in that respect, and other nations refused to follow, we should be justified in the eyes of the world in building aeroplanes to such an extent that we could protect our people from disaster.
The Prime Minister spoke about accidents. I can claim to speak with some authority on that matter, as I myself have had the misfortune to be in more than one aeroplane accident, and I am sure the Rouse and the relatives of flying officers will be grateful to him for giving this matter his personal attention and will value his personal investigation. I think he was actuated by the humanitarian motives which distinguish all his actions. At the same time, I am not satisfied that his investigation was efficient and effective, and I am going to approach the question from an aspect which, thought it may lay me open to misapprehension, must, nevertheless, be faced. I am going to invite the Secretary of State to tell the House to-night what are the regulations regarding the consumption of alcoholic drink in the flying squadrons. I know flying officers well, I know many of them as well as any hon. Member in this House, and I am glad to preface my remarks by saying that I believe there is no more abstemious and sober body of men in any walk of life. On the question of driving motor cars, it has taken us some years to realise that, in the fine judgments which
1452
are required to avoid a disaster, only one or two alcoholic drinks will have a damaging effect; though there was a time when one heard men boast that they could drive a car better when they were drunk than when they were sober. I say that in the fine, swift judgments that are required of an aeroplane pilot in times of emergency one alcoholic drink is going to make all the difference between disaster and safety, and I think it ought to be made an invariable rule that no aeroplane pilot should be allowed to consume alcoholic liquor at all before he flies on any day.
I know that such a decision, if made; would be unpopular, but the position has to be faced. Science demands that we should face it, and if it be not faced there will continue to be these accidents. I do not say the consumption of drink is a main cause of the accidents, or an important cause, but a any rate it ought to be removed as a possible cause before we investigate matters further. The Prime Minister referred to the investigations of that Air Ministry Inspector. I do not want to say anything in criticism of him, I do not know who he is, I have never met him, but I do suggest that the appointment of a fresh mind or fresh minds to assist him—not supplant him—would be one further measure which would help to restore public confidence. The Prime Minister appealed to us not to say anything which might upset the morale of pilots. Pram my experience pilots seldom read anything about Debates in this House. They seldom read very widely on political matters at all. I think the question of adding two or three inspectors to the Air Ministry's inspectorate ought not to be dismissed by the Ministry.
I am very glad the Under-Secretary of State for Air is here, because I believe it is his particular responsibility to superintend civil aviation, and I hope the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I give my views on that subject. I think the Secretary of State threw a spot-light on those aspects of civil air development which were creditable to this country and left in complete darkness the unfavourable aspects. He states in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates that he can see a new era of Empire air development. I confess that I am unable to see it.

1453
He has been flying in lofty and exhilarating altitudes, and he may have been able to see the dawn of a new era, but if the House will examine the only relevant figures, which I am going to give they will form a contrary judgment. I know that figures are trying to follow and I will give as few as possible, but I want them on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope the House will bear with me if I quote more than they would ordinarily be disposed to hear.
In the Cross-Channel services in 1920 British aircraft carried 6,799 passengers and foreign aircraft 584. Obviously, we then had a very substantial start. In 1925 British craft carried 10,602 passengers and foreign craft 10,119. Those figures show that foreign passenger-carrying companies have been increasing by leaps and bounds their activity in carrying passengers across the English Channel; whilst since 1923 the British companies—or the British company, as it is now—has been absolutely stationary, and now, even in this particular field on which we pride ourselves on a, certain superiority, Britain carries only the same number of passengers as do the foreign companies. That is not the worst. In 1921 Britain was very substantially behind in the total mileage flown in the air. In 1925 the total mileage flown in civil machines by Britain was 862,000 miles, whereas Germany flew in civil machines 3,075,000 miles and France 2,946,000 miles. It is not only on the Continent of Europe that we occupy a disgraceful position—because it is a disgraceful position for an Empire like ours. In 1925, out of 14,500,000 miles flown in the world only 1,500,000 miles were flown by Britain. I ask the hon. Baronet whether he thinks that is satisfactory, and I ask the Secretary of State himself whether he thinks it is satisfactory? I consider it a disgraceful state of affairs, and one which ought to be examined.
This responsibility rests first upon Imperial Airways, which is the one combine which we have controlling the whole of British civil aviation. I have been reading their reports, and I notice that in 1925 Sir Eric Geddes said that the concern had passed through its teething troubles and that the twofold object of the company, to do justice to national aims and to provide a satisfactory invest
1454
ment for the public, would be advanced by the modified subsidy. So far as the investment for the public is concerned, I may recall that a few years ago this combine issued shares to the public at £1, and that they now stand at 1s., and with a 5s. call pending over the heads of the unfortunate shareholders. What about the national aims? Both France and Germany can show a mileage flown five times greater than ours. They carry as many passengers across the English Channel as we do. In every part of the world the French and German performances are ousting our own, and apart from the single case of the flight to India, as to which I join in paying a tribute to the Secretary of State for Air, there is hardly a corner of the world where British aviation can hold its head up. I think that calls for inquiry. We shall be faced shortly with a demand for more subsidies to assist Imperial Airways to carry out the task of development. Before any further money is granted we ought to have a formal and official investigation into the root troubles of aviation. It is in a bad way, and I hope the hon. Baronet will offer some suggestion as to how it can be improved.

SUPPLY.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "in view of the growing menace to national security and international peace arising from the competitive development of Air Forces, it is incumbent upon the League of Nations to strive for a common agreement to reduce these forces and to set limitations upon their use as steps towards their ultimate elimination; and this House urges that proposals to this end be initiated by His Majesty's Government in the Preparatory Commission for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference."
  The House listened in a holiday mood to a holiday speech by the Minister responsible for the Air Service. We all listened with delight, and some of us with envy, to his description of his delightful journey, and the House laughed and laughed again at the humorous anecdotes with which he interspersed his speech. But it was the Prime Minister who recalled the House to a sense of the realities of the situation. In a few but very weighty words at the end of his speech he brought the House back from

  1455
  those holiday feelings to the feelings with which in time of war the ordinary population regarded the dangers from the air. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for recalling the House to what is at the bottom of this problem. We have had speeches by many experts, and it is quite right that they should put their view, but there is also the point of view of the non-combatant, and that ought to be expressed when we are dealing with weapons which are enormously powerful for attack and destruction, and especially weak in defence. The generals and experts have told us that the whole face of war has been changed within the last few years by the progress of this invention. Once upon a time we used to read, in the history of barbaric wars, with a sort of incredulous horror, of the massacres of the civil population and the blotting out of whole towns by fire and sword. We used to say to ourselves the progress of civilisation had put an end to that particular horror. We were right in saying it, because not only the theory but the practice of all civilised nations, over a long period in which there were many disastrous and bloody wars, was not to engage in the killing of women and children and the aged and of non-combatants generally, except in the case of taking fortified towns. If we can trust the generals and the experts, that is not so any longer. The main preoccupation of every chief of staff will not be as to what the soldiers are doing in the field, but how to destroy the enemy's towns, to smash up his industrial plant, to break his seat of Government into pieces, to produce such terror, disorganisation and disorder among the civil community and the country generally as will make it impossible for a government to carry on a war; in short, to do what Marshal Foch has described as "Demoralising a people and thus disarming a Government." That will be an enormously effective weapon. Anyone who was in the slightest touch with the Minister of Munitions during the War and watched his continual efforts to keep the supply of munitions going, must have realised that anything like a panic amongst the industrial population would have brought the War to an end in a very few weeks. It would have been so in the autumn of 1915; it would have been so in the spring of 1916, and on three or four other occasions, at any rate,
  1456
  in the progress of that War. There will be cause enough for panic in the next war. I will quote what Brigadier-General Groves, Director of Air Operations, said in a memorandum:
  "There is little doubt that the belligerents will resort to gas bomb attack on a large scale. This form of attack"—
  these are the words of a professional man who knows what he is talking about—
  "This form of attack upon great cities such as London or Paris might entail the loss of millions of lives in the course of a few hours. The gas bombs employed would contain gas in liquid form; the liquid would be released on intact and expand to many hundred times its volume. The gas clouds so formed would be heavier than air, and would thus flow into the cellars and 'tubes' in which the population had taken refuge. As the bombardment continued the gas would thicken up until it flowed through the streets of the city in rivers. All gas experts are agreed that it would be impossible to devise means to protect the civil population from this form of attack."
  That is the picture General Groves draws of what the air arm will be able to do to civil populations during war. There is very often a sort of feeling among the ordinary population that to spend money upon armaments is an insurance against attack. That is the root of the great popularity of the Navy. The Navy did keep every seaside town in England perfectly safe from bombardment. But the frightful truth about this new weapon is that there is no effective means of defence at all. Ground defence —and again I quote Brigadier-General Groves —is altogether futile. He discusses whether it will be possible to protect great cities by aircraft defence, and he shows that it would be fallacious and useless. I am summarising what he has said in official documents. While it is true that the fighting aeroplanes can be used against the bombers, the fighting aeroplanes cannot, according to military experts, do very much in the way of shooting down bombers at night. That is to say, our cities lie open to that attack.
  One does not like even to hint at the contingency of war between us and one of our allies, but if I take the Power that is geographically near to us, it is true that at the present time it takes about 20 minutes to cross the Channel, and it does not take more than two hours, with a good wind, to go from London to Paris. So that if you are

  1457
  given a dark night, a good wind and a little luck, in two or three hours we could break up Paris, and they could break up London. War would not have gone on very long before all those little pleasant seaside places on either side of the Channel would have been just like No Man's Land in the War. I am saying this to the War Minister, but who knows it better than he does? He has discussed it himself. I have a quotation from one of his speeches when he occupied the same position that he does now. He said in October, 1925:
  "London was of all the great capitals of the world the most vulnerable to air attack owing to its geographical situation. The attacks launched against London during the War, judged by the standards of to-day, and still more by the standards of the future, were on an altogether insignificant scale. The Government proposed to press on with the policy of peace. They wanted to make the possibility he had hinted at remote, and to lose no opportunity of reducing the great burden of armaments expenditure. As Secretary for Air, the more he saw of the possibilities of air warfare in the future, the more anxious he was to take every legitimate opportunity of making impossible developments which, if left to themselves, might destroy civilisation."
  What we are here asking the Minister to do is precisely what he said was most desirable. We are asking him to do that, and to take the opportunity of a Disarmament Conference. And not military aviation alone, because civil aviation, I think, is more dangerous to the world than military aviation. It is not merely, as was said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), that commercial planes can be readily converted into bombers if they are built from the beginning with that possibility in view. That is not the main thing. The main thing is that inventors accustomed to turn out commercial machines of a particular type, can as easily turn out great quantities of bombers if the type is arranged with that in view. The truth is that so frightful are the predicted casualties in the air arm both in men and machines, that a very large reserve is necessary if the country is to have an Air Force, and if its air fighting is to Last more than a few weeks in a war. You want to have great resources for factories and material. You want personnel, organisation and, in short, all those things which developed civil flying give you.
  1458
  When the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne), who knows what he is talking about, said how necessary it was to have a great reserve of civil flying, he was speaking in professional language what I am trying to say as an amateur, that if the country is to have an air force, if its air fleet is not to be wasted and destroyed in a very few weeks of war, you want to have behind you all that machinery and all that personnel both on the ground and in the air. That organisation is being developed now. Just consider the number of aerodromes and stations in all that elaborate system of lines—London-Paris, London-Rotterdam, London-Rotterdam-Berlin, Berlin-Moscow, Paris-Warsaw, Paris-Copenhagen and all the intermediate stations. Every one of those aerodromes and every one of the men employed there could be, and would be, used if war broke out, as depots for bombers. That civil aviation is a reserve for military aviation was said in so many words here by the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury, and that is why our Government subsidises civil flying. We are not spending £460,000 a year these hard times in order to allow some people to go by what is, after all, the easiest and most delightful mode of travel. It is not in order to give a few people a pleasant trip that this country spends £460,000 a year. It spends it with a view to those possibilities which Brigadier-General Groves has mentioned. And when I saw Sir Alan Cobham come back, and everyone ran to see him, and when I heard the Minister of Air telling us how pleasant, how delightful, how interesting it was to travel in the air, what was behind that was precisely the reports I have read of the military experts, the wiping-out of millions of lives according to Brigadier-General Groves, in a few hours.
  8.0 p.m.
  I think there is no greater amusement in the world than travelling by air, but in the present state of the world it is too dangerous a toy for us to play with. I think it is a toy of which the world should restrict its uses until this world of ours has a little more sense, and the danger of war is a little more remote. No one can say the world is free from the danger of war. I think many of us last Thursday, when listening to the debate, felt that the possibility of war was very great indeed. Therefore, I say

  1459
  this country ought to go to the Disarmament Conference with a formal proposal for a Treaty of Disarmament, which should deal with military flying and with civil flying. Sub-committee A has prepared general technical schemes by which disarmament might be possible, given good will among the nations. They have spoken of the three principles of limitation and I have seen technical papers showing how it would be possible to have effective tests for the limitation of military flying—such tests as the number of men in training, the limitation of the trained pilots, the limitation of the total horse power, and so on. Such things are things which the experts and military men can work out, and, therefore, I soy chat Britons should go to the Disarmament Conference and offer an arrest of our own programme. An hon. Member said it was not a time to do it, because the matter was fluid. Is there a better time for disarmament than before we establish exactly what we want, before we build up a great power, while the potentialities are still in an imperfect state? That is the ideal moment. We cannot deal with military flying unless we deal with civil flying as well. This subject is more difficult technically, but it is much less difficult politically. The great thing is that the industrial countries, the developed countries, the countries which have the industrial groups of skilled men capable of putting forward a great war construction, should get together. Those countries are ourselves, not in the first line as regards civil flying; France, which has a great deal of civil flying; Italy, which has a formidable fleet but not so much civil flying; and Germany, which is hardly armed in the air, but which has by far the best system of civil flying in Europe. Those are the countries which should get together. If they got together the countries which buy their aeroplanes would be of very secondary importance.
  It was said in the Debate on land disarmament that we could not do anything because of the wickedness of Russia. I am not going to discuss here the fact that Russia will not come to a disarmament conference because it is held in Switzerland, and that if we wanted to have Russia at such a conference, we
  1460
  should go to some place outside the borders of Switzerland. But I am going to state this fact. Russian flying would be nothing at all if it were not for her agreement with Germany. Everybody knows that the Russian company is to a great extent a Germany company. You have the arrangement of a German company in Berlin and then that stops and you go on with a German-Russian company to Moscow. Anybody who has been in a Russian aerodrome knows that they are in Germany when they get there. The industrial countries—America, and at present they cannot come here and we cannot get there—France, Italy to a slight extent, ourselves to a pretty considerable extent and Germany to a dominating extent—those are the countries where civil flying is important as a reserve to military flying. If we had an agreement, even if it were only a limited agreement, between these countries it would be of the first importance if we could treat all aeroplanes as munitions of war and make them subject to an arms treaty and controlled, as the export of arms to a certain extent is controlled. If we could do this, we should then get on with this matter of the limitation of aeroplanes. I am told, for instance, that General Chang has bought 150 aeroplanes under another label. I do not know whether that is so or not. I have seen it in the paper, but I do not know whether it is true. But whether that is so or not, there is nothing in all the arms treaty with China to prevent his importing aeroplanes that might be used for war purposes.
  There are two general principles which should be followed. The direct subsidies of individual Governments towards civil flying ought to cease altogether and entirely because of the danger of their influence on the type of aeroplane, and because I think we have, already more civil flying than is good for the nation. Secondly, flying should be taken away from the nation, from the control of each Government, and the civil flying of the world should be carried out by an international board, under the rules laid down by the League of Nations. From the business point of view that would be a perfectly simple thing, for the reason that the present commercial companies interlock. They use each other's planes and aerodromes and they have an

  1461
  arrangement for that purpose. Anybody who has ever travelled by air knows how they alternate their planes; how a German plane comes here and an English plane goes to Berlin; how you change at Amsterdam, sometimes into a Dutch plane, sometimes into a German plane, and sometimes into a Scandinavian plane, and go on to Germany. The technical difficulty of collecting these airways under a common management has been solved. The scheme which I think would do more for the peace of the world than anything else would be a proposal from Great Britain that the civil flying of the world should be given over to an international Commission, and that all direct subsidies of Parliaments to civil flying in their countries should end. We should in that way do away to a considerable extent with the development of civil flying which leads to military flying. I am quite frank about it. I do not think the nations ought to he allowed to play with this dangerous toy any more than children should be allowed to play with boxes of matches. Such a proposal would prevent the diversion of the civil aeroplanes to aeroplanes of a military type. If this country were to give a lead in the matter, the other countries of the world would do away with this dangerous thing. In conclusion, let me quote the words of Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, the present Chief of the Imperial Air Staff, who, speaking of flying, said:
  "I feel that all the good it will do in civil life cannot balance the harm that may be done in war by it, and if I had the casting vote, I should say abolish the air."
  He means by that, air flying. He goes on:
  "I feel that it is an infinitely more harmful weapon of war than any other."
  Because that is so, I ask our Government and I ask the Secretary of State for Air to put into force that which he said in 1925 were his own dearest hopes.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Those of us who are on this side of the House have been looking forward for many weeks and, indeed, for many months now, in order to see what would be this year the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to this third and new fighting service of this country.
  1462
  We have been saying to ourselves over and over again that 1927 is a very critical year in Britain's foreign policy. Great Britain has to decide this year her attitude to the League of Nations in regard to a policy of general disarmament. While that does not in itself contain any binding pledge which would influence the actual Estimates put forward in the year 1927, yet it is perfectly clear that with so momentous a decision lying before the British nation—a decision that must be taken this year in terms of the British Army, in terms of the British Navy and in terms of the British Air Service—it seems to us, and particularly those who sit on this side of the House, appropriate, from the point of view of creating an atmosphere that carries success with it, that there might have been in all three sets of Estimates, some very definite and very special reference to the programme of general disarmament that lies before the country. We listened on Monday to the explanation of the Estimates for the land forces presented by the Secretary of State for War. We had not only his speech, but a number of speeches from the other side of the House. We had to record at the end of that day that there was not so much as a single reference, either by word of mouth or in any of the important printed documents bearing on the subject of the Estimates this year, to this outstanding fact of the general Disarmament Conference which is to be held this year at Geneva.
  In seconding this Amendment I have to begin with regret that, so far as the Air Estimates for this year are concerned, there is not a single reference or hint to those Estimates having been influenced by this important Conference which lies so immediately ahead of us. On the contrary, in looking through the Estimates and in reading carefully through the Memorandum which the Air Minister has prepared for us, there is nothing there except the continuity of the policy of expansion which was laid down some years ago to govern the air services of this country. The Secretary of State for Air this afternoon emphasised what was laid down in the Memorandum itself. This year 1927–28 is to see a further definite piece of expansion work with regard to the British Air Service carried out. We are to see approximately

  1463
  six new squadrons built and established in the course of this year. We are reminded that when this year comes to an end we shall have a Home Defence Force of 28 squadrons and that this represents only a little more than 50 per cent, of the expansion programme that was laid down four years ago. We are reminded that there have been such remarkable changes in the technique of the Air Service that the Air Minister was able to tell us with considerable satisfaction this afternoon that in this year there will be no wartime aeroplanes in the Service. There will be no wartime machines or engines employed in the future Air Service of the country. So wonderful and rapid have been the changes and improvements in technique, that even the 1918 warplane is already an obsolete instrument. We have been reminded by the Air Minister this afternoon that, in the work that has been done in carrying out this policy of expansion and improvement since 1922–23, not only from the point of view of this mother island but from the point of view of the Empire as a whole, he sees us this year at the dawn of a new period in Air matters, whether we think of Air matters in terms of commercial policy or whether we think of Air matters in terms of defence. All this remarkable policy of expansion has been carried out under the cover of the limiting principle that the results obtained have been obtained by retarding temporarily the expansion of the Royal Air Force.
  All this extraordinary development has taken pace with the brake on. If we had had more money to spend it is perfectly clear that the brake would have been removed before this year. We have been reminded that our stocks of munitions built up during the War period are running out and the House has been warned that from the point of view of maintaining existing supplies a policy of increasing expenditure will be inevitable at a very early date. When we remember that all this has been done under a policy of limitation, and that under these circumstances this amazing policy of expansion has been carried out we are led to ask where the Air Minister will take this country when once he takes the brake off, and what kind of Air Service we may expect when financial reasons
  1464
  will not restrain him and when he gets into his stride with the full policy of the Government.
  I can understand the Air Minister thinking of himself, not as being responsible for a military policy but as being essentially concerned with civil aviation. I think part of the great charm of the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon lay in the fact that he outlined the wonderful triumphs of the human mind in this department of human achievement from the point of view of civil aviation. The Air Minister followed that rule at the late Imperial Conference, but I think he will appreciate that Members on all sides of the House will be impressed with the dual personality of the Air Minister. While the right hon. Gentleman aspires to be "a guide, philosopher and friend" to civil aviation, he is also the responsible person for the military policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to aviation. I can well understand that he would like to feel he is Dr. Jekyll as often as possible because to be reminded of the other is to be reminded of what must constitute the most terrible problem which concerns not only this country but the world as a whole. I received from Professor Charles Richer a book entitled "Idiot Man, or the Follies of Mankind." In turning over the pages of this book in the small hours of this morning I came across a passage dealing with aviation which I will summarise and it shows what we feel about the Air Minister in respect of his policy:
  "Aviation is a very fine thing, a decisive victory over gravity, that relentless gravity which seemed destined to keep us tied to earth until the end of time, and I give it due reverence. But when we make it the essential function of aerial machines to scatter bombs and terror over peaceful towns at midnight, then at once my admiration withers, and I prefer the society of the penguins and the bisons who know nothing of aviation."
  That is something of the temper of realism which the House will appreciate because it shows the Minister of Air in his dual capacity. In trying to work out the relation between civil and military development in the air I took the trouble two days ago to read what the Air Minister had to say before the Imperial Conference last year. I noticed there that he was dealing exclusively with civil aviation and he left the whole matter of military development in the hands of one

  1465
  of his experts. I regret that there is not a word to be found in that important Command Paper 2769, which reveals the Government's military policy, and I can only find in the whole of that extraordinarily lucid and informative speech made by the Air Minister from the point of view of civil aviation one paragraph which reveals his mind from the military point of view, and I will read his peroration to the House:
  "Hitherto the air has been the scene of glorious though terrible conflicts; it has been the background from which death and destruction have been hurled upon camps in cities. The purest of the elements was not intended for the destruction of civilisation by high explosives or poison gas. The invention of the flying machine which the pioneers of successive centuries strove to achieve was meant for something better than an instrument of concentrated frightfulness. With the horror of the last War in our memories, and the limitless terrors of any future war in our minds, let us make the air a highway of peace, and the aeroplane an instrument not for severing nations and destroying civilised life, but for making closer and more constant the unity of Imperial thought, Imperial intercourse and Imperial ideals."
  In this peroration the Air Minister in his civil aviation speech at the Imperial Conference talks of what I want to say in regard to the Amendment which I am seconding. I hope that every hon. Member in this somewhat empty House will agree with me that nobody could have express with a more sensitive or a more artistic mind the dangers that lie before mankind from the pursuance of a military policy of aviation. What I want to put before, the Air Minister in the first place is that in that peroration I do not see how anything that is to be found in these Estimates, or in the Memorandum which has been placed before the House, or in the Air Minister's speech this afternoon will help in the least to make good the very desirable ideal, or the very desirable programme which was outlined before the Imperial Conference last year. I want to ask in the very plainest way whether the Air Minister thinks that the Estimates which he has submitted to this House are in fact going to contribute to the peaceful development of the nations of the world, and whether that policy of expansion as laid down in the Estimates to-day will achieve the civil ideal which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind.
  It is clear, from our past experience of war, and especially of the only war in
  1466
  which aviation has played a large part, that the policy enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman to-day is the reverse of a peace and civilian policy. He is laying the foundations of a rapid building up of military aviation, not simply in this country, but in every other State polity throughout the world. What is the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing with regard to aviation? I should like to think there had been some change in 1927. The forthcoming Disarmament Conference warranted the announcement of some change, but I am afraid I am strictly correct in taking the view that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing to-day is that which was laid down in the Imperial Conference of 1923, and which was reaffirmed in the Imperial Conference last year. If I may quote the actual text which binds the present Government with respect to military air policy, it is this:
  "The necessity for the maintenance by Great Britain of a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strangest air force within striking distance of her shores."
  I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that is the policy he is pursuing. His Estimates this year are a reaffirmations of that policy which was laid down in 1923. That means, I take it, that since 1923 we have adopted a 50/50 standard in relation to our nearest neighbour, France.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question last year, in the hope that he would make a little more explicit, in terms of numbers of machines, just what was included in the policy laid down at the Imperial Conference. I did not get any satisfactory answer, but I think I shall be well within the limits of that policy if I say that, so far as the Home Defence Force is concerned, the British Government intend to have at least as many aeroplanes and at least as much equipment as France herself has, and that, if France should increase her air policy, Great Britain would not be content with the existing policy of expansion, but would continue to climb after whatever new limits France might choose to set up. I take it, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, that the policy of Empire mobility—which means that the British Air Service would be as efficient a

  1467
  striking unit in any part of the Empire as it is here in London—would mean that the nearest striking force to our own shores would include, say, the United States of America or Japan; so that this policy of a 50/50 standard does come to mean, in effect, that we are going to have an Air Service at least as great as any that can be built up in the world. If that be so, I take it that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage every other State in the world to set up this 50/50 standard. I do not think they could object, or would desire to object, to any other country adopting that kind of policy under the same terms and conditions.
  If that be so, it is clear from our experience from 1906 to 1914 that the air policy of His Majesty's Government, described as a policy of defence, would tend inevitably to lead this nation to war. It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to describe it as a policy which is stimulating competition in air armaments, and is encouraging a policy of mutual rivalry that will achieve the same kind of result as the same policy achieved from 1906 to 1914. I remember, in those pre-War years, the enormous amount of discussion that took place in this country, particularly after the ex-Kaiser announced his policy of Germany's future being on the water. I remember the military experts of this country saying definitely that we had not, in principle, any objection to Germany so long as she simply claimed to build up the largest land Army on the Continent, so long as she followed a one-power standard in respect of militarism; but, the moment Germany set herself to become a two-Power standard, and not only to have the largest Army on the Continent, but also to build up in addition the second greatest Navy in Europe, we all began to say in this country that Germany was embarking upon a policy that would lead to war.
  We have insisted, as part of our naval policy since 1919, that we should have a Navy than which there should be none greater in the world, and I understand that from 1923 onwards we have been committed to the principle that we shall have an Air Service than which there shall be none greater in the world. In pursuance of that policy, we are giving
  1468
  the most powerful stimulus that can be given to the modern world in the direction of rival armaments, and in a direction, therefore, that makes for a second world war. If we persist in the pursuit of this policy, by whatever name we may describe the results of our action, we are falling into the policy which Lord Grey, for example, has so roundly condemned. As I understand Lord Grey's point of view, and his mature conclusions looking back over a lifetime of experience in these grave and solemn matters, he has stated emphatically that the nation which embarks upon a policy of increasing armaments is, in principle, committing the world to a second world war. Therefore, I want to press the Secretary of State for Air to state, when he replies, in view of the imminence of the Disarmament Conference, whether he is not prepared to say that there is an alternative policy which His Majesty's Government can pursue with regard to aerial armaments; whether he is not prepared to see if proposals can be put forward this year at Geneva for a mutual limitation and reduction of air armaments; and whether His Majesty's Government are not prepared to say definitely that they have some alternative policy in mind—that they are not irretrievably bound to the policy of catching up to France, that they are not irretrievably bound to the conception that they will in any and all circumstances insist upon having an Air Force as great as any that can be built up in the world.
  We have a certain amount of practical guidance as to an alternative policy. The Secretary of State for Air knows, perhaps better than anyone else in the House, that in the light of our experience of aerial warfare, especially from 1915 to 1918, and the events to which the Prime Minister referred this afternoon, that in the carrying out of stage one of the policy of world disarmament in Paris in 1919—in applying the policy of disarmament to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria—it was made perfectly plain there by the experts and as the considered judgment of the Paris Conference, that aerial weapons were definitely aggressive weapons. When the principles of disarmament were applied to these four States it was definitely and clearly laid down, not that Germany or Austria or Hungary or Bulgaria should be made in-

  1469
  capable of defence. There was no Utopian ideal pursued. They were all practical mining men. They were not anxious to denude Germany or the other three States of the armaments they possessed. They only wanted to make peace secure, to make it impossible for Germany to pursue in future the aggressive policy of which she had been deemed to be guilty in 1914. It is a very remarkable fact that in working out that very practical policy the Allied experts laid down the condition that Germany should be, in respect of air arms, totally disarmed. That was not done with regard to the Army or with regard to the Navy except in the case of submarines. It is very impressive, as the judgment of the military experts of the world, that when it came to the problem of trying to prevent aggressive war in the future the policy of total disarmament should be laid down with regard to air armaments.
  With regard to the forthcoming general disarmament conference it is clearly necessary that we should have some common principle. I should like to ask the Air Minister whether he proposes to recommend to Lord Cecil, when he speaks on his behalf from March onwards at Geneva, that there shall in future be two standards of disarmament, whether he is going to have the 1919 standard for air disarmament for four States who have now all been admitted to membership in the League and have all been given a clean bill of health in respect of having done their duty with regard to these proposals for disarmament—whether he is going to advocate the continuance of one principle of disarmament for them and another for the whole of the rest of the States both in and out of the League of Nations. If he is not prepared to do that, if the policy laid down in 1919 was deemed to be good for all practical purposes for those four States, if it was deemed that they would be secure and that they had still enough armaments left for any reasonable defensive policy that could be defined, it is reasonable to take the view that the 1919 standard of disarmament should become the standard to he aspired to, the guiding, limiting principle in any consideration of general disarmament in this year before the League of Nations. I do not want to see Germany—I see no alternative if he does not agree with me—or Austria or Hungary or
  1470
  Bulgaria being allowed to come back to some new standard we are going to set up this year. I cannot see how we can, with any sense of legality or public decency or morality, apply from this year onwards a higher standard for 51 States within the League and persist in this 1919 standard for the other four States. I shall resist strenuously any policy for Germany, for Austria or Hungary to climb up to some new and undefined level which we may fix this year. I want to see the 1919 standard for these four States remain unchanged. But if I am going to will that end I have to will inevitably that all the other States shall set up the 1919 standard as their ideal.
  I want the Minister to face up to this most real and most urgent and most practical of issues. What is to be the principle that will guide this country with regard to recommendations for disarmament before the League of Nations 6hia year at Geneva? I am not suggesting that the 1919 standard should be absolutely realised in the course of 12 months. I am not suggesting that in every detail we can work it out in the course of 12 months, but there should be some clearly defined ideal lying behind the whole of the movement and the detailed propositions that we are going to put forward. If we cannot work along these lines A is clear that the logic of the policy the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing is not in the direction of civil aviation, but is very definitely and very rapidly a movement in the direction of warfare. May I remind the Minister of the position he has reminded the House of more than once in the last two or three years? In the light of the able address given by my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment it is clear that the fighting air service is very rapidly destined to become the most important of the three fighting services. It is rapidly destined to become the outstanding weapon of warfare in the future. He himself, speaking in 1925, underlined very definitely the danger which would come from the pursuit of the present policy when he said:
  "The more he saw of the possibility of air warfare in the future the more anxious he was to take every legitimate opportunity of making improvements and developments which, if left to themselves, might destroy civilisation."
  He has reminded the House on more than one occasion of the revolutionary develop-

  1471
  ments which have taken place in the technique of aviation since the conclusion of the first world War. He said in 1925:
  "In the late War some 300 tons of bombs only were dropped upon this country. The Air Force to-clay could drop the same weight in the first 24 hours of war and could continue this scale of attack indefinitely. I need not dilate upon this terrible and repulsive picture."
  I was looking at an American book two or three weeks ago which reminded us of the development that took place from 1914 to 1918. The writer said the first bombs that were used by Germany in their first attack on Paris were little larger than oranges. He went on to relate the position in 1918, when the American laboratories had invented Lewisite gas, and were preparing to make, in co-operation with this and the French Government, their attack upon Berlin. I read Professor Raileigh's book, in which he regretted very much that that raid had not been carried out. I understood from him that had the War lasted three weeks longer it would have been an accomplished fact. I gathered from the American account that the bombs proposed to be used in that raid on Berlin, which was to conclude the War, had grown from the size of an orange to being eight feet high, considerably taller than the tallest airman who was to use the material. The weight of those bombs was something like half a ton. One American expert said that, given a favourable wind, 12 of those bombs would have been enough to have destroyed the whole of the population of Berlin. If that were the case in 1918, it is perfectly clear that our efficiency in destructive methods has been greatly advanced since then. The Secretary of State for Air has been responsible for developing a policy of co-operation with the universities of this country, not to mention the programme which is directly under the control of His Majesty's Government. He is in touch with all kinds of scientific associations in this country, and he knows perfectly well that he has at his command the very best and the ablest scientists which not only this country but the world can produce. That co-operation has been going on for seven years, and, therefore, we may take it for granted that if such great changes took place from 1914 to 1918 in
  1472
  destructive methods, there have been very great changes in the same direction from 1918 to 1927.
  I want to plead with the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing now not simply with the continuity of policy, but we are dealing in 1927 with the great revolution that has taken place in the technique of warfare. We are discussing now the possible continuity of the existence of civilisation. I appreciate as well as any hon. Member in this House, and certainly as well as hon. Members opposite, the value of all that is best in our traditions. I love the good old customs of England; I love whatever is beautiful, and I find pleasure in this illustrious part of our common civilisation, but it is only commonsense that we should compel ourselves not to use words like "continuity" when we are dealing really for the first time in the history of the world with a challenge to the continued existence of civilisation. I therefore plead with the right hon. Gentleman to implement the peroration of the civil aviation speech which he made at the Imperial Conference by a definite statement of ways and means as to how he can become a great civilian Air Minister in this country, and what steps he is going to take this year in order that Great Britain in the terms of an aerial policy shall set an example and give a concrete, reasonable example as to what we are prepared to do to keep the military policy in the air definitely under control, to keep under control this militarism in the air, this poison in the air, this thing that sullies and renders ghastly what he described as the purest of all our elements.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not reply, like the Under-Secretary for War replied on Monday, by evading the questions which I put to him. I want him to advise Lord Cecil when he goes to Geneva to give expression to an aerial policy which will make his ambitions in regard to civil aviation come true. I want him to say not merely in terms of men, of machines, of gas bombs, fire bombs, disease bombs, explosive bombs, in terms of laboratory experiments, in terms of assistance from the scientific associations, but I want him to say in concrete terms what we are prepared to do not only in regard

  1473
  to the military side of our present aviation policy, but what we are prepared to do in connection with the other side, the civil aviation side which is so closely bound up with it. We cannot separate the two. The weakness, the kink in the 1919 policy from the point of view of securing disarmament is that Germany by means of her Air policy is well away again from the point of view of potential warfare. Everybody knows that Germany by her civil aviation policy could release bombers in any number for the purpose of warfare at short notice. Everybody knows, therefore, that unless these two matters are taken together and until we are prepared to develop civil aviation, because it underlies and cannot be separated from our military policy, we cannot hope successfully to deal with the problem.
  I hope, therefore, that that right hon. Gentleman to-night will give us some hope that there is an alternative policy which is being seriously considered by the Government, that it can be implemented by detailed figures and statements, and not that we are going to have to-night merely a repetition of pious phraseology and generalities, and in addition, the application of the 1923 Imperial policy. I sincerely believe that the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect to the Air Service at the present time is leading to competition, to rivalry, and is stimulating all over the world an increasing policy of aerial armaments, and is therefore not laying the foundations of peace. I want some definite statement as to what 1927 is to signify in regard to aerial armaments for the guidance of the League of Nations in the forthcoming disarmament policy. We have followed only too often the policy of excellent statements on paper but of bad policy in deeds. We sent out an excellent Memorandum to China, making for conciliation and negotiation, but we implemented that by a very considerable despatch of His Majesty's fighting forces. Last year, we had domestic trouble. We had an excellent doctrine in Sir Herbert Samuel's Report, and excellent professions coming from the Prime Minister, but the actual practice of 1926 was civil strife for nearly half the year. The citizens of this country are waiting for this dualism, this policy of Dr. Jekyll
  1474
  and Mr. Hyde, to be brought to an end. I hope that the present Air Minister will look into the question as a whole, and that we shall have some repudiation of the military policy of the Government and the setting up of a concrete policy of peaceful aerial development which can be looked at in detail before the judgment bar of the world, and which can be implemented at Geneva in 1927.
  Sir HARRY ERITTAIN: As one of those who some time ago signed a requisition to Mr. Speaker that speeches should be limited to ten minutes, I will not keep the House long in putting before them as briefly as I can one or two points. I am bound to say, having sat through the last two speeches, that I am intensely persuaded to side-track what I had intended to say and to follow them. There is a well-known historic question which has been repeated again and again, asking what Mr. Gladstone said in 1874. I should like to bring that question up to date, and to ask what it was that the Labour party did in 1924. What did they do? They had the very good sense to increase the Air Force of this country, which was badly needed. Tempting as it is to follow some of the arguments of the preceding speakers, I will limit myself to one or two points.
  In the most interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) there was one point which I should like to emphasise, and on which I believe I have the full sympathy of the Minister, that is, the necessity of spreading the programme for orders for aeroplanes, engines and everything connected with the Air Force. I see no reason why that should not be done. It is done in the Navy, and if it could be done in the Air Force it would mean not only that a great deal of unemployment would be done away with and that men could be regularly employed throughout the year, but that the concerns which make aeroplanes, engines, etc., could run their regular orders. That would mean a great saving to the Air Ministry, because by ordering stuff ahead it could be ordered at a great deal lower price than if it has to be done on the hit and miss principle as it is done now from Budget day to Budget day. Last year I endeavoured to the best of

  1475
  my poor ability to make a few suggestions with regard to our Imperial air policy on the civil side, and I put forward a few lines on which I thought new routes could be opened. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the suggestions would be considered at the Imperial Conference. Much has been done in blazing the trial for these Empire trade routes, and by no one more than the right hon. Gentleman himself in his splendid flight to India and back. But much remains to be done.
  I should like to ask him what prospects there are of one particular line of planes which might be developed with great, advantage to an important section of the Empire—the seaplane service to connect up British Guiana with the Bahamas, running round the whole perimeter of the islands in the West Indies. I have been to every one of these islands and I can assure him that the steamship connections are very poor indeed. They average no more than 50 miles apart and I am convinced that a seaplane service running from Georgetown across Trinidad up to the islands of the Bahamas and on to the coast of the United States would be a paying concern. It would carry mails from North and South America, a large amount of merchandise and a considerable number of passengers. I should like to know whether any encouragement can he given in this direction. It would be most acceptable to the people of the West Indies. I should also like to suggest, if it is possible, that official encouragement should be given to the full to such bodies as the Aerial League of the British Empire. We have not developed to the same extent as countries on the Continent our air sense and love of the air. I do not see why we should not have as many members of our Aerial League as the Aerial League of France, which has well over a million members. There is one other subject which I should like to touch upon, and it is one which I believe the right hon. Gentleman has much at heart. It is the encouragement of the University Air Squadrons at Oxford and Cambridge. The term "air squadron" is slightly misleading, but the term itself does not matter.
  I believe the possibilities of the work at Oxford and Cambridge in this direction
  1476
  are illimitable. They are the child of the great universities as well as the Air Ministry, and they have as their object, first, perhaps, a regular flow of candidates for commissions in the Air Force; secondly, to do what they can to teach those who wish to go in for aeronautics as a profession and, thirdly, the development of technical and research problems. In our two great universities there is today a wealth of scientific talent and immense scope for originality. They have the best type of man, and it is difficult to exaggerate the keenness with which they grapple with their work. I was at Cambridge only last week, and with Commander Bowen went over the school there, which is making great strides. I think they owe much of the keenness to the energy of the senior Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler), who has devoted himself heart and soul to the development of this school. Research work, I am glad to say, is being carried out to a considerable extent in the Universities of Liverpool and Birmingham, and it is from these universities, particularly from the two older universities, that we are able to find magnificent material. I hope the Air Minister will do all he can to see that the apparatus in these schools is as up to date as possible—that is not the case at the moment—and that they have every chance to develop technical and scientific research. I hope he will do everything he can to encourage an air sense and love of the air in this country, and extend the opportunities for acquiring technical knowledge of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. W. BAKER: I am afraid it is not possible for me to follow the general lines which have governed this Debate so far, but I am encouraged to make the points I have in mind by the statement made by the Prime Minister during his very interesting speech in regard to accidents. I understand the Prime Minister to say that the Air Ministry had carried economy to the utmost limit. I am afraid that it would be extremely difficult to find any member of the Public Accounts Committee who is prepared to agree with that statement. I make so bold as to suggest that the few remarks I have to make are in no sense party statements but are statements which would be re-echoed by

  1477
  the whole of the members of that Committee, no matter to what party they may belong. I am interested to notice that in the Memorandum which the Minister for Air has circulated, he calls attention to the very long and careful examination which was devoted to his Estimates by the Public Accounts Committee, and announcing that
  "In accordance with a desire expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in their Second Report of 1926, the Air Estimates are presented this year with inter-leaved sheets."
  I am sure that anyone who has done the Public Accounts Committee the honour of reading the long examination, which extended over a series of days, will think it is rather remarkable that the Minister should dismiss the very important criticisms against his policy and the practice of his Department by making such a great concession as the interleaving of the Estimates.
  The first criticism against the Air Ministry has been in regard to its Estimates. In 1921–22, the Estimates were 26 per cent. out. In 1922–23, the net Estimate was 17·55 per cent. out. In 1923–24, they were 12·54 per cent. out. In 1924–25, they were a great deal better, and they were only 2·82 per cent. out. In 1995–26, I am glad to say that the Air Ministry has got to a point of being pretty exact because the difference is only '41 per cent. out. I give those figures because, having arrived at this standard it is important that it should be maintained I want to remind the Minister that although that point has been reached, and the Estimate is only ·41 per cent. out, under Votes Nos. 4, 5 and 6 there are errors in estimating of 7·5, 14·6 and 24·6 per cent. respectively. But whilst the Ministry have made a great improvement so far as the Estimates are concerned, I and my colleagues are still very much disturbed with regard to their methods of handling contracts, and in many other respects. I want to refer to one or two contracts with which Members of all parties were very gravely dissatisfied. In January, 1926, the Ministry placed a contract with regard to the framework of the airship R.101. The tender was given to a particular firm, because that firm had done experimental work in that connection. The Ministry contended that it would be better to employ that particular firm
  1478
  than to throw the contract open to tender. The nature of the contract was unusual. The payment was to be the actual cost of labour and material, plus fixed sums for establishment charges, tools, plant and the preparation of designs. The fixed sums were arrived at on the basis of an estimate that the work would be completed by 31st December, 1926. The sum of £1,000 was agreed upon to cover any delay which might occur of a normal character.
  When the date arrived on which that contract should have been completed, very small progress had been made. So far as I can understand, the delay was entirely attributable to the staff of the Ministry. The net result of the placing of this contract before the Minister and his staff were prepared to deal with the details, was that the Treasury had to make a payment of £14,800 in full settlement of all claims in respect of delays which had occurred up to September, 1926, and they had to make the condition with the firm that the contract provision should be so altered as to apply from 1st October, 1926, to 31st December, 1927. The Treasury came to the conclusion that the contract had been entered into prematurely by the Ministry and it is to be noted that not only was that airship not completed by the date which the Ministry had in mind but that the whole reason for not placing that contract out to open tender was absolutely destroyed by the Ministry's inability to secure the work in the time desired. So that the Ministry not only failed to secure the airship, not only failed to secure the lowest possible price by placing the contract out to open tender, but in addition incurred the expense of £14,800, with absolutely no necessity whatever.
  Leaving that particular side of the matter for a moment, I want to call attention to a practice which grew up in Iraq, where the Ministry permitted certain native tradesmen to occupy official lands in order that they might trade with the troops. The native tradesmen were called upon to pay rent for their occupancy. The extraordinary position grew up that, as I understand, moneys which should have accrued to the national Exchequer were devoted to the benefit of the regimental funds. When that was challenged a Departmental witness, so

  1479
  far as I understood him, endeavoured to justify the position. A compromise was subsequently agreed to, whereby this national money should be divided between the Exchequer and the unit fund. I now ask the Secretary of State whether that irregularity is still being practised or whether we can have an assurance that national income is being paid into the national Exchequer.
  There is a further matter relating to Iraq, and that is in respect of the sale of stores. Stores declared to be surplus to requirements were sold by private treaty instead of by public tender. There was very grave suspicion of bribery in regard to these transactions. Yet such is the benevolent attitude of the Ministry that they decided that it was in the public interest to leave the further employment of this contractor, who was suspected of serious bribery, to the discretion of the local Air Officer Commanding. I submit that the last man in the world who should have a discretion in a matter of this sort is the man who is to be advised by the persons who were probably concerned with the earlier incidents.
  Stores and surplus stores are always a matter of very great interest. We find that stores, said to be surplus to requirements, of the ledger value of £41,534 18s. 6d. were sold for £6,893 15s. 4d., and on page 61 we have a stocktaking discrepancy and a deficiency of stores to a total of £39,827 13s. 10d., and there was an additional cash loss of £3,755 1s. 5d.
  I want to come back for a moment to the question of contractors. On 3rd March, 1925, the Air Ministry advised the Treasury that they were likely to have a saving of £30,000, and then for some unexplained reason they, without authority, paid £268,000 to contractors, money which was not claimable under the specific conditions of the contract and which referred to goods which, in many cases, had not been inspected. The Treasury witness stated that the first he knew of this transaction was when he read the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I submit that action of that sort is entirely contrary to public policy and to the past decisions of the Government and of the Public Accounts Committee. I respectfully suggest that
  1480
  the power of virement should be entirely taken away from the Air Ministry until there is absolute certainty that incidents of this kind will not Occur again.
  At Question time to-day I asked the Minister a question with regard to ferrosilicon. He admitted that this material, which was sold at £4 a ton, had been purchased for his Department at £22 a ton or more. When the official witness before the Public Accounts Committee was asked how it was that his Department was not aware of the price at which it was sold to the Disposal Board, he said, "The sale price to the Disposal Board was not relevant to us." I understood the Minister to-day to justify the position, and to agree that it was no part of his Ministry's duty to ascertain what the position was. That is not the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to read to the Committee what was said by the hon. Member for Black-ley (Mr. Briggs) in this connection. He said to the witness:
  "Can you convey this to high quarters? I will not let this matter rest. We are put in this extraordinary position: that, I believe it was the Prime Minister himself, at any rate it was a Cabinet Minister on the Floor of the House, said that they looked to the Public Accounts Committee to enforce some economy. How is this Committee going to onto see economies if they are merely to make platitudinous remarks and statements which they know will go no further than this room? I really will not rest content. It a Minister's statement, such as that made on the Floor of the House is of any value whatsoever, then this Committee must take up the position that it has got to live up to that."
  The "Morning Post," an organ of public opinion, favoured very much by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, said in connection with this contract that they were surprised that any Member of this House was willing to serve on the Public Accounts Committee, after the disgraceful way in which that Committee had been treated in a matter such as this. I am certain if the Public Accounts Committee felt that their recommendations and Reports were to be ignored in the future, as they had been in the past, it would be extremely difficult to recruit future Committees.
  My last point is in regard to a matter which is to my mind of even greater importance and I wish to make it clear that I am speaking on my own responsibility

  1481
  as it is not a matter which has been before the Public Accounts Committee. In what I am about to say I do not impute anything dishonourable. I suggest no suspicion. I merely wish to draw the attention of the House to the facts because I think it extremely undesirable that such a state of affairs should continue. On 24th February I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he would make a statement as to the policy of his Ministry with regard to the holding of directorships by employés in his Department. The answer was:
  "Members of the Air Ministry staff are prohibited from taking part in the management of any firm or company which would interfere with or affect detrimentally their official duties as, for instance, by involving at any time their attendance elsewhere during office or working hours or by giving them an active interest in undertakings which may have contractual relations with the Ministry. This is in accordance with the general practice of Government Departinents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1927; col. 1915, Vol. 202.]
  In November last year, I believe on 9th November, the "Times" reported a case which had appeared in the Courts during the hearing of which it became public property that two officials of the Ministry had been interested as directors of a private company. I know net the circumstances, and I am not concerned with the circumstances; but the remarkable fact is that as a result of that hearing these two officers tendered their resignation and those resignations were accepted by the Ministry. The point I submit is that if it were right for those resignations to be tendered and accepted, when the connection between these gentlemen and the private company became public property, then those directorships should never have been held. Because of the question which I have just quoted, someone was good enough to send me a copy of a public journal in which very disparaging remarks were made with regard to a very important official in the Air Ministry, the Chief of the Civil Aviation Branch, in respect of his connection with a petroleum company. This journal made most scathing remarks on the financial operations of this company. It reflected upon the managing director of the company, and when I tabled a Question to the Minister, which was answered to-day, I expected that he would deny the alle-
  1482
  gation. Any hon. Member who was in the House at Question Time to-day will be aware that the Minister not only admitted that the chief of the Civil Aviation Department was managing director of this petroleum company—a petroleum company which is doing so well—
  Sir S. HOARE: What exactly is the allegation? I should like to know it.
  Mr. BAKER: I think the allegation is clear. The allegation is that a very important official in the Air Ministry is connected with a public company which has been very disrespectfully spoken of in the public Press. That is the allegation, but I want to take the Minister on his own words. This particular gentleman is managing director of a company which, as I say, has been criticised very severely in the Press, and I imagined when I tabled the Question that the Minister would deny the facts. That was going to he a painful position for me, but I thought I was serving the public interest in placing myself in a position to receive a denial. When the Minister accepted the facts, and said that the holding of this position was in accordance with the policy of his Department, then, at grave personal and physical inconvenience to myself, I felt it my duty to repeat these facts to-night.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but, unwittingly perhaps, he is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say it was in accordance with the policy of my Department, but that it was in accordance with the policy of all Government Departments.
  Mr. BAKER: That is not so. Since the House received this answer this afternoon, I have taken the trouble to consult the best authorities with whom I was able to get in touch. My recollection is that this sort of thing is forbidden in the Civil Service—
  Sir S. HOARE: He was not a civil servant.
  Mr. W. BAKER: I am speaking of the Civil Service at the moment. As I say, to the best of my recollection this sort of thing is forbidden in the Civil Service. I have appealed to two gentleman, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government, and they confirm my impression that it is irregular for a man in the public service

  1483
  to be director of a company which may have possible trading relations with his Department. The reply which I have quoted as given on 24th February definitely lays down that they must not undertake duties which will give them an active interest in undertakings which might have contractual relations with the Ministry. I do not know whether the Trinidad Friendship Oil Company, which is to be called something else in a few weeks time, is the sort of company with which the Air Ministry might have relations; but seeing that it sells petroleum and similar things, I should have thought that nothing was more likely. I contend in the public interest that no man connected with the Air Ministry or the War Office should be permitted to be a director of a public company. That is the rule where Ministers are concerned. How much more important is it that it should be the rule with regard to their advisers? I stand here open to be assured that that is the position. If it is not the position, I hope Members on all sides will appeal to the Prime Minister to make it the position. If, as I imagine, the Air Ministry is being a law unto itself, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will have it seen to and put right at the earliest possible moment.
  Captain WALLACE: I am sorry that I am unable to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into the details of the Air Ministry accounts. I have not the honour to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. As to the last statement which he made, I must frankly confess that, like him, I shall await with some interest some further statement from the Secretary of State for Air on this subject. I should like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Minister on his somewhat remarkable feat of producing a 10 per cent. increase in the force for a reduction of 3 per cent. in the cost. It is a very remarkable thing for any Government to do nowadays. I should also like, to say how pleased I am to hear that we appear to have got to the end of wartime machines. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) stressed this point, but it cannot possibly be stressed too much that the man is much more valuable than the machine. It is far
  1484
  better for us to spend our money upon having a less number of flying officers and sending them up in the most modern machines than having a great air strength on paper and machines which are out of date, if not actually dangerous.
  The point I wish to deal with for a few moments is one referred to by my right hon. Friend as the third principal feature of his Air Estimates, namely, the very satisfactory reduction of three-quarters of a million pounds in his expenditure in the Middle East. I am particularly glad that he spoke of the Middle East as one, because it is most important that we should not consider Iraq, Trans-jordania, Palestine and Egypt as being in any way water-tight compartments. The Air Minister was at pains to impress upon us the necessity of increasing mobility in the Air Force. Even the vast distances in the Middle East have been almost anihilated by the fast speed at which aircraft fly, and it is quite proper that the Middle East should be considered as one sphere of aerial activity. The figures the Air Minister gave of the troops required in Iraq in 1921 and of the troops required to-day need no comment at all. By them the success of the Air Command has been abundantly proved. But because the Air Command has been so successful, it is perhaps as well for us to remember what very risky experiment it was consider ed to be when the idea was first initiated. On all sides failure was prophesied. I should like to pay my humble tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the idea of an air command—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has had to put up with, a good many hard knocks in his time and, from what I can see of the agitation of the bookmakers in my constituency, he has got to put up with a good few snore. Therefore, it is all the more fitting we should give him the credit that is due to him for the remarkable success if the Air Command. At the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took this great decision at the Cairo Conference in 1921 and instituted the Air Command in the Middle East, he took at the same time an almost equally far-reaching decision, and that was the grant to the people of Iraq of a form of representative Government upon Western lines. Here again, in spite of the prophesies of failure on all sides, this ex-

  1485
  periment has proved very successful, and it is probably the success of the Chancellor's second decision which has gradually helped to ensure the success of the Air Command.
  I had the privilege nearly two years ago of going out there with my right hon. Friend the Air Minister and I was most impressed—as anybody must be impressed who has been there—with the remarkable keenness, efficiency, technical skill and airmanship of the Flying Corps out there, both officers and men, and the success of the Air Command could obviously not have been achieved without the greatest efforts on their part. I was particularly impressed during some of my expeditions to the more remote parts of Iraq by the resourcefulness of even the most junior officer. I cannot help feeling it would be a very good thing if we could make the term of service in the Middle East even shorter than now and by that means ensure that almost all our flying officers are sent, for a short period of duty to the Middle East. However much you may train an officer for flying in England, you cannot really reproduce the semi-active service conditions that exist in Iraq where a man may land in a semi-hostile country without a telephone within a hundred miles. I was also very impressed by the, faith which the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Dobbs, and his assistants have in the Air Command. It is not perhaps usual to find that High Commissioners and such officials, especially one with such great experience as Sir Henry Dobbs, take very readily to new ideas. One might well imagine that the High Commissioner might have been anxious for the safety of the country with such a very small force in actual numbers to look after it, but that is not the case at all. I do not suppose that anything has done more out there to encourage the higher officers of the Air Force than the implicit faith and confidence which the civil authorities have placed in them.
  The Air Command has been a great success, first of all, of course, because of the tremendous economy in the number of troops employed and, secondly, it has been a great success on account of its actual effect in keeping in the peace and keeping law and order. I can remember the time in 1922, when I was first in the House, that we used to hear from the
  1486
  benches opposite speeches about the ruthless and indiscriminate bombing of villages. I believe that hon. Gentlemen who made those accusations were speaking under a complete misapprehension. If anybody takes the trouble to get the actual figures of the casualties caused by the Air Force in Iraq, he will realise that the system of air policing, which is really the best name for it, is not only the most economical system from our point of view, but also the most bloodless that there is. The reduction in expenditure owing to the introduction of this form of defence in Iraq is, of course, enormous, as all Members know. It would not be too much to say that, in the 02 years since this system has been in operation, the taxpayer has been saved considerably more than is being asked for in the whole Air Estimates to-day, if you compare its cost with the probable cost of using ground troops. Of course, there would have been considerable reduction in ally case. Nobody pretends that the Estimate of £20,000,000, which was the figure in 1921, could not have been reduced, but I am perfectly certain that it could not have been reduced to anything like the same extent if it had not been for the use of aeroplanes instead of ground forces. I am not speaking here merely for the sake of flattering the Air Minister, although I am very pleased to have had my opportunity of paying my tribute to the officers and men of the Air Force who flew me some 3,000 miles in complete comfort and with no damage.
  The success of the Air Command in the Middle East opens up the very interesting question how far it can be applied in other spheres. When I was out in Iraq, it seemed to me—I think it has probably been the experience of other Members who have been there—that there were two great "ifs" beyond our control. It was all very well that it was a success in Iraq. Would it be equally successful, first, where ground conditions were not so favourable and, secondly, where the weather was more uncertain? The Air Force officers themselves were the first to point out that they were acting under almost ideal conditions in a country where one could land anywhere and under weather conditions where visibility was excellent and storms very infrequent. The Air Minister, in his speech, has more or less settled our doubts about the question of the ground, because he has pointed

  1487
  out the great success of an air expedition last year on the North-West frontier, and in spite of the information which his officer informant gave him, I feel certain that that success was not entirely due to the adventitious advent of fleas. The second doubt, about the weather, has really been resolved by the trip of the Air Minister himself, because if the weather is nearly always perfect in Iraq for flying, I am certain that during that long trip from here to India and back the Air Minister met with every kind of weather.
  The second question affecting the success of the Air Command in Iraq is that which has been referred by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford, that is the question of consultation between the Services, the question of a Ministry of Defence. It is very difficult for us to discuss either the adequacy or the duty of the ground troops in Iraq on an Air Estimate, and it is equally difficult for us to discuss, on an Army Estimate, the details of their transport by air, and I think it all points to the necessity, I hope in the near future, of some co-ordination in the direction of a Ministry of Defence. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Air Minister that he is the one of the three Departmental chiefs who has most to gain by the creation of such a Ministry, and that he should do his best to impress upon the Prime Minister the necessity for creating this, or at any rate the necessity for letting us have a debate about it in this House. As has been said from the benches opposite, aviation is by no means only—I hope indeed not chiefly —military. We have heard from the Air Minister a considerable amount of interesting information about the progress of our military aviation. I hope, before we part with the Air Estimates, if not to-night on some other occasion, we shall hear from the Under-Secretary, whose particular duty, I understand, it is, a good deal of information about civil aviation.
  May I conclude by adding my congratulations to those which have been much better expressed by other Members to the Air Minister and to his wife upon the very remarkable flight which they made to India? I am quite sure that the fact that the Air Minister went himself will be a great encouragement and in-
  1488
  spiration to everybody in the Royal Air Force, from the Chief Air-Marshal down to the last joined private.
  Mr. DALTON: The Debate has ranged over a wide field, in the course of which the Secretary of State has received some bouquets and some criticisms. I propose to return to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith). We make no apology for raising again an issue which we have raised before upon the Army Estimates, namely, the relation of the Service Estimates for the year to the forthcoming Disarmament Conference. We intend to raise it again and again, pending the conclusion—we hope, the successful conclusion—of the work of that Conference. It is probably not necessary at this stage to reaffirm the point that we are not favouring from these benches any scheme for unilateral disarmament. We are not proposing that this country should reduce expenditure on armaments irrespective of what other countries do. We are proposing only that a British initiative should be taken in making concrete and, we hope, bold and far-reaching proposals for conditional disarmament in the air, as we are discussing it this evening, ant in other connections with regard to naval and military expenditure. We are only asking that this country should take the lead in putting up bold, conditional propositions.
  The grounds on which we are speaking are, briefly, three—first, conditions of security; second, conditions of economy; and third, Treaty obligations. To take them in their reverse order, on the point of Treaty obligations, it will be in the knowledge of hon. Members that, under Article 8 of the Covenant, it is laid down that
  "The members of the League [of Nations] recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point conisistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council…shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments."
  That is quite a specific statement, subscribed to as long ago as 1919, and we wish to ask when some rather more active step is going to be taken towards carrying out the obligation then entered into by us, in common with other States,

  1489
  members of the League. If it be replied that other countries, France, Italy and the rest, have been backward in carrying out their Treaty obligations, or in taking the first steps to do so, it is all the more reason why we should set them a good example by showing ourselves to be more keenly conscious of the obligations which we undertook under the Treaties which terminated the War. Many of us feel that this country and its representatives are being rather slow in meeting the obligations which they have undertaken.
  In the second place, I would like to emphasise the importance of economy in this connection. There has been great discussion during the past few years about economy in public expenditure, and if one examines dispassionately the various heads of expenditure, it will be seen that the big opportunity for really far-reaching economy, provided that we can get corresponding economies carried out by foreign countries, is in the sphere of armament expenditure. It has been remarked before, and I merely recall it to the mind of the House, that whereas before the War, in 1914, we were spending on armaments £72,000,000, that sum has grown at the present time to something in the neighbourhood of £115,000,000 or £120,000,000. Even allowing for the increase of prices since the War, if we scale down the present expenditure to pre-War expenditure, we find that the present expenditure is worth some £78,000,000 in pre-War prices and that still leaves an increase of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 on £72,000,000, or an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of expenditure on armaments at the present time as compared with 1914. That is a remarkable fact, regard being had to the disappearance of the German Fleet, the destruction of the German Army, and victory crowning our efforts in the War. I submit to the House that we have not yet made a sufficiently vigorous effort to explore the economies that might be achieved by international agreement in this sphere of expenditure.
  The Secretary of State this afternoon made no reference at all to the relation of these Estimates, if any, to the forthcoming Disarmament Conference. But he did tell us that considerable reductions had been obtained in respect of expenditure in the Middle East, due, as he said, to increasing stability and law
  1490
  and order there. I am sure we were very glad to hear that, but what about Europe Can it not be said that there is increasing stability and law and order in Europe, particularly in that part of Europe where our chief competitors are? Is there not an increasing possibility of international co-operation as a result of the stabilisation of economic and financial conditions, of bringing about the same conditions in Europe which have permitted reductions to be made in the Middle East At any rate we on this side appeal to the Government to make some effort on the lines I have suggested when the forthcoming Disarmament Conference meets. We are not satisfied with the phrase, already quoted by my hen. Friend the Member for Penistone from the Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman, that we have secured a temporary retardation of the expansion of the Royal Air Force. We would like to see, by international agreement with the other countries chiefly concerned, not only a further temporary retardation but a permanent retardation, and, indeed, a diminution in the expenditure so far as it is military and not civil.
  It has been pointed out by many technical experts that there is no real defence possible against attack by enemy aircraft. It has been laid clown on several occasions, and not contradicted by more recent authority, that the only possible defence against attack by hostile aircraft is counter attack upon the enemy's chief centres of munitions and population, and counter attacks of that kind would be a very poor consolation to those who would be sustaining the weight of the attacks on this country. The right hon. Gentleman himself has frequently emphasised the vulnerable character of London and other centres of this country to attack from the air. We have not only a Treaty obligation to promote disarmament, not only a very strong incentive on the grounds of economy, but an extremely strong incentive from the point of view of national self-interest in face of the extreme dangers we run from the gradual development of the air arm in other lands.
  May I be allowed to interpose a few words arising out of the speech made by the Prime Minister on the subject of accidents and the personal qualities of

  1491
  the personnel of our Air Force? I am sure that all of us, and certainly I for my part, pay a tribute to the personnel of the Air Force, and fully recognise the splendid human quality of that Force. I read only this morning of the death of an airman, who, unhappily, was a constituent of my own. I have not seen full accounts of the affair yet. He was Corporal East, who appears to have been killed through leaping from an aeroplane at a height of 6,000 feet and delaying too long before putting his parachute into action. I read in the Press that he was attempting to break a world record held by an American airman for the longest drop from an aeroplane before opening the parachute. I mourn, and I am sure we all mourn, the death of one more of these gallant pioneers in the cause of aerial science.
  Sir S. HOARE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DALTON: We can, at any rate, say that attempts to break a world record are a form of international rivalry and competition for which no one will have anything but the keenest and warmest admiration. Like the Prime Minister, we all feel the fascination which the Air Service holds for the young and the adventurous and the brave, the best among our rising generation. Our hope is that the gallant service which they will do in the future will be done under conditions of peace, and not in the midst of the horrors of war.
  May I turn from that point to some of the dangers which we and other countries will run in future unless we carry through to a successful end schemes for the very drastic reduction of military aircraft. The Prime Minister himself, speaking only Last year to the Classical Association, voiced the opinion of all thinking people when he said:
  "Who in Europe does not know that, with one more war in the West, the civilisation of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome?"
  The right hon. Gentleman himself, in a speech which was referred to this afternoon but has not been quoted, said in the Debate on the Air Estimates on the 26th February, 1925:
  "With Air Force development as it is, with developments in bombs, with develop-
  1492
  ments in range; with developments in chemicals, with developments in liquid gas—if we go on as we are now, air warfare in the future may well mean the destruction of civilisation as we know it to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1925; col. 2210, Vol. 180.]
  In the light of all this, is it not surprising that any speech should be made in this House which should not show some appreciation of the perils which confront us? I recognise that a large number of speeches do recognise that, but I am afraid that outside the House, and, to some extent in it, the public are not sufficiently awake to the enormous dangers which we are running almost unawares. A passage from Brigadier-General Groves has been quoted to-night which gives in the most lurid colours, in language which, were it not so exceedingly true, might be regarded as melodrama, an account of the way in which gas bombs might be used over London or any other large city in such a way as to make it impossible for the crowded millions of the population to escape a horrible death. I am told some people think the remedy lies in gas masks for babies and small children. That such a suggestion should even be propounded shows the horrible possibilities which still lurk in the civil life of the present day.
  It is as though the whole were walking in its sleep. There is a certain lack of imagination and a certain lack of will, the responsibility for which, I admit, is widely dispersed; but in view of the possibilities which open before us now that at last an attempt is to be made, through the mechanism of the League of Nations, to try to get an understanding for a limitation in the first instance, and subsequently a severe reduction, of this and other forms of armament, I do hope the Government will realise that if they will only step forward boldly they will have the support, not only of their own party, but of the whole country. There arc few enough occasions in the tumult of modern politics when it can be truly said that, if the Government will take a certain course of action, the country will be behind them, but I believe this to be one of those rare occasions. I do not believe a single thoughtful person, or group, or body of interests would come out into the open and denounce a Government which went

  1493
  forward along the line of all-round drastic disarmament with regard to air forces and every form of military expenditure.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Simultaneous disarmament?
  Mr. DALTON: Yes, simultaneously, certainly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman came in after I started to speak. I made it quite clear from the very beginning that I was not speaking, and my hon. Friends behind me were not proposing, any unilateral disarmament by this country, but that all we were asking was that this country should take a bold line in proposing reductions conditional upon other countries falling into line with us; and any consideration which would lead us to make a reduction should also lead other countries to do it, because in the present condition of world trade the question of disarmament, security and economy must appeal exceedingly strongly.
  This, therefore, is my appeal to the Government, that they should recognise that the proposals embodied in the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Ham, are proposals that might well he accepted by this Government and might well be accepted by other Governments who will send representatives to the League of Nations Conference, if only some first step could be taken. With regard to the Navy, the first step was taken in Washington, in 1921, as a result of which it is no longer possible to maintain that further developments with regard to naval disarmament are impracticalble. They have been proved to be practicable. I believe the first step might be taken with regard to air armaments at an early date in connection with this Disarmament Conference, and if the first step were taken, I believe it would lead on, by common consent, and for the benefit of all nations, towards the removal of the terrible burden of taxation, and still more, to the removal of the horrors of a future war in the air, with all the agencies of modern chemistry and bacteriology for the destruction of mankind, towards an end which would be welcomed by all members of the community regardless of their political affiliation.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Member who has just sat down was voicing the opinions that were put forward by the hon. Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) in the Amendment, and I think that no Member of this House will treat lightly the appeal which they made. The memories of the War experience are too recent, and the potentialities for wholesale destruction inherent in the rapid extension and development of the air arm are too apparent for any reasonable person to reject any practical plan that might be put forward for the limitation of so terrible a weapon, and I can confidently say that, quite apart from the earnest desire of the Government to see progress made in the direction of general disarmament, we are seriously anxious to see a limitation of air arms. Unfortunately, difficult as questions of disarmament by land and sea undoubtedly are, the problems of air disarmament are still more complex and difficult, and especially so to us. I do not think it could be within the range of human possibility to wipe out the achievements of the past 25 years, and to abolish the art and science of flying. I do not think that anybody would seriously wish to do so. I do not think the hon. Lady who moved this Amendment would think it anything else but a counsel of perfection impossible of attainment. But, great as is the power of evil which the conquest of the air has placed in the hands of man, it has also conferred upon him opportunities for good in a far greater degree, and I do not think that you could abolish the one, without losing the other.
  10.0 p.m.
  You cannot take advantage of the immense benefits which the development of air transport has conferred upon humanity without running a definite, and, I think, an unavoidable risk. Moreover, both as regards this evil and this good the people of this country are in a very peculiar position. There is no people or group of peoples who stand to gain more by the shortening of space and time which has resulted, and will result still further, from the development of the means of air transport, than have those widely scattered communities which with their vast territories make up the British Empire.

  1495
  On the other hand, no country has its problem of national defence so vitally affected by the development of the air arm. The experience of the War, limited though it may be according to our modern day possibilities, showed us all too clearly what a very vulnerable target of attack was London, which is the political and commercial capital of the Empire.
  Our attitude, therefore, toward the limitation of armaments must be directly controlled, as I think would be the attitude of whatever Government were in power in this country, by two fundamental factors—first of all, the urgent and insistent call of our Empire for the development of aerial transport as a means of communication within the Empire, and, secondly, the no less imperative need of providing adequate protection to the vital centre of our Empire. It follows from these two factors, and also from the further fact that we are not to-day, and we shall not be even if our present expansion programme is completed, by any manner of means the largest Air Force in Europe—it follows we cannot either in justice to our overseas Dominions or with safety to ourselves act alone, or take the initiative on the question of air disarmament. But that does not mean we would not welcome any practical proposal which might be put forward for any air disarmament. Far from it. But the movement must be a general one. It must be based on a formula which is a broad and simple one, which is accepted by all the other air Powers, and which is easy to put into practice.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Why cannot we take the initiative?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I am developing the reason we cannot take the initiative. We cannot, because it is not safe for us to take it.
  Mr. DALTON: Is the hon. Member's argument that it is not safe for us to take the initiative by suggesting such a formula for disarmament to other Powers?
  Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument. What I said was that we shall not be able to get down to the question of air disarmament until we can get a formula which can easily be put into practice and understood by everybody. I hope we may be able to get
  1496
  such a formula, but until we do, I think la must remain the duty of this Government, or of any other Government which might be in power, to take adequate precautions for the safety of the civil population. I need only add on this subject that the provision made for the development of the Royal Air Force cannot fairly be described as provocative or excessive, inasmuch as we are, and shall be when our programme is completed, inferior in the air arm to our nearest Continental neighbour. But, as the hon. Member for Penistone said, the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament is meeting in Geneva in a very few days, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is going, I understand, to put forward very definite proposals of the British Government for disarmament. I think the House realises that it would be impossible to make public these proposals, as it would vitiate, perhaps, a great deal of the chance of success, but I am sure Members of the House realise also that the whole question of disarmament could not be in the hands of a better or more strenuous advocate than the Chancellor of the Duchy, and that he will do everything that lies in his power to try to achieve a definite advance in this matter of disarmament. The hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) put forward the suggestion that all the civil air forces of the world should be under some kind of International Board which would be under the control of the League of Nations. I do not think that those kind of proposals are of any use at the present time. I do not think that, even if you could get them through, they would be of any use. It is far better to move slowly in this question of Government control.
  I should like to turn now to the question of civil aviation, which has had rather a hard time in the House to-day. Some hon. Members have said that we have got too much civil aviation and others have said that we have got too little, and that what we have is rapidly in process of decay. I think, however, that the past year has shown a very steady progress towards the development of that air sense which is so necessary if we are to develop and utilise to the full the material benefits which civil aviation has conferred and will confer on this country and on the Empire. In the first place,

  1497
  there has been a large and very satisfactory increase in the traffic carried by Imperial Airways. Twenty thousand passengers and 498 tons of goods have been carried in the past year, as compared with 14,000 passengers and 454 tons of goods in 1925. The passenger mileage also shows an increase of 41 per cent. and the goods ton mileage an increase of 7 per cent. All this has been accomplished without any accident involving loss of life having taken place. British civil aircraft have flown 2,500,000 miles, which is equivalent to about 10 or 11 trips to the moon and back, with only four accidents involving loss of life. The amount of joy-riding, hon. Members will be glad to hear, was greater than in any previous year, the total mileage flown reaching 215,000 arid the total of passengers reaching 82,000. There has been a considerable awakening of interest in the possibilities of air survey. The Aircraft Operating Company have just despatched an expedition to Northern Rhodesia under contract to carry out a photographic survey of 20,000 square miles of country. Two important exploratory flights were carried out last year by the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services of Australia to the order of an American mining engineer, who was carried as a passenger on each flight.
  The Secretary of State for Air has referred particularly to the very remarkable flight taken in the two light aeroplanes—Moths—from England to India, and I think this constitutes a record for light aeroplanes and is a notable example of the reliability and the efficiency of those small engines. It should also give no small encouragement to those light aeroplane clubs which already exist in this country, and I think it will encourage the formation of a great many more. These light aeroplane clubs are going ahead very fast, and, apart from the six officially assisted clubs, six other clubs have been started independently, and also a private owners' club, and eight others are in contemplation. The number of aircraft registered in the names of clubs and private owners has increased steadily, and on 3lst December last it had reached a total of 58, so that altogether the outlook in this direction is distinctly encouraging. One hon. Member—I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member
  1498
  for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) mentioned the University Squadrons, and said that he had been there himself and had seen how efficient they were. These units were started about a year ago with a maximum number of 25, and halfway through the year this membership was increased to 50. These units have provided excellent candidates for commissions in the Air Force and also in the auxiliary Air Force, and have diffused a general knowledge of and keenness for flying throughout the universities. The total amount of flying done by the Cambridge University Squadron in the course of last year has already reached a total mileage equivalent to once round the world.
  Sir G. BUTLER: Hear, hear!
  Sir P. SASSOON: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge behind me, and I was equally glad to hear the tribute paid to him in this connection a very short time ago. I believe that it is in the diffusion of this air knowledge and air skill among the general population that lies the greatest hope against the misuse of air power. So long as a powerful offensive weapon remains exclusively in the hands of professional armies, there is always the danger that its mere existence will provoke its use. The more general the habit of flying among civilians, the greater will he the number and influence of those who possess the necessary skill to enable them either at once or with a minimum of training to be made available for air defence purposes, and yet possess also the will to peace. If you want peace in the world, I think one of the best ways is to get the different countries to know each other, and there the aeroplane is the hest factor. For the same reason the development in the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force squadrons should present special significance to those know are anxious to maintain peace and to minimise as much as possible the risk of air warfare. Such units are an unfailing defence and the stronger and more efficient they are the more reliability can be placed on them for the defence purpose for which they are designed. The fact that they are included specifically in the air programme shows that the whole aspect of British air power is definitely given a non-aggressive character. While I am mentioning the

  1499
  auxiliary squadron I must point out that I am sorry to see that the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) who made such a good speech this afternoon is not here. I must congratulate him on the fact that he has taken over the command of one of these squadrons. I think the Air Ministry are congratulating themselves also on having secured the assistance of such an efficient commander.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Chatham Division of Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made some inquiries as to what progress had been made with regard to entering machines for the Schneider Cup. We entered three machines through the Royal Aero Club, and whatever the result of the race the fact that we have been building very high speed machines will be valuable because of the experience we shall gain. With regard to accidents we are making progress towards solving the problem. We have been making experiments with slotted wings, with the Pterodactyl and the Cierva. We are making progress with all these machines and we hope to get rood results from them. With further experience of those kind of machines we shall make great strides towards solving the problem of stalling. As far as carrying mails is concerned I think the line chosen from New York to San Francisco is purely a national line and cannot be compared with international lines. We must, however, realise our difficulties in this matter. Not only are there technical difficulties, but the machines that will enable mails to be carried across the Mediterranean have not yet been sufficiently perfected.
  The questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) are of such a highly technical character that I hope he will allow me to study them a little bit more carefully, and then I will send him full answers in writing. I was surprised, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not read these Estimates so closely as he usually does, because had he done so most of the questions which he put about Farnborough would have been unnecessary. The answers to those questions are to be found in Appendix 2 of the Estimates, where I think he would have found all the information he re-
  1500
  quired. The hon. and gallant Member also asked about the super-cut. I may point out that that cat goes over the whole Vote equally, but as a matter of fact the experience of the past has been that it has never limited expenditure on aircraft. The hon. Member who spoke last asked a question about the accident which took place to-day. I should not like to answer that question fully just now because we have not had the report, but the hon. Member may be assured that there was absolutely no question of trying to break the world s record and that does not come in any way in Royal Air Force training. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) said that all alcoholic liquor should he prohibited in the Air Service.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
  Captain GARRO-JONES: That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. [Laughter.] I regard this as a very serious matter, and it must be so regarded. What I said was that it ought to be laid down that no flying officer should be allowed to take alcoholic liquor on any day before he has finished flying on that day.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I am very sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I did think he said that. We are very anxious and careful to see that there should be as little drinking as possible in the Air Force, and I think there is very little drinking. If the hon. and gallant Member saw the wine bills of Air Force officers, I think he would agree that that is so, and that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would also agree.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will read what I said to-morrow. It was a lot more than that.
  Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. and gallant Member, who was in the Air Force, knows that drunkenness is an offence under the Air Force Regulations, and it is very carefully watched. I am sure he would be the first to realise and admit that. I think I have answered most of the questions that have been raised. There will be an opportunity on the Report stage of answering any that have not been adequately dealt with, and I

  1501
  hope the House will now agree to the Motion, in order that we may get on with the Votes.
  Mr. W. BAKER: May I have an answer on the question that I raised?
  Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with that question. The hon. Member asked, in particular, about an official of the Air Ministry who held a directorship. The official in question was not a permanent civil servant. He was in the service of the Air Ministry on short notice of, I think, six months, and his position was quite distinct from that of a permanent civil servant. Before he accepted the appointment under the Air Ministry, he was already a director of the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It would not be in accordance with the rules in a Government Department to ask such an official to resign a directorship, in view of the fact that he was only temporarily employed. Moreover, he was not in any way connected with the Contract Department of the Air Ministry and it would have been quite impossible for him in his official capacity to have any relations with the company of which he was a director. If there had been the least risk of that happening, no doubt he would have resigned his position, either on the board of the company or in the service of the Air Ministry. The case is not peculiar. There have been other cases of the same kind in the Government service, and the Air Ministry have been acting in strict accordance with the general rule which has been in existence, not only under this Government, but under the Government
  of hon. Gentlemen opposite and all previous Governments.
  Mr. BAKER Mr. BAKER: May I ask a further question? I referred to three separate and distinct cases, and I was not making it a party question. If it had been the last Government, I should have condemned them just as much. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's reply referred to each of the separate cases to which I referred, and does it mean that what is not permissible in the case of a permanent civil servant is permissible in the case of a temporary civil servant?
  Sir S. HOARE: I do not know whether I am in order in answering that question, but certainly the case of a temporary official must be regarded differently from the case of a permanent official. Obviously, if a man is in employment which he may lose in six months' time, his position is different from that of a man who has security of employment for the whole of his life. The hon. Gentleman, I remember—I am sorry I forgot it—did allude to another case, but that case was quite different. There there were allegations of improper action, but I do not think myself that the allegations were proved. At the same time, we thought it right to accept the resignations of the two officials concerned. There is no contradiction between the two cases.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 112.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES.

  [10.26 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Alnsworth, Major Charles

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Albery, Irving James

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Burman, J. B.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

  Atkinson, C.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Dixey, A. C.

  Balniel, Lord

  Campbell, E. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.M.)

  Bethel, A.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Brass, Captain W.

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

  Fielden, E. B.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Forrest, W

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lougher, L.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Gates, Percy

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon, George Abraham

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sandon, Lord

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

  Savery, S. S.

  Golf, Sir Park

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sheffield, Sir- Berkeley

  Grace, John

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Smith, R- W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlnt, C.)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Malone, Major p. B.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meller, R. J.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Storry- Deans, R.

  Harland, A.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hilton, Cecil

  Neville, R. J.

  Vaughan-Morgen, Col. K. P.

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

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

  Wallace, Captain O, E.

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

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

  Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingstonon-Hull)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Watts, Dr. T,

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

  Oakley, T.

  Wells, S. R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Withers, John James

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Phllipson, Mabel

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

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

  Radford, E A.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Jacob A. E.

  Ramsden, E.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Reld, D. D. (County Down)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Remer, J. R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.&

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Cope.

  NOES.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Gillett, George M.

  Lansbury, George

  Baker, Walter

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawrence, Susan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Greenall, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Barr, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Batty, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lowth, T.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Groves, T.

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvill)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Bromley, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  March, S.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hardle, George D,

  Montague, Frederick

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Naylor, T. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Oliver, George Harold

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Palln, John Henry

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Paling, W.

  Connolly, M.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Potts, John S.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Richardson, R. (Houghten-le-Spring)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Ritson, I.

  Dennison, R.

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

  Duncan, C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Rose, Frank H.

  1504

  1505

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Sullivan, J,

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Scurr, John

  Sutton, J. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Sexton, James

  Taylor, R. A.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Whiteley, W.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Thurtte, Ernest

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wlison, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Viant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Supply considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOYE in the Chair.]

  NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000, 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, 1928."
  Mr. GILLETT: I want to say at once that I am exceedingly disappointed we have had no answer from the Under-Secretary of State to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). The Air Minister must understand that the members of the Public Accounts Committee think that his Department is the worst managed that comes before it, and he simply cannot ignore the criticisms which have been made this evening simply because they have been made by one Member only. The facts are well known to his own supporters, who will no doubt give him privately the opinions they have expressed in the Committee. No notice is taken of these criticisms. Only one point is answered by the Air Minister, and the Under-Secretary does not even attempt to answer the other points. I want to bring before the Committee some of the points we had before the Public Accounts Committee, because it seems to me that if hon. Members knew some of the things that are going on they cannot view them with any more satisfaction than members of the Public Accounts Committee. There is the practice of the Ministry to pay out money to contractors at the end of the financial year. This was not only done in the year mentioned by the hon. Member for East Bristol, it was done the year after to an amount of £300,000. It
  1506
  has been done not once but twice. It may be said that ultimately this money goes to the contractor, but it indicates that the financial arrangements of the Ministry are not satisfactory. If we begin to look into other points which came before us there is the practice of contracts being given without any tender being invited. I put a question to the Minister on Tuesday and asked him how many tenders of £50,000 or over during the present year had been put out without open competition or competition of any kind, and the answer I received was that the number was 21. If the amount was only for £50,000 then during the present year over £1,000,000 has been put up during the present year without tenders and without competition.
  My experience of this House is short, but I have been a member of the London County Council for 12 or 14 years, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of thing would not be tolerated for a moment by the London County Council. We know perfectly well that once this sort of thing begins you have no check over what is going on. I would not serve on a Committee, and I would not he a Minister responsible for a Department, which is giving out tenders to this amount without putting them up to solve sort of competition. I have heard it suggested that the figure is more like £4,000,000 than £1,000,000, and I should like to put a question to the right lion. Gentleman as to whether that is the case or not. I have not had it officially, but I have heard it suggested that £4,000,000 has been spent in his Department without tenders being invited. And we are told that an official, temporary or otherwise, can be an official of his department and at the same time a director of a private company. I confess I heard the answer of the Air Minister with amazement, and I have heard his defence with

  1507
  equal amazement this evening. Over and over again public opinion has insisted that Ministers should be quite clear of any business connection; how much more important is it that any official should be clear? If a man is a director of a private company, why is he put in the position of being a temporary official of the Air Ministry? That is a point that I put to the Minister. If the Minister says that he is a director of this company, I say to the Minister that if this man wanted to become an official of the Ministry, even for a short time, the point ought to have been put to him and he ought to have been asked whether he was prepared to give up his directorship. If it was not worth this man's while to give up his directorship it was not worth the Minister's while to appoint him to the position that he occupies.
  Things like that, case after case, came before us as a Public Accounts Committee. It was not one thing, but all sorts of things. For instance, take just a small matter. We found that in one centre a small sum of money was owed by a contractor. In another part of the Ministry the position was reversed and the Ministry owed money to the contractor. What took place? The Ministry paid the contractor without making certain whether the contractor owed money to the Ministry. In that case, unfortunately for the Ministry, the contractor failed. Therefore what happened was that the Ministry had paid the contractor his debt, but the contractor's debt of about £400 to the Ministry, which might have been deducted from the money paid to him, was lost. I do not wish to lay stress upon such a case and would not mention it now if it had been a single case. But when you find all these things coming up you naturally ask whether there is anyone in the Ministry who is seriously considering the financial side at all.
  I wish to thank the Minister for one thing, and it is the only thing for which I shall thank him. It is, that as a result of an interview with him he did agree to give us some more information in regard to the cost of some of the schools which are being run by the Ministry. But the information was such that it made one rather wonder once again what oversight the Ministry has over
  1508
  some of the Departments under its care. We are told that at the staff college at Andover it costs £538 a year for the education of each of the cadets or officers in training. An extraordinary fact of it is that the Dominions pay only £400 for such training. It seems that the Dominions think it ought to be done for £400. Compare the figure of £538 with the figure of some other colleges like Sandhurst and Woolwich. We find that at Sandhurst the cost is £425 a year and at Woolwich £487. It may be that there is some special explanation for the difference. I understand that in the figures I have quoted there is nothing allowed for the cost of the aeroplanes. Why is the figure so high? Can the Secretary of State give us any explanation?
  The points which those of us who are Members of the Public Accounts Committee have been specially anxious to bring before the Minister are not new points. A Treasury Minute was passed on 1st January, 1926, saying that the Lords of the Treasury shared the concern of the Committee at the absence of effective competition for supplies of aircraft and engines for the Air Service. This is therefore a matter in which the Committee have received the backing of the Treasury, and what is required is that the Minister who has made a very successful tour abroad should, now that he has come home, look into his own Department. If things of this sort are to go on the reputation of the Ministry will suffer exceedingly, and it is most important that such things should be brought to an end. What I dislike—I was going to say even more than the fact that the things exist —is the fact that when they are raised in this House the Minister and his colleagues seem unwilling to answer the questions which are put to them. If some of the Labour boards of guardians which hon. Members opposite arc so anxious to attack were getting out tenders without any competitive system, or if they had officials who were also directors, one knows what the Conservative Press would say. It would be just as well for the Conservative party and the Minister to see that their own hands are clean before they begin to lecture us on this side of the House. The Minister would do well to go more closely into this question than

  1509
  he seems inclined to do and he should at any rate allow us to have an answer here to the points which have been raised.
  Captain FRASER: I desire to ask the Minister a question with regard to certain members of the staff of the Ministry. It appears that the Lytton Committee, confirmed by the Southborough Committee, recommended that in certain appointments where technical or semi-technical knowledge was required of a kind which a civil servant would not be expected to possess, the appointments should be given to ex-service civil servants who were occupying temporary posts in the Ministry instead of seeking for suitable persons outside—provided always that the ex-service men were fully competent. It appears that the Air Ministry have interpreted that recommendation in a manner which is not so generous as some of us would like. There are obviously two ways of interpreting it. You can seek throughout the country for someone who is a little more competent than the man in your Department and you will almost certainly find him, and you can give him the job. Alternatively, if you are generously minded, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is, you can see whether in the Department there is not someone who is fully competent, even if he is not quite so competent as someone you can find by searching the length and breadth of the country. Certain cases have been brought to my notice which, after careful perusal, have assured me that the sympathetic treatment which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would desire has not been given. I ask him if he will receive a deputation from the association which represents these men and hear their case. If he is kind enough to give me an answer, he may say that he assures the Committee that nothing of the kind happens in his Department. I hope he will not give that assurance before he has met this deputation and heard their point of view.
  Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) has just raised a question to which I have given a great deal of attention since I went to the Air Ministry. I have gone into particulars of these cases myself, and I think I can say that in the matter of the employment of ex-service men, the
  1510
  Air Ministry has as good a record as, if not a better record than, any other Department. I think there is a higher percentage of ex-service men in the Air Ministry than in any other great Department of the State. I have always tried—I will not say to weigh the scales —but, at any rate, to give the ex-service men in the Department the very best possible chance of permanent employment. My hon. and gallant Friend says that there are certain eases which have been brought to his attention in which he thinks that has not been done. I shall be delighted if he will discuss those eases with me, and I will undertake to go into them personally myself and if any injustice has been done, which I do not think can have been the case, I will see that it is put right.
  The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) gave me and my Department a very bad character. He said we were the worse Department in the view of the Public Accounts Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"} I see there is another hon. Gentleman who seems to share that view. I attach a great deal of importance to the views of a Committee of one's colleagues like the Public Accounts Committee. The members of it will remember that I met the Committee last year and discussed with them at great length the questions which the hon. Member and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) have raised this evening. On certain of these questions the Public Accounts Committee made suggestions where they thought that the procedure of the Air Ministry might be improved. I have given the fullest attention to the recommendations they made and in more than one respect, and in very material respects, we have already carried out those recommendations. The hon. Member mentioned two or three specific points. He mentioned, first of all, the payment of advances to contractors. The payment that we make as advance payment to contractors is made under rules actually laid clown by the Public Accounts Committee. I do not think I could give a more complete answer to the hon. Member's charge than that.
  Mr. GILLETT: May I suggest to the Minister that his Department last year had no power to be paying what they did, whether the rules were laid down by the

  1511
  Public Accounts Committee or not. I put it to the Minister that his Department exceeded the powers which they had in paying this money.
  Sir S. HOARE: I repeat that advance payments are made actually under rules approved by the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. GILLETT: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Auditor-General suggested that there was no power and they exceeded their powers in making payments as soon as they found they had exceeded the amount of the Estimate.
  Sir S. HOARE: It is rather difficult to argue the details of this matter across the Floor of the House. My view does not agree with that of the hon. Member opposite. I repeat that advance payments are made under rules approved by the Public Accounts Committee and we have a right to make them. Then the hon. Member raised another question, namely the fact that the Air Ministry gives a number of orders without open tender. I should like to say that as regards open tenders in the case of our orders, the difficulty is that the Air Ministry, in the nature of things in a technical service like this, is dealing time after time with patents and proprietary articles. Take a single and most conspicuous instance, that of proprietary designs in machines and engines. It is practically impossible in many orders, some of them substantial orders, which the Ministry gives in the course of the year, to have open tenders for proprietary articles of that kind. I can assure him that wherever it is possible to have open tenders I, personally, welcome them. Then he raised a further question about the cost of the educational establishments of the Air Force, and he quoted the case of Cranwell.
  Mr. GILLETT: No, Andover.
  Sir S. HOARE: I think the hon. Member will find that our cost compares very favourably with the cost of the staff colleges of the other services, and if he will go into the details I think he will find that there is no extravagance connected with Andover or any other educational establishment under the Air Ministry.
  1512
  Underlying his criticisms, there is a suggestion that the Air Ministry is more extravagant than the other Departments. My answer to that would be that we have had inquiry after inquiry into the organisation of the Air Ministry and into almost every feature of its activities. I will only mention one inquiry, that of the Colwyn Committee a year ago, and every one of those inquiries, so far from substantiating the charges made by the hon. Member, have given us a very good character. That being so, I do not take quite the black view of myself and my Department that the hon. Member opposite seems to take. I believe we can stand criticism, not only on the points of detail he has raised, but upon the broad lines of policy on which the greater part of our expenditure is made.

  PAY, &C., OF THE AIR FORCE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3.160,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and Abroad, will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."
  Captain GARRO-JONES: There are only two items which I wish to deal on this Vote with, anal the first is one of £12,000, which has been paid to the Dominions as capitation payments for training of officers. Surely, at a time when the Dominions are expected to contribute a greater share towards Imperial defence, such an item should not appear, and I hope it will not appear on the Estimates very long after this year.
  The CHAIRMAN: To what item does the hon. and gallant it Member refer?
  11.0 p.m.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: To Vote 1, Sub-head D. There is one other item, and that is under Miscellaneous Receipts, £22,000. This is an appropriation-in-aid, and not an expenditure. This sum of £22,000 was received by the Air Ministry from airmen who purchased their discharge—it, I should guess, is only a small proportion of the amount—and from airmen in the shape of fines and mulcts of pay. I wish to record a protest against these petty monetary inflictions upon aircraftsmen in the Royal Air Force. It is a bad principle which exists in all three fighting Services. If a soldier comes late on

  1513
  parade, or fails to clean his buttons, or overstays his leave by a few hours, he is brought before his commanding officer and fined two or three or four days' pay, and at times a month's pay. That is a very mean thing. When a man gets only 2s. a day and depends on it for his pocket money, and the little luxuries he gets with his pay, it is a mean and contemptible thing to take his pay for minor offences. I should like to see the system abolished throughout the Services. It gives rise to a great deal of justifiable discontent, and I commend it to the notice of the Secretary of State. Finally, I want to say that I hope the Votes dealing with the Air Ministry and Civil Aviation will not be rushed through as these other Votes are. We regard the Air Ministry as being badly run in many respects, and wastefully run, and there are many points which hon. Members want to raise.
  Sir S. HOARE: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman there is no question of taking either the Air Ministry Vote or the Civil Aviation Vote to-night. So far as I. remember, the Air Ministry Vote—at any rate the salary of the Secretary of State—is kept open practically the whole Session. As to the two points he raised I do not agree with him as to the objectionable character of those small fines. I should have thought small fines would be regarded as better than confinement in barracks and other forms of military punishment. Anyhow, it is a question that does not concern my Department in particular but the whole of the three Services. With regard to the question about the payment to the Australian Government for the training of Air Force officers here, that payment is a part of the arrangements we make for co-operation between ourselves and the various Dominions. It suits Australia that we should train a certain number of Australians here, and that they should then go back to serve in Australia. It is a payment towards the cost of training those officers, in the same way that we make payments either to Australia or to some of the other Dominions. This is merely an example of the general system of co-operation which we try to adopt and the interchange of personnel between ourselves and the Air Forces of other parts of the Empire.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: I think there is some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member opposite in talking about deductions from pay for trivial offences. My recollection is—I have not looked up the point—that a serving soldier can only be fined in one or two clearly defined cases, and only forfeits his pay if he is absent without leave. Trivial fines of the kind indicated cannot legally be imposed.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. and gallant Member says only in cases of absence without leave. I believe it goes further than that. He is depending on his recollection, as I am. I wonder if that principle were accepted in this House—[Interruption.] The same principle should apply in all these matters. As far as Australia is concerned, Australia of all countries ought to be content to pay her share of the cost of training the Air Force, because the Dominion Government of Australia is going to benefit as largely, or more largely from the development of civil aviation than any other Dominion, and I express the hope again that this item will not appear in any future Estimates.
  Sir J. NALL: I claim the indulgence of the Committee to say another word, because it is not good enough for the hon. and gallant Member to snake the statement he now makes, which he admits is entirely from recollection. As a matter of fact, a man Call only be fined if convicted of drunkenness. His pay can be stopped if he be absent without leave, or damages property. In no other case can he be fined.

  WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, he 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, 1928."
  Mr. GILLETT: There is one point I would like to put to the Minister, and that is whether in the arrangement of the accounts it would not be possible to make a list of the new proposals that are not actually before the House, because it seems to me that while we are

  1515
  only voting a sum of £163,000 this year for nine of the schemes I have taken out, the Committee ought to realise that it is pledging itself to an expenditure of £1,900,000, because we are agreeing to the commencement of some building or the reconstruction of some building, for instance, one at Singapore, and I should have been glad to know whether this is the whole expenditure involved. This year we are only going to spend £15,000, but are making ourselves liable for £221,000. The point I am putting is whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to have one list made up showing what the new schemes are, the actual sum for which we are making ourselves liable, and also giving us a little information about this large expenditure we are undertaking at the present time in Singapore.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. We have given the ultimate cost of these items.
  Mr. GILLETT: What I meant was that amongst the schemes some are old schemes, and some new. I wanted to know whether the Minister would take out the actual new proposals, because, in some cases, we are voting amounts for schemes never passed, and some for schemes about to finish, and all is muddled together. Could we have the actual new schemes not before the House put separately, so that the House might see what the new schemes arc going to cost?
  Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Estimates he will see he has them. The new scheme is quite obviously a new scheme. I should have thought the columns give all the information any hon. Member could require. The ultimate expenditure at Singapore will of course be a great deal more than £15,000. This is a small sum. I could not give the general figure offhand, and if he will put the question down I will see if I can give an answer to it.

  QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,365,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
  1516
  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, 1928."

  TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,424,000, be 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, 1928."
  Captain GARRO-JONES: It is very difficult for us in this short time to pick out the most serious items of expenditure here, but may I refer to two matters which I think require explanation? On page 22 there is an item, "High Altitude Training Chamber, £4,250," and another, "Seaplane Testing Tank, £15,00." I have had some personal experience of high-altitude testing chambers in the United States, and, instead of costing £4,250, they put it, in the United States, into the corner of an ordinary army hut and carried the tests out efficiently. I would like to know what a seaplane testing tank is and why it should cost so large a sum as this. Could the tests not be done equally well in a quiet corner at Southampton? Those items seem to indicate that there is extravagance in the Department.
  Sir S. HOARE: A high-altitude training-chamber permits training for very difficult and dangerous work that has to be done by pilots flying at very great heights. I should certainly have thought that the figure which is mentioned is by no means excessive. It did not seem to me a very high sum. A seaplane testing tank is required for model tests for seaplanes. One of the difficulties of seaplane research at the present moment is that there is not sufficient tank accommodation for the tests which we find it necessary to make. It is an expensive equipment, and I think if the hon. and gallant Member looked into it he would find the sum here is not excessive.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I know how the work of the high altitude training was carried out in the United States. In regard to the seaplane testing tank, I will

  1517
  be glad if the hon. Baronet will give me the information which I desire on this item.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining orders were read and postponed.

BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE, SCOTLAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: In the ten minutes that are left, it would be quite impossible for me either to state the situation that was raised by me yesterday in a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the dispute in the building trade in Glasgow and which was to have been discussed last night. Owing to the manner in which the House suddenly adjourned last night, and the fact that the Minister was taken unawares, I agreed to postpone it until to-night under the impression that should have a suitable opportunity to state the whole position and have a full reply from the Minister. The ten minutes left to me now are wholly inadequate to do justice either to the principle of the case or to the situation. After this I shall not consult the convenience of any Minister when I have any question to raise on the Adjournment, and whether he is here or not to answer I shall state the case and leave him to furnish the reasons why he is not present. If this dispute is not settled by Tuesday, I shall take occasion to raise the whole question and have a full debate on the subject. I could not allow the Motion for the Adjournment to pass without stating what I feel on the matter. I hope the dispute will he finished this week, but if it is not I shall do what I can next week to raise this question on every possible occasion which the Rides of the House allow.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I regret just as much as the hon. Gentleman that he had not a full opportunity to-night of dealing with this matter, about which I know he feels very
1518
keenly. I agree that there is no time to go fully into it, but I might perhaps tell him that yesterday we saw representatives of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives, who fully explained the position to us then. Last night, by the night train, we sent down one of our principal officers from the Ministry, and to-day he has seen the employers. Up to a very short time ago—I made special inquiries in order to give the hon. Gentleman, if I could, the latest information—we had received no report of what may have happened today, and so, in these circumstances, it is obvious that my right hon. Friend cannot make any statement or say anything with regard to any future action that it may be advisable to take, until he has received the official report of what took place to-day. I should be only too glad to keep the hon. Gentleman informed as to the latest developments, and, if he desires to raise it next week, I or my right hon. Friend will be happy to tell him what the position next week may be. That is the position so far as I know it now.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? He says that last night, by the night train, an official of the Ministry of Labour went North, and was in consultation with the employers. Can he tell the House what powers the Minister of Labour gave to the official who went North, or whether that official has any powers, or whether he is only to see the employers, or whether he has been given power to hold an inquiry on the spot?
Mr. BETTERTON: No; the decision as to whether an inquiry will be held, which is a matter which I do not prejudge or express any opinion about one way or the other, is obviously a decision which must be taken by my right hon. Friend himself. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman asks whether the official who went down last night had direct authority to offer an inquiry, the answer is in the negative, because that decision which, together with any other action that my right hon. Friend may take, must be taken by him after he has heard the report, which I hope we shall receive tomorrow.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I take it that this official has been sent only to gather

1519
information and submit that information to the Minister, and that he has no powers apart from the right to consult with the employers and the operatives in this dispute, and report the results of his inquiries to the Minister of Labour?
Mr. BETTERTON: What this officer went down to do was to obtain, if I may so put it, the point of view of the employers. Yesterday we received the point of view of the operatives, and my right hon. Friend quite naturally and properly wants to get both points of view before taking his decision.
Mr. MACLEAN: Have you instructed him to consult with the National Federation of Building Contractors—from whom this small section that is responsible for this dispute, broke away—to find out what was the national agreement arrived at between the National Federation of Building Contractors and the building operatives?
Mr. BETTERTON: That I cannot answer definitely, but I think probably he is consulting only with the section that broke away. The hon. Member is right when he says that they did break away some 18 months ago. I accept what he said about the breakaway 18 months ago. That is undisputed. So far as I know on the question of fact there is no dispute at all.
Mr. MACLEAN: This is a very essential point. If the official of the Ministry is only going to take the point of view of this small section of employers who are responsible for the dispute, which now effects the craftsmen as well as the labourers who were originally affected. He is coming back with the point of view of this small section of building operatives. He is not getting the point of view of the main body of building contractors who are still associated with the Building Trades' Federation, that is, the contractors' assocation. If the instruction has not been given to him before he went, and if he is not coming back this week, instructions might well he sent to
1520
him the first thing to-morrow morning to find out from the secretary of the main body of building contractors what is their view of the situation.
Undoubtedly if this dispute goes on it will not confine itself merely to one section of the building trade, but it is likely to extend to those other contractors who are not affected in any way and who want to observe and act loyally by agreements they have entered into with the employers and the trade unions, but who may find themselves in difficulties over which they have no control and for which they are not responsible. I think if he gets the point of view of the responsible people in that section of the building trade and who are responsible for the national agreement, it would assist the Minister of Labour in coming to a decision on the matter.
Mr. BETTERTON: I shall certainly tell my right hon. Friend to-morrow morning exactly what my hon. Friend has said, and I have not the least doubt that if he thinks it would help him, as indeed well it might, to get the views of the larger body to which the hon. Member refers, he will take steps to get them. I will certainly represent that to my right hon. Friend to-morrow morning.
Mr. DUNCAN: May I inquire whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to give any report on this matter to-morrow when the House reassembles or at the end of the sitting in case there is any report on the visit of the Minister's official? There may have been considerable developments which have taken place in the meantime.
Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly represent that also to my right hon. Friend and if there is anything to report to-morrow I will tell the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). My only desire is to put the hon. Member and the House in full possession of the farts as I know them.
Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HOSPITALS.
  HOSPITALS.
  LIGHT METAL LIMBS.
  LIGHT METAL LIMBS.
EDUCATION.
  BLIND CHILDREN.
  BLIND CHILDREN.
  SIZE OF CLASSES (STAFFORDSHIRE).
  SIZE OF CLASSES (STAFFORDSHIRE).
  CHRISTCHURCH AND ST. AUGUSTINE'S SCHOOLS, RAMSGATE.
  CHRISTCHURCH AND ST. AUGUSTINE'S SCHOOLS, RAMSGATE.
INDIA.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY, PUNJAB.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY, PUNJAB.
  TRADES UNION ACT.
  TRADES UNION ACT.
  PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS (OFFICIAL MEMBERS).
  PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS (OFFICIAL MEMBERS).
  CHINA (TRADE UNIONISM).
  CHINA (TRADE UNIONISM).
  GERMANY (ARMY OF OCCUPATION).
  GERMANY (ARMY OF OCCUPATION).
  ANCIENT ORDER OF FROTH BLOWERS.
  ANCIENT ORDER OF FROTH BLOWERS.
  NORTH LONDON POLICE COURT (SENTENCE).
  NORTH LONDON POLICE COURT (SENTENCE).
  HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCES.
  HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCES.
  TAXIMETER CABS.
  TAXIMETER CABS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS).
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  DISPUTE (PRISONERS).
  DISPUTE (PRISONERS).
  RISCA COLLIERIES, MONMOUTH.
  RISCA COLLIERIES, MONMOUTH.
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  FIREMEN AND EXAMINERS.
  FIREMEN AND EXAMINERS.
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES.
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (PRINTING).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (PRINTING).
  WIRELESS LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
  WIRELESS LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
POOR LAW.
  RELIEF.
  RELIEF.
  CASUAL WARD, GLOUCESTER (DEATH).
  CASUAL WARD, GLOUCESTER (DEATH).
  BLIND PERSONS.
  BLIND PERSONS.
  RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
  RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  DAIRIES.
  DAIRIES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (REGIONAL DENTAL OFFICERS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (REGIONAL DENTAL OFFICERS).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  KENYA NATIVE LANDS TRUST.
  KENYA NATIVE LANDS TRUST.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SHROPSHIRE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SHROPSHIRE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Desborough, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain burial grounds to the Welsh Church Representative Body, and to declare the law with respect to burial grounds transferred to that body; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MAIDSTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH STAFFOEDSHTRE MOND GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PRO VISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this Bill arises out of difficulties in Poor Law administration in Scotland consequent upon differences in the Poor Law in Scotland and England. These difficulties were rendered acute by a decision in the Court of Session, in December last, declaring illegal the Poor Law relief which had been provided by parish councils in Scotland to the dependants of

425
the legality of giving relief in Scotland to the dependants of persons involved in the trade dispute was not free from doubt. They decided, however, that, in a dispute equally affecting England and Scotland, it would be administratively impossible to maintain a position under which the dependants of strikers in England could be relieved out of the poor rates, in terms of the judgment in the well-known Merthyr Tydvil case, while similar dependants in Scotland could not be so relieved. It would have been unthinkable, having regard to the legal position in England, that Scottish wives and children should be allowed to suffer physical and possibly mental deterioration through lack of food. The Government had also to consider the maintenance of law and order in the mining communities. A denial to Scottish dependants of what was regarded as a right to English dependants might have had serious consequences. A hungry populace, smarting under a sense of injustice, would continually have been a potential, and possibly an actual, source of danger to property. These considerations and many others led the Government to take the course which they did and the circular which was issued to parish councils in Scotland was, in essentials, similar to that issued at the same time to boards of guardians in England.
Most parish councils acted on the suggestion contained in the Government circular and granted relief to wives and children in cases where acute destitution threatened to cause suffering, and from such investigations as have been made as to the results of the action taken, it would appear that the physical condition of the wives and children has not deteriorated. One effect of the circular was also to secure a much more uniform administration of relief in the different parishes than would have been the case if the circular had not been issued. Parish councils, on the whole, are to be congratulated on the manner in which the relief was administered. Inquiry by officers of the Scottish Board of Health shows that the local administration was carried out with care and discrimination and that all possible means were taken to limit the relief to cases of real destitution. The total expenditure on the relief in question is estimated at £650,000.
426
Before proceeding to describe the details of the Bill, it may be expedient to state briefly the conditions to be fulfilled before a person is entitled to poor relief in Scotland. Prior to 1921 there was no power to give relief to an able-bodied person in Scotland; in other words, before an applicant was qualified for relief he had to be disabled as well as destitute. But in that year, owing to the widespread unemployment with its accompanying distress which emerged after the War, the Government of the day decided that it was necessary to extend the Scottish Poor Law so as to enable relief to be given to the able-bodied as it had been given in England since the time of Queen Elizabeth. The Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, was therefore passed and it authorised relief to able-bodied persons who satisfied the parish council that they were "destitute and unable to obtain employment." That Act, as its title signifies, is a temporary Act and has been renewed from time to time.
The provision in the Bill now under consideration which authorises relief being given to the dependants of able-bodied persons involved in a trade dispute, as was pointed out by the Lord Advocate in another place on February 22 last, is really an ancillary part of the 1921 Act, designed to assimilate Scottish law and practice more closely to those which obtain in England. But while this is so, it should be observed that there will still remain very important differences between the Poor Law systems of the two countries and that complete assimilation of the Scottish system with that of England (even if such were desirable) would involve radical changes in the administration and machinery of poor relief in Scotland. There are quite a number of things in Scotland that are so different to the English form that it would be very difficult to assimilate the two forms of relief. For instance, in Scotland the institution of some form of work test and training facilities would be necessary. These are entirely absent in Scotland. At present the Poor Law authorities do not even possess the machinery of the English workhouse and compulsory powers for the detention of inmates, as well as penal provisions, such as are possessed by boards of guardians in England, would be necessary. Moreover, the

427
area of administration in Scotland is still the parish, which is much too small an area for providing effectively for the care and maintenance of the able-bodied poor. Changes of so important a character would, however, he quite inappropriate to a temporary Bill such as that now under consideration, the provisions of which are to expire on May 15, 1930.
Clause 1 legalises the expenditure which, as already mentioned, was incurred on the Government's suggestion and has since been declared by the Courts to be illegal. The clause also provides that relief may lawfully be paid to the destitute dependants of strikers in any further trade disputes that may arise between now and 1930. I know it is often said that this Bill is a very good thing as far as the past is concerned. That has been said to me by several people, who think it ought not to be extended to 1930. I should like to point out to your Lordships that if another strike were to occur between now and 1930 exactly the same position would arise and the parish councils would come once again to the Board of Health and ask for exactly the same advice and assistance as they have had at this time. The reason for making this further provision is that, as previously indicated, the maintenance of a different position in Scotland from that in England could not be justified. The Government feel it to be necessary to bring the laws of the two countries more nearly into line, and they propose that the Scottish law should be amended so as to bring it more into conformity with the English law in this respect. As a further approach towards uniformity in the two countries, the Bill, in Clause 3, empowers a parish council to give relief on loan.
Clause 2 provides for payment out of Exchequer funds of a grant equal to 40 per cent. of the expenditure which was incurred in the provision of relief to miners' dependants during the recent dispute. The parish councils have made representations to the effect that as expenditure was incurred on the Government's recommendation it should be met wholly out of Government funds. The Government cannot agree to accept complete financial responsibility, nor do they agree with the implication in the parish council's representations that the expenditure incurred was wholly due to the Government's action in issuing the
428
circular. In many cases the parish councils merely anticipated by a few days the payment of relief that they would have been bound to give under the law as it at present stands. It has always been recognised in the practice of the Scottish Poor Law that relief to a destitute able-bodied man without other means of subsistence cannot be withheld for more than the few days, or perhaps the few hours, that separate a condition of able-bodiedness from that of disability due to lack of food. Recognising this, the Central Department., so long ago as 1878, advised Scottish Poor Law authorities that in considering the question of disability in the case of a person really destitute the letter of the law should not be carried to an extreme, but that immediate relief should be afforded without waiting for the actual physical disability that would arise from lack of food.
Having regard to the practice which has obtained for nearly half a century therefore, it may confidently be assumed that parish councils, on their own initiative and without any special instructions from the Board of Health, would in many cases have afforded relief to the dependants of men involved in the trade dispute. As a matter of fact, members of a deputation recently received by the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that they would have done so. The expenditure incurred in so doing would have been entirely borne by the local rates. Moreover, in cases where parish councils had not relieved in that way, the physical condition of the children would have compelled education authorities and public health authorities to provide food under their statutory powers to much larger numbers of children than was found to be necessary under the procedure actually adopted in the recent dispute. So far as the education authorities are concerned the whole of their extra expenditure, and so far as the public health authorities are concerned one-half of their extra expenditure, would have been a charge on the local rates.
While His Majesty's Government cannot accept complete financial responsibility, they recognise a moral obligation on their part, owing to their circular and other reasons, to meet a portion of the expense that was incurred on their advice which the Court has subsequently declared

429
to have been incorrect. They also recognise that is is impracticable, by means of retrospective legislation, to recover any of the relief from its recipients in Scotland such as is now being done by boards of guardians in England under their powers of giving relief on loan. In the circumstances, therefore, the Government have decided to make a grant to parish councils equal to 40 per cent. of their expenditure in so far as the same shall he approved by the Board of Health. In arriving at that figure, the Government have had in mind not only the amount of relief that might have had to be given by parish councils in any event, but also the fact that by obtaining the grant, which is partly to compensate them for having had no power to give any of the relief on loans, the councils will be saved the expense and delay of recovering loans by small amounts spread over considerable periods.
Clause 3 confers on parish councils a power to give relief on loan in cases where they so direct, one object of this being to maintain to some extent at least the personal liability of the head of the household for the maintenance of his dependants and also to protect, as far as possible the interests of the ratepayers. Under the clause as it stands, that discretionary power may be exercised in respect of any relief which parish councils may give, including relief to the non-able-bodied poor under the Poor Law Act, 1845, but the Government propose to put down an Amendment to limit the exercise of the discretion in the case of relief under the 1845 Act to cases where relief is originally given either under the 1921 Act or under the Bill and where, owing to a change in circumstances, the case may develop into one where relief is, or could be, given under the Act of 1845.
This limited application to ordinary poor relief is necessary to avoid administrative difficulties which would arise through the case falling now under one and then under another of the Statutory provisions. The procedure for the recovery of relief on loan will be the same as for the recovery of an ordinary debt. For instance, if we were to cut out from this clause the power to give relief on loan under the 1845 Act, administrative difficulties would arise in this way. A man in receipt of relief which had been
430
given on loan under the 1921 Act becomes disabled, firstly, by sickness. Therefore he would be a proper object of relief under the 1845 Act. On his recovery, still being unemployed, he would again come under the 1921 Act. These changes from the 1921 Act to the 1845 Act, or these cases of "ins" and "outs" as they may be called, would be a source of great administrative trouble to parish councils. It is for this reason that we are not able to exclude the 1845 Act altogether.
I come now to Clause 4 of the Bill. On account of the continuance of trade depression, it is necessary to extend for a further period the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Act of 1921, which expires normally on May 15 next. It is proposed to continue it until May 15, 1930, without amendment, except as regards the power to give relief on loan which has already been referred to. Clause 4 further provides that the Bill now under consideration will also continue in force until that date. They are thus both temporary measures. The provisions which they contain will have to be reconsidered before 1930 and dealt with as part of the general question of reform of the Scottish Poor Law. It is the definite intention of His Majesty's Government to reform the Scottish Poor Law within a very short time. The relief that is now being legalised has been given by parish councils in the past by different humbugging methods and by getting round things in various ways. Therefore the Bill only legalises what has been going on for a very considerable time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 28 this day six months, said: My Lords, in putting forward this Amendment I do so with the knowledge that this House is disinclined to reject any measure brought in by His Majesty's Government. There is, however, such a very strong feeling, not only about the Bill itself but as to the way in which it has been brought in and the way parish councils and other authorities have been treated over it, that I am bound to make some strong protest on this Motion for the Second Reading. So far as I could understand

431
my noble friend's case for the Bill, it was very much the same as the case made by the Lord Advocate in the House of Commons. Though I quite admit that he has made a good case for a Bill I do not think he has made a case for this Bill.
What happened? My noble friend said that under the instructions of the Government the Board of Health issued Regulations very similar to those issued by the English Ministry of Health. To that extent the Board of Health is responsible. But although the Board of Health is not either very efficient nor very economical—I think it is generally recognised that to carry out its duties properly it requires thorough reorganisation—of course responsibility for this does not rest entirely with the Board of Health, but with the Scottish Office and the Government. Obviously such a very large question has to be made a matter of Government policy and it would not be fair or just to criticise the action of any particular Department or Sub-Department. Is this Bill really necessary? It is necessary as regards condoning or whitewashing illegalities committed by His Majesty's Government, but is it necessary that by this Bill the Poor Law of Scotland should be fundamentally altered without any discussion and without any investigation, when, as my noble friend has just said, the whole question of the Poor Law is going to be dealt with by the Government in a short time?
Now, as regards this illegality, a great deal has been made of the case which was brought before the Courts, but I cannot help thinking that the Law Officers of the Government could not have been by any means astonished at the result of the case, and that their opinion even at the beginning was that the relief given was illegal. I do not think we have had any definite pronouncement on that and it would be of interest to know whether the Law Officers said at the time that they considered the relief given was legal. There is another thing which I think the Government might have done. There was great delay in taking this case. I am not acquainted with legal procedure, but I am under the impression that if the Government had liked they could have had this case tried very much earlier, possibly in time to have had legislation during the autumn sittings.
432
But over and above that there is another point, which my noble friend has not mentioned. It is perfectly well known throughout Scotland that whether the relief given was excessive or not—I not wish to enter into that—it was, anyhow, more than the parish councils could pay under the law, apart altogether from the question whether the giving of relief was legal.
I believe I am right in saying that the law as regards parish councils is this. Section 89 of the Act of 1845 says:—
"And be it enacted, that if the parochial board of any parish or combination shall find it necessary in any year or half-year to make disbursements for the relief of the poor beyond the amount received of the assessment applicable to the expenditure of such year or half-year, it shall be competent for such board to borrow money on the security of such part of the assessment as is still due and unreceived, but not to an amount greater than one-half of such part of such assessment; and when any money has been so borrowed as aforesaid on the security of assessments, it shall not be competent to borrow on the security of any future assessment until the money borrowed as aforesaid shall have been paid off."
I shall be contradicted if I am wrong, but I know of many cases in the month of August where these parish councils had come to the end of their resources, had no more security to give and were accordingly unable to borrow money. I venture to say that this was quite well known to the Board of Health and, I presume, to His Majesty's Government in the month of August, but they still went on. They might have remedied the trouble in the autumn sittings, but they did nothing and continued this illegality. Although the councils had no security for borrowing from the ordinary sources, some money, I gather, was provided from what I believe is called the Goschen Fund. I am afraid that I am so ignorant that I do not know what that Fund is, but perhaps the representative of the Government will inform your Lordships how this money was obtained and on what authority it was paid. I maintain that, even if this case had gone the other way, it would in many instances have made very little difference, and I am not sure whether this Bill, even if it is passed, will meet that point.
Another question that arises is how far the Government of the day are justified in breaking the law. If any ordinary

433
individual breaks the law he is liable to be prosecuted and either fined or imprisoned, but apparently, if His Majesty's Government breaks the law, they have only to come to Parliament afterwards to be effectually whitewashed and told that they have performed a most patriotic action. I think there ought to be some kind of check on these proceedings, and I maintain, with regard to this Bill, that the Government should have either brought forward proposals to legalise the position in the Autumn or, if they could not get such proposals through then, they should have introduced a Bill or made proposals which could have been considered by the authorities in Scotland and thoroughly discussed by them during the Recess. I do not wish to criticise this relief or the manner in which it was given, nor to argue whether too much was given or too little, or anything of that kind, but I do want to criticise the action a the Government and the way in which it has treated Scotland in this matter. I do not think that the Government quite realise what very strong feeling there is throughout the country.
What happened? Everybody thought that there would be a Bill to legalise the position in one way or another, but the Second Reading of this Bill was moved in the House of Commons only twenty-four hours after people in Scotland knew of the contents of three-quarters of it. It is true that your Lordships have not much power in regard to such Bills as this, but these rating authorities and parish councils have certainly been very badly treated. Surely there might have been some conference, consultation or inquiry. It Must be remembered that many people consider that the Scottish Poor Law at the present time is superior to the English Poor Law, and they also maintain that up to the present, in spite of this Bill, they have been able, under the Scottish Poor Law, to deal adequately with all these cases without any starvation or great hardship resulting. That point may be argued on one side or the other, but such is the contention of a very large number of people. But it is now proposed to make the Scottish Poor Law the same as the English Poor Law at the very time when the Minister of Health in England is suspending boards
434
of guardians and showing the great abuses and wrongs that attend the English Poor Law. Is it not astonishing that such a moment should be chosen for bringing in this proposal, for which I believe I am right in saying that there has not been a single request from any local body or any other source in Scotland? My noble friend seems to think that we are going to have another strike of equal magnitude in a very short time. I sincerely hope that he is wrong and that it is not really necessary to continue this arrangement for another three years.
There is another point to which I should like to draw attention. We all knew to our cost that the coal strike was probably coming on months before the Government gave the subsidy. The Government had all this time for consideration, but apparently they were unable to frame any policy or to make up their minds, and so they appointed a Commission to make up their minds for them, in order to avoid as far as possible the onus of any action that they took. But in this case, where there is no particular hurry and they are proposing to alter the whole of the Poor Law, they rush away and bring in a Bill fundamentally changing the Poor Law of Scotland, which has lasted, with some modifications, since 1845. My noble friend says that the arrangement is only temporary, but really that is the weakest part of the Government's argument. The Bill is nominally to last until 1930, but your Lordships know what happens in cases of this kind, and no one supposes that, if this Bill is passed now, it will be allowed to drop in the year 1930.
There is another point that your Lordships must consider, bearing in mind the large number of protests that, I am told, have come from parish councils as to the effect that this Bill will have in raising rates. I should like to give two examples of how rates are affected. The first comes from Messrs. David Colville and Sons, Limited, very well-known steel-makers in Scotland. The rates per ton of steel in 1901 to 1913 were 3d.; in 1914 to 1917 they averaged 5½d.; in 1921 they amounted to 3s.; 11¼d.; and in 1926 they were 3s. 5d. Between those years there was a slight drop, and in the year 1923 they went down to 1s. 5½d.; but even that is a very

435
serious burden compared with the 3d. of the pre-War years.
Let me give some figures from the same firm regarding their costs. Taking the same amount of output in pre-War years and in 1925, workmen's compensation and national insurance accounted for £1,158 before the War and £13,118 in 1925. Rates were, before the War, £2,414 and in 1925, £15,901. Wages for the same periods came to £217,850 before the War and £450,262 in 1925. So that, whereas the wages had a little more than doubled, the rates were seven times as much and the workmen's compensation and national insurance charges about twelve times or very nearly. If that goes on it does not matter whether we have strikes or not. The whole of the industries of the country are going to be burst up, and so far as I can see the only possible result of the Bill will be to make parish councils less careful how they handle the rates, because they will have great powers to waste money. My argument is that no one has asked for this Bill and it is unfair to make a great fundamental change in the Poor Law in Scotland without ascertaining the views of the authorities who have to deal with this question. I hope, although I suppose it is a vain hope, that the Government will either accept my Amendment or withdraw this Bill or portions of it, or will agree in Committee to restrict the period of its operation to one year or at the very outside two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, this Bill is described, as the noble Duke has said, as an emergency measure, and in so far as it deals with the difficulties which arose in 1926 it is a correct description of the Bill. But the Bill goes a great deal further. It is, I think, quite justifiable that the Government should have brought in an Indemnity Bill to excuse and cover the illegality in which they instructed parish councils to indulge during the coal strike. I think it has always been understood—I do not go quite so far as the noble Duke in his criticisms of that—that in an emergency of a national or very grave character Governments are entitled to break the
436
law and trust for protection to getting an indemnity Act passed by Parliament.
The position in Scotland was made very difficult for the Secretary of State. I think he had a very difficult part to play. He found on his side of the border very great restrictions as compared with the laws which were being administered by guardians in England, and no doubt he had to have regard to public order, which in some parts of Scotland, I dare say, might have proved to be very seriously invaded. On the whole, I think he was quite justified in taking the action he did and that he is entitled not only to an indemnity of some sort but to the thanks of parish councils in Scotland for having extracted 40 per cent. from the British Government. I can imagine the difficulty which he experienced, especially having regard to the state of the Exchequer. In the past strikes and such occurrences have been dealt with under the ordinary law, which was sufficient for the purpose, but all the same I do not think it would have been quite fair to criticise the action taken and I think we ought to be satisfied—I believe most people are—with the part which the Government played in the matter.
I have no serious objection to make to the haste with which the Bill was treated, so far as it deals with the emergency created last year, but I do protest strongly against an Emergency Bill being used in order, not to deal with the emergency question alone, but entirely to change the Poor Law of Scotland. I think it is quite improper that anything but the actual emergency should have been dealt with by the Bill. The Poor Law of Scotland should remain as it is until careful consideration has been given to the whole question and some justification is shown for making the alteration which is now proposed. That is my objection to the measure. I have no other objection to offer, and I hope that in Committee the Government may be willing to restrict the measure, and not extend its operation until 1930. I agree entirely with the noble Duke as to what is likely to be the case then. We should probably get this Bill extended, and the haste with which this Bill has been brought forward and pushed through the other House is surely in itself a reason for objecting to this very great principle being embodied in the measure. I cannot think it fair

437
that that should be the case, and I hope that we shall see some Amendment.
Public opinion in Scotland is very excited about the matter. One's letter box is absolutely full of protests from parish councils, chambers of commerce, and other bodies, and I think that some regard should be paid to that state of feeling. After all, there is the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, passed each year to deal with expiring laws, and if the necessity arose to continue this measure it could be dome by means of that Act. That is quite sufficient protection against anything which is likely to happen in the future. I hope and trust that no serious emergency such as happened last year will again arise, but if it should, I think the Government would be very likely to perform the same illegal act as they performed last year, notwithstanding the Constable judgment. They knew quite well that their action was illegal, but I have no doubt that in such an emergency they would have as little difficulty in breaking the law again as they had last year.
But I do not know how the money is going to be procured if there should be another disastrous strike between now and 1930. It certainly will not come from the banks in Scotland. The banks had a very good fright last year, and they will be sure to refuse to give anything more. They are not in a position to tie up their money for years in a transaction of this kind. They require their money to finance industry and commerce, and will not be prepared to tie it up and get a slow return over a period of years. Where, therefore, is the money to be got? It can only be got from the Government—from this Goschen Fund, whatever it is. We have heard about the Land of Goshen, and I hope that this Fund is of a similar character. It will require to be pretty large to meet the obligations which it will have to discharge, and I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will tell us what this Goschen Fund is, what it amounts to, and how it will be chargeable. I am quite certain that the money will not be got from the banks, and that the Government will have the responsibility of financing any loans of the character described.
Loans are better, no doubt, than grants. The honest man will endeavour to pay back anything he borrows, but
438
there are many people who will accept a loan without the smallest intention of repaying, and will never think that there is any necessity for doing so. I understand that in some cases in England these loans have been repaid. Probably it has been a very great hardship to the men to have to do it just after a long strike, but I doubt very much whether that is not creating a very great deal of trouble now in England. I am told there is very grave objection, very grave discontent, at the pressure put upon these people to repay these loans, and I should be sorry to see the same thing happening in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be asked to restrict this Bill to the particular emergency with which we are asked to deal.
I do not think it is proper to extend this period of emergency to 1920. There are plenty of ways of extending the operation of the Bill, if necessary. And there is another thing. We are promised that our Poor Law is going to be looked into, and probably to be changed. Let us leave an incentive to the Government to do it. If you limit this Bill to a proper period over which this emergency has to be dealt with, you can always keep at the Government and see that they fulfil their promise to go into the whole question and to put the Poor Law into whatever form they think desirable. Without that incentive I am perfectly sure, knowing the very leisurely way in which Governments act in these matters, that it will be a very long time before we see the Bill to alter the Poor Law of Scotland. I hope, in Committee, to reopen this question of the Bill lasting till 1930 and I trust the House will support an Amendment on that particular point.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just sat down I do not share the anxiety of the noble Duke that we should place ourselves in the position of being able to finance another strike in just the same way as the last, but I feel obliged to support my noble friend who moved the Amendment in the protest he hams made against this sudden and insufficiently considered revolution in our Scottish Poor Law system with which we are threatened. Scottish opinion was much perturbed during the strike by the action of the Board of Health in directing local authorities to disregard and set aside Statutory

439
Regulations in the distribution of relief. Such action necessarily shakes public confidence in the stability of the law, and creates a dangerous precedent, which would seem to authorise a Department to suspend statutes at any time on the plea of their inconvenience or inconveniences.
I appreciate the difficulties in which the Government were placed, or had perhaps placed themselves by their commitments, and I should not have criticised any course the Government might have pursued to extricate themselves and the Department from the difficulty in which they were placed by the judgment of the Court, so long as that course dealt with the emergency alone, that it was retrospective, not prospective. But this Bill is not limited to dealing with the compromise in the past, it compromises the future. It abolishes—for that is what it comes to—the foundation principle of the Scottish Poor Law system, which aims at maintaining as far as possible the spirit of thrift, independence, and self-reliance for which the Scottish people have hitherto had a name. The laws and customs of a country are closely connected with its national character, of which they are the expression, and therefore those of other countries are not so acceptable as those which a race evolves for itself. Yet in one short afternoon, without consultation or adequate discussion, Scotland is to be bereft of the remnants of her old system, and fitted out with the alien Poor Law of England. No doubt the Government feel that in this dwindling Kingdom, with expanding responsibilities, it is sound policy to encourage unity and eliminate all divergence in law and administration, but at any rate let us level up, not down.
Why force on Scotland a Poor Law system which is admittedly unsatisfactory and under sentence of reform? There may be English institutions that we should do well to adopt, but in this instance I would adapt the saying of Wellington with respect to the zeal of the French Republic in copying and adopting this very same measure: They have tumbled on the worst step England ever took—maintaining able-bodied men at the public expense. Moreover, this great change is proposed because forty-five Scottish parishes out of approximately 900 were affected by the strike, and spent large sums on relief. Therefore the other
440
850 parishes are to be forced to change their custom and provide relief for a class of person hitherto outside their purview.
It must also be remembered that this Bill does not stand alone, and must be taken in conjunction with preceding Acts, which first tinkered with our Poor Law by admitting the able-bodied to relief as a temporary device, transformed the parish councils into purely spending bodies, with no responsibility for rating, gave large powers of granting relief to education authorities, and established other relieving agencies in the shape of welfare centres—all of which during the strike were actively engaged in providing different forms of relief at the expense of the ratepayers. Undoubtedly the lavish nature of the relief given in many cases prolonged the strike, and must be regarded as a direct subsidy paid to the trade union to enable it to sustain the conflict. And that subsidy comes, in the case of a localised industry like mining, from a mere handful of the population, who, much against their will, are forced to give financial support to one party in a contest which is ruining the whole country and themselves.
In a good many parishes relief was given upon the grand scale, and if the sluice gates of such relief are to be thrown permanently open it would surely be wise to take note of the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Commission with regard to unemployment insurance, to insist on some provision limiting the amount of relief so that it may not exceed the ordinary wage of the unskilled workman, and as an additional safeguard—and this is even more important—to abrogate all Regulations enforcing compounding of rates, so that all members of the community may feel and understand their incidence. The recent disclosure of the conspiracy against the ratepayers in Chester-le-Street sufficiently exposes the need to mitigate these unhappy tendencies. The pill we have perforce to swallow is gilded with promises of a revision, but you cannot revive what is dead. This Bill finally kills the Scottish Poor Law system and you cannot resuscitate it. Besides, we all know by bitter experience that there is no turning back once you enter the broad and flowery road of public beneficence. Therefore I regret that Scotland should

441
be asked to do that instead of taking her own straight and narrow way.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the vigorous speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down has been the most Conservative of the three speeches against the Bill to which we have listened. The Conservatism is not the Conservatism of the present Government, which is a much modified Conservatism, but is a Conservatism which induced all three of the speakers to protest against the fundamental principle of the Bill. I do not speak without some sympathy for them. There is no greater delusion in this country than that the landlord, particularly the agricultural landlord, is a rich man who can bear being farther taxed. He has become a very poor man. I doubt whether he gets on an average one per cent, net out of his property, and therefore it is hard when he has to bear more burdens. But then they are burdens incident to his ownership of the land and some of them, at all events, he has to meet as best he can by borrowing or by taking from the Government or in some other way. In these circumstances I could not help feeling that no one of the three noble Lords who have spoken in opposition to this Bill had quite appreciated the difficult position in which the Government are.
It is all very well to talk of an illegality, of a decision of the Court against them, as if that made the law perfectly distinct and clear. There are plenty of decisions of the Court which have to be accepted and which are clear after they have been delivered that are not at all clear before they have been expressed by the Judges, and in Scotland we have been without the guiding light that has been in front of those who have to do with the Poor Law in England. The Merthyr Tydvil case, as it is called, laid down some years ago quite distinctly what the position of the Poor Law authorities in England is, but we had nothing of the kind in Scotland. What was the position? There came a calamitous strike, a strike of unexpected duration, which imposed an enormous burden upon the local authorities who had to raise the money to deal with it out of the rates. It is all very well to say that in Scotland it was not the principle to relieve the able-bodied poor, or, indeed, to relieve people
442
outside the workhouse. That was quite true, but it is a truth which has been cut into under the influence of a growing public opinion and the changes which this Bill embodies and which other measures of the kind show forth, are changes which are made in response to a growing public opinion that insists that burdens shall be more equally distributed than they have been in the past.
I ask the three noble Lords who have spoken, what would they do? Would they leave things alone? No; they do not quite go so far as to say that, but they say: "Reform the Poor Law of Scotland generally." I want to see the Poor Law of Scotland taken in hand, I want to see the Bill for it, but I have not the slightest idea as to anything which the Government may propose to deal with the matter. It was said by the noble Duke who introduced the Bill that the Government proposed to deal with the Scottish Poor Law comprehensively. I am glad to hear it, but I would like to know when and whether we may expect it within the limits of tins Parliament. Perhaps it is like the reform of this House, one of those things which may come some day, but as to which it is not possible to assign any definite day. At any rate, I am clear that it is no remedy for the present situation to ask us to wait for the reform of the Scottish Poor Law as a whole. If that be so, what Bill other than a Bill something like this could the Government propose? Take the substance of this Bill. It is this. The Courts have decided that local authorities have exceeded their powers in granting relief, not to able-bodied persons but to the destitute dependants of able-bodied persons rendered so by the strike. Could the Poor Law authorities have allowed these people to starve?
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: No, no, they would not. They would have made provision under the actual law as they did in other conflicts.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: But they have no power to give relief to the dependants of able-bodied persons unless they come into the poor house. If the noble Viscount would explain what the provisions of the Scottish Law are under which he supposes this problem could have been solved we shall be very much enlightened. The

443
essence of the Bill is that there was no such power and that the Poor Law authorities, under advice from the Government, committed an illegality which, I believe, was unavoidable in the circumstances. The Government directed them to do something for these people and, that being so, how is it supposed that the local authorities are to recoup themselves for what they spent? The noble Lord who sits opposite said, not through the banks, because the banks have had enough of them. I do not doubt that the banks were very well advised in drawing the line where they did. But if not the banks, we are driven back to the public Exchequer and 40 per cent, is to be furnished for them from the public Exchequer. I regret that it should have to do so. I am always sorry to see anything paid out of the public Exchequer in these days, but when I take the greater necessity, then I do not see to what other source it was possible for the authorities to look.
It is all very well to say this ought to have been a purely temporary Bill, limited to the emergency, but is it certain that there will be no other emergency to provide for before the year 1930? I earnestly hope there will be no further emergency, but I do not know. You have left the miners' question in a totally unsettled condition. I hope there will be no more difficulties, but we cannot be sure of that. Or there may be other difficulties and to leave these local authorities without any power to deal with the situation which at least is possible would not seem to me to be wise. Whether this is the best form in which the Bill could have been put or not is a matter on which I do not pronounce, because I have not the technical knowledge which I feel I ought to have in forming a judgment, but on the whole I am disposed to think your Lordships' best course is to let the Bill go through and to take it as a measure dealing with a situation which unfortunately has arisen and which undoubtedly has to be provided for.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Viscount is in favour of the Bill, because it takes 40 per cent, out of my pocket and the pockets of other Englishmen and puts it into the pockets of the noble Viscount and Scottish people generally. That may be a very good thing, but it is
444
naturally a thing that does not appeal to the people who have to pay. My noble friend below me (Viscount Younger of Leckie) said he was satisfied. I am rather surprised at his moderation. I wonder he did not ask for the whole 100 per cent, to be put upon the English taxpayer and nothing put upon the Scottish taxpayer. Knowing Scotsmen as I do, I presume I must congratulate myself upon having to pay only 40 per cent, of the cost of the mistake made by the Scottish Office. The noble Viscount opposite asks where is the money coming from. Why should it not come from the Scottish rates? Why not impose more rates on Scotland to make up for the mistake they have made? Why should I pay for a mistake made by the Scottish Office?
Then I am told we are going to alter the Scottish law to make it conform to the English law. I have been something like 35 years in one or other House of Parliament. I have often been told that the English law must be altered to conform to the Scottish law, because the Scottish law was good and the English law was bad, but I have never yet been told that the Scottish law must be altered to conform to the English law. I am rather inclined to think after the speeches which I have heard to-day that my original idea, when I said to myself "I must not oppose the English law being altered to conform to the Scottish law because the Scottish are such superior people," was right, and that the Scottish law in this case is infinitely better than the English law. I do not want to go into the question of whether or not it is advisable to subsidise trade unions out of the rates, because that is really what it is and nothing else. It is against all the old principles of the English Poor Law as it was altered in 1834—I think that was the date, or somewhere about that time. If we are going to alter it I think we should not alter it until we have thoroughly considered the whole question.
Although I quite admit that, the Government having made a mistake, it would be a little hard to expect the people who have been misled by the Government to pay, I should have thought that the proper course would have been to bring in a Bill indemnifying the parish councils who have committed an illegal action and

445
to have stopped there. I do not see why on earth we should alter the Scottish law, which is apparently a good law, to conform to the English law, which is said to be going to be altered shortly and which has been administered lately in a way which certainly does not commend itself to a very large number of the English ratepayers. It is said that this Bill is only to last until May, 1930. As the noble Duke said, we know perfectly well that that provision is useless. When May, 1930, comes we might have the noble Viscount opposite in office—which I am afraid is not unlikely if the Government do not mend their ways—and if we had, is it likely that the noble Viscount would make a change unless it was to put some fresh burden upon England? It is very unlikely.
And even supposing we are fortunate enough to have a Conservative Government in office in 1930, are they likely to alter it? Have they ever altered the Rent Restrictions Act or any of the other Acts passed during the War which we were told would only last for the duration of the War? They have all been continued because the Government have been afraid to do anything which might lose a vote in the country. In these circumstances I sincerely trust that the noble Duke will move during the Committee stage to leave out May, 1930, and insert May, 7927. The result of that would be to indemnify the parish councils who have been misled while it would not alter a good sound law in Scotland, and would give the Government the opportunity or considering an alteration of the English law which I hope would be in the direction of making it similar to the Scottish law.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, so far this afternoon we are in the rather curious position of having had from this side of the House four speeches which seemed in opposition to the Bill and from the other side one speech apparently in support of the Government. For that reason I do not want to allow the debate to close without lifting up one voice from this side in support of the Government's proposal. A great deal of confusion was caused last year by the difference in the law between England and Scotland. The Government found it necessary to issue the circular which they did and the general opinion appears to be that it is
446
necessary to pass an Act of Indemnity to make legal what was done. The question is whether or not it should stop at that. I think to stop at that would leave the position one of very great uncertainty. People are entitled to know how they stand. For that reason I do not see how you can logically limit it to that smaller measure, and for that reason I think this Bill is necessary.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I really am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Banbury, who spoke just now, because I was afraid as the debate proceeded that I should be the only Englishman who dared to take part in a Scottish debate. With his important, example before me I feel I may dare. I need not tell your Lordships that it is with very great regret that I have listened to so many adverse comments upon this Bill of His Majesty's Government from my noble friends who sit behind me. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord who has just sat down for his support, but it must be admitted that Scottish noble Lords sitting in this part of the House—that is, those of them who have addressed yam Lordships—have for the most part tint been very favourable to the Bill.
Although I am not a Scotsman I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to make one or two observations upon the speeches which have just been made. Let us first face the magnitude of the problem with which the Government, and indeed local authorities everywhere, had to deal in the recent emergency. I am not sure that any one listening, for example, to Viscount Novar would realise what it meant. He spoke, I think, of 45 parishes out of 900. My noble friend seems to think you can solve the question by counting the number of parishes, but the question is: What is the population of those parishes? If my noble friend looks into it he will find those parishes contain more than half the population of Scotland. Surely my noble friend was hardly treating the House quite fairly when he tried to leave upon your Lordships the impression that this was a matter which concerned only a small minority when, as a matter of fact, if you look at it fairly—if my noble friend will allow me to say so—it involves at, least half, and I think rather more.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: A small minority of the authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so, but I think my noble friend will see that to leave it like that is to leave a very misleading impression upon your Lordships' House. What is the problem? In a strike the men who strike are not entitled to relief. How are you going to treat their women and children? That is the problem and I quite admit it is a very difficult one—one of the most difficult which any Government can have to deal with—because, as my noble friend suggests, if you help the women and children then, indirectly, yon help the men. That is true, but what is the other alternative? Are you going to leave the women and children to starve? Has any one of my noble friends said he is prepared to do that? No; and neither will he say so, either in your Lordships' House or before any audience in England or Scotland. Then you have to face the difficulty. How are yon going to treat the women and children? Thy, women and children were relieved. In England they were relieved under the law, and in Scotland, as it turned out, they were relieved against the law. That is certainly a fair statement of the problem. But, whatever may be said of the action of the Scottish Board of Health and of the Scottish local authorities in what turned out to be a breach of the law, we all admit that they acted in a period of great emergency, and, so far as I could make out from listening to my noble friends, none of them actually condemned the action that was taken in that emergency. My noble friend Lord Younger, who always speaks with great consideration, frankly admitted that no other course was possible. It was necessary to relieve the women and children in Scotland.
But my noble friends say, in effect I "We agree to the indemnity, to let bygones be bygones, and, in fact, we approve what was done in the past; but we say that it must stop there, that you must not go further, that you must make no provision for the future." Is that really the advice that they give to His Majesty's Government? There may be another strike within a very brief period. Is no provision to be made? My noble friends say: "Break the law again." But surely that is scarcely the advice
448
that most of your Lordships will favour. It is one thing to take a rather doubtful course when you do not know what the law is, but it is quite another thing to take the same course when the law has been authoritatively pronounced to be against you. How could the Government go on with the intention, if the event arose, of breaking the law again? I think it is quite evident that the Government must make some kind of provision. My noble friend says that we might put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I think he will hardly get the other critics of the Government to agree with him, because the very strength of their objection to this temporary Bill is that it will not really be temporary but will be renewed.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I said, pending the consideration of the whole of the Poor Law by the Government. I wanted to make it an inducement to them to get something done.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government are considering a great many things, the Poor Law among them, but I think the whole strength of the case against the Government was that these so-called temporary Bills are always continued from year to year and that the whole business of the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts is humbug. I do not say that my noble friend said this—I would not be rude enough even to dream of doing so—but that was the strength of the case against the Government. I do not think that it would have been honest of us to suggest that this was a self-contained Bill if we intended to put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. What was reasonable was to fix upon some brief period during which a temporary Bill should have effect and provision could be made so that we should not be compelled again to break the law, and then to leave the matter to be permanently dealt with afterwards.
Let me say one word about this question of illegality. We have heard a good deal about the superiority of the Scottish law over the English law. I always hear that in Scottish debates. But I am not thinking so much of the Scottish law as of the Scottish practice. What has been the practice of the parochial authorities in Scotland in this matter of the relief of destitute able-bodied persons? Undoubtedly

449
the law in Scotland before 1921 said that you could not relieve destitute able-bodied persons, but only disabled persons. That was the law; but how was it interpreted? I hardly dare to suggest that there was a certain element almost of hypocrisy in the way in which that provision was interpreted. I should not dare to do so without very good authority, but in 1909 an Inquiry was held into the whole of this subject and a doctor was sent down to examine the physical condition of the inhabitants of the Scottish poorhouses as compared with the English workhouses. The English workhouses, of course, admit able-bodied persons in certain circumstances, but the Scottish poorhouses admit, as it is supposed, only disabled persons. Nevertheless this doctor could find no difference at all in the physical condition of the two, and the Commission found upon inquiry that the able-bodied were, in fact though not in name, as regards both indoor and outdoor relief, as numerous in Scotland as in England. It was done, of course, by a device. It was not crudely done, but it was done.
The fact was—and in that respect I agree with the noble and learned Viscount opposit—that public opinion was too strong for the Scottish local authorities. They could not refuse to relieve real destitution, and therefore they resorted to every device in order to suggest disablement. If a man became very hungry they said that he must be disabled. Even if he showed a tendency to become very hungry a little later they anticipated disablement. If a man was a rheumatic and, I am told, even if a man had a blister, they interpreted it in some parts of Scotland as disablement. In this way they got round the difficulty of relieving the able-bodied destitute person. They were not going to adopt the English law—nothing so base as that I—but they were going to assimilate their practice to the English practice and to yield, as they must yield and as everybody must yield, to the strength of public opinion. In those circumstances your Lordships will forgive me if I cannot share the horror of some of my noble friends at what they call a fundamental alteration of the Poor Law in Scotland The law may be altered, but the practice is going to be altered very little.
LORD LAMINGTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend does not agree with me. I am only giving him my information from those who are competent to advise me.
LORD LAMINGTON: They were exceptional instances that were mentioned by the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course they were exceptional instances. I do not imagine that every able-bodied destitute person had a blister. I do not say that, but I do say that the practice in Scotland has been as I have described it.
LORD LAMINGTON: No, not the practice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was no criticism, of course, of the Act of 1921. That Act admitted formally what I have been describing—namely, the relief of able-bodied persons; but it made the exception, of course, that they must not be connected with a trade dispute, and the difficulty arose in the recent emergency in that limited class of destitute persons who were the dependants of those engaged in a trade dispute. There was no criticism made, of course, and very properly, of the 40 per cent contribution which is to be made towards the sum of money which was paid by way of this illegal relief, under the suggestion of the Board of Health, but I was asked to tell your Lordships under what powers the Goschen Committee acted. I hold In my hand a copy of the Estimates for the Civil Services for the present year, and, under the heading of Sundry Services, I read that "provision is required for allocation with Treasury approval," and so forth, of sums "by way of loans to local authorities for the purpose of enabling them to carry out approved works" and "to Poor Law authorities in necessitous areas in Great Britain who are unable to meet claims upon them for relief." And the body to whom that money is entrusted is known as the Goschen Committee. That Committee advanced the necessary money in the case which we are now discussing Forty per cent of that sum of money will be £260,000, £260,000 of it has already been advanced by the Goschen Committee. That will be repaid in the slim of money which the House of Commons will allot,

451
and also an additional £60,000, the only amount of new money which is involved.
Now I come to what I believe is really the only substantial point of difference between the Government and my noble friends behind me. How long is the Bill to last? I will not say that I have convinced my noble friends, but I think I have given reasons to show that it is not sufficient merely to deal with the past. I am told that they think that the period of three years which we have allotted for the Bill is too long. I can assure them that any proposal on that head which they can make will receive most careful consideration from the Government. I shall be very glad, of course, if we can come to an agreement, but I should like to put one or two considerations before them. One noble Lords says one year. I do not think it is possible to conceive that the Government can deal thoroughly with the Poor Law of Scotland in one year. We have to deal with the English Bill first, and that will be a big business. The Scottish Bill cannot anticipate the English Bill, and I think any one who is acquainted with Parliamentary procedure will recognise that one year is absurdly too short.
Then, what about two years? I do not reject two years, but I cannot help fancying that there may be certain extensive electoral excitement about that time. I am not sure that that would be a very convenient opportunity, and on the whole three years would seem to be a better period. When, however, we get down to points of detail like that, of course it is a matter of adjustment, as far as possible. All I can assure my noble friends is that so far as the Government are concerned we intend this Bill to be a temporary Bill. We are not satisfied with passing it, and then continuing it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. We think that it is not sufficient that it should deal with the past only. We must be provided with some means by which, if necessity again arises, relief can be provided for these wives and children without breaking the law. Therefore the term of three years is put into the Bill; but if my noble
452
friends can show any better proposal have no doubt the Government would most willingly consider it.
I hope I have said enough to show the real arguments in favour of this Bill. My noble friend asked, Why did you not consult the people of Scotland? I cannot believe that when the people realise the case put before them there will be any difference of opinion in Scotland. I think it is self-evident that something had to be done, and I am rather sick of Inquiries. I have seen so many Committees and even Commissions, and nothing has seemed to come of them, so far as I can make out. When you have a clear case, which does not appear to admit of an answer, it seems to me that there is only one course—namely, to introduce a Bill and hope that it will receive favour from your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships that on its further stages in Committee we shall ask for, and accept, whatever is good in the recommendations of my noble friends, or of noble Lords in any part of the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived and Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:—
Public Works Loans.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Thorne Colliery Railway and Wharf [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
BOGNOR, GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
  MAIDSTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Coventry Corporation Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

NORWICH GAS ORDER, 1927.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the British Gas Light Company with respect to the Norwich undertaking of that Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

EAST DEREHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1927.
Referred to the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday next.