Sitting of 10 March 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Labour if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the number of those who have had their claims for transitional payments examined by the public assistance committee for Perthshire; how many have been granted full benefit; how many partial benefit; and how many have been entirely disallowed?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Between 12th November, 1931, and 20th February, 1932, the public assistance committee for Perthshire (i.e., excluding the large burgh of Perth which is a separate authority) gave determinations on 716 applications for transitional payments. In 20 cases payment was allowed at the maximum benefit rates and in 560 cases at lower rates, while in 136 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed in the County of Durham whose cases have been investigated by the public assistance committees; the amount of money which has been saved per week; and the cost per week for this additional administration?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Between 12th November, 1931, and 20th February, 1932, public assistance committees in the County of Durham (including county boroughs) gave determinations on 223,671 applications for transitional payments. In 181,839 cases payment was allowed at the maximum benefit rates and in 34,794 cases at lower rates, while in 7,038 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. As regards the saving, I hope to be able in due course to make an estimate for the country as a whole but I doubt very much whether it will be possible to do this for particular areas with any sufficient degree of reliability. The amount of the additional administrative cost is not yet available.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour if he will state how many of the 350,000 who have been turned down by the public assistance committees for any transitional payment whatever may be added to the total of 2,701,173 unemployed persons on 22nd February last?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. The total number of cases does not represent separate individuals because it includes a considerable number of cases dealt with on review. Further it is known that about 130,000 of those whose applications for transitional payments were unsuccessful are maintaining registration, and that the majority of the remainder have found employment.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it not the fact that a considerable number of the 200,000, who are not signing, might be added to the 2,700,000?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I cannot accept that as a statement of fact.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what becomes of these thousands of cases who are refused any unemployment benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: There is no doubt at all that a considerable number of them find employment, and that is shown by the figures on the register.
    Mr. THORNE: Is that in accordance with the 30,000 jump of last month?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The figures went down.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour how many applications for transitional benefit have been dealt with at Halifax by the local public assistance committee to the latest available date; and how many claims have been rejected, how many were granted full benefit, and how many were granted half or part benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Between 12th November, 1931, and 20th February, 1932, the Halifax public assistance committee gave determinations on 4,878 applications for transitional payments. In 1,852 cases payment was allowed at the maximum benefit rates, and in 1,676 cases at lower rates, while in 1,350 eases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.
    Mr. THORNE(for Mr. HICKS) asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total average weekly amount by which unemployment transitional benefit has been reduced in the administrative county of London as a result of the decisions of the district sub-committees of the London County Council public assistance committee; and the total average weekly amount now being paid?
    Mr. HUDSON: I hope in due course to be able to make an estimate of this saving for the country as a whole, but I doubt very much whether it will be possible to do this for particular areas with any sufficient degree of reliability. The average weekly amount of transitional payments paid at Exchanges in the county of London for the four weeks ended 29th February, 1932, was £35,379.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if he can state how many mine-workers are at present in receipt of transition payments; how many have had their payments reduced; and how many have failed to sustain a claim for any benefits?
    Mr. HUDSON: I regret that such statistics are not available for separate industries.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if he will state how many persons who have been in receipt of transitional payments and who have appeared before courts of referees for the quarterly review have been disallowed such payments during the months of January and February, 1932?
    Mr. HUDSON: There are no separate statistics of this kind for cases dealt with on quarterly review, and I can only give the total, including both original applications and review cases. During January and February, 1932, 26,342 applications for transitional payments were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain on the ground that the applicants were not normally insurable and/or would not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.

    INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet received the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

    ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Minister of Labour if he can give the cost to the State per week for unemployment benefit through the closing of the Pimlico clothing factory?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. The weekly amount of unemployment benefit now being paid to former employés of this factory is rather more than £50: but. I cannot say what the effect may have been on employment elsewhere.

    ALIENS.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether be is aware that it has been the practice with certain foreign firms who have established factories in this country to attempt to evade the law in regard to the employment of aliens by employing foreign persons for a period of two months or such maximum period as is permissible, then sending them back to their own country and replacing them by other aliens in continuous relays, thereby keeping British

    1949
    workpeople unemployed in this country; and whether, in view of the large and increasing number of foreign firms opening up factories in this country, he will take such steps as are necessary to see that all foreign workpeople are excluded except in those cases where experts are acquired temporarily for special processes in order to tram British employés for the work?
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that during the past year the number of people entering this country from overseas was greater than the number who left it for abroad, he will consider the advisability of instituting more rigorous conditions for those who come to this country to follow employment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Permits for foreigners to enter this country to take up employment are not issued unless my Department is satisfied that no person already resident in this country is available for the work in question. I have no evidence of attempts to evade the law by the introduction of foreigners for short periods, nor do I see how such attempts could be successful without actual breach of the law; but I should be glad to have particulars of any instances which my hon. Friend has in mind. The number of permits issued in 1931 was approximately the same as in 1930, and could not have affected appreciably the balance of migration.

    MINERS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour how many miners were unemployed in Great Britain on 1st March in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in the coal mining classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 142,276 at 24th February, 1930; 240,300 at 23rd February, 1931; and 294,690 at 22nd February, 1932.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the Government are doing to stop this increase of unemployment in the coal industry?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have nothing, on that point, to add to what I said in my speech. How far it is due to the Act passed by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, I do not know.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures include those unemployed in connection with the tin mines?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think so. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question, I will answer definitely, but I think that tin mines are in a separate classification.
    Mr. BATEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Act which the present Government passed has had far more to do with the increase in unemployment among miners than the Act of the previous Government?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. On the contrary, that Act gives us powers with regard to export trade which enables us to take adequate action.
    Mr. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech made by Mr. Lee, the Secretary of the Mining Association, yesterday, in which he definitely stated that the last Act is responsible?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I have not read that speech, but I shall certainly do so.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many mineworkers were wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped on the last date for which figures were available?
    Mr. HUDSON: The numbers of insured persons in the coal mining classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 22nd February, 1932, were: 201,842 wholly unemployed and 92,848 temporarily stopped.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to whether that is an increase or a decrease as compared with the last two months of last year?
    Mr. HUDSON: I rather think it is an increase.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women have been removed from benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts by the courts of referees since 24th August last up to the latest date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Between 11th August, 1931, and 29th February, 1932, 165,172 claims by men and 266,664 by

    1951
    women were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain. These figures relate to claims and not to separate individuals.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these may be added to the 2,700,000?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly not without notice.
    Mr. LUNN: But he agrees that a great number of them could be added?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I made no such admission.

    WOODWORKERS.
    Mr. STONESasked the Minister of Labour how many joiners and general woodworkers are to-day registered as unemployed in this country?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Separate figures for general woodworkers are not available. The following table shows the number of insured carpenters and joiners in the building industry, and of all insured persons in certain groups of woodworking industries, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 22nd February, 1932.

    Industry.

    Number.

    Building Industry: Carpenters and Joiners

    37,830

    Sawmilling and Machined Woodwork: Ail Occupations

    12,495

    Furniture Making, Upholstering, etc.: All Occupations

    28,693

    The following Table shows the numbers of men and women on the registers of the Parkhead Employment Exchange, with corresponding figures for the Glasgow area as a whole:—

    —

    Men.

    Women.

    22nd February, 1932.

    23rd February, 1931.

    22nd February, 1932.

    23rd February, 1931.

    Parkhead

    …

    …

    9,776

    7,873

    1,846

    2,153

    Glasgow Area

    …

    …

    100,060

    86,689

    18,638

    21,376

    TILBURY
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons
    Wood Boxes and Packing Cases:

    All Occupations

    3,578

    Miscellaneous Woodworking Industries: All Occupations

    5,037

    The figures for industries other than the building industry include a number of occupations other than those related to woodworking.

    GLASGOW.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of boys and girls under 18 years of age in the Glasgow area registered for employment at the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. HUDSON: At 22nd February, 1932, there were 4,275 boys and 3,118 girls under 18 years of age on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Glasgow area.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures of unemployed men and women in the Shettleston parilamentary area; the figures for the whole of Glasgow; and the numbers in both cases for the same period during 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The only figures available relate to the numbers on the registers of particular Employment Exchanges, and the areas served by these offices are not necessarily co-terminous with parliamentary divisions.
    registered at the Tilbury Employment Exchange, and the number receiving unemployment benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: At 22nd February, 1932, there were 1,255 persons on the registers of the Tilbury Employment Exchange, including 1,230 persons whose claims to insurance benefit or applications for transitional payments had been admitted.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government has under consideration the restoration of the cut in unemployment benefit; and when it is proposed to make the change?
    Mr. HUDSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

  ALIENS (DEPORTATION ORDERS).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost during the forthcoming financial year of the committee which he has appointed to investigate the cases of aliens in respect of whom he has made, or intends to make, deportation orders; for what reason it has been necessary to set up this body; and how many cases of this nature it was necessary for his Department to deal with during each of the past three years?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): As I stated in answer to a question on 11th February, the cost will be very small. At present there is no adequate provision for hearing evidence in these cases, and the committee will supply that need. The number of orders of the class that will now come under the purview of the committee was 25 in 1929, 27 in 1930 and 12 in 1931.
  Colonel GRETTON: Is this intended to be a permanent committee, or is it going to deal with certain cases and then disperse?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir. Cases will be submitted to the committee from time to time as they arise. The committee will be a standing committee, which will meet only at intervals, probably not very frequently.

  BURGLARIES, LONDON.
  Mr. HOWARDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increase
  1954
  in the number of petty burglaries now taking place in London, he will consider utilising the services of the Special Constabulary, the members of which would welcome the opportunity to come to the assistance of the general public?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: This question is receiving the consideration of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. HOWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the ease with which burglaries can he carried out to-day, and the lenient treatment meted out to those who are arrested, thousands of young men are entering upon crime as a profession; and that, unless this is checked, this country will soon be in the same position as the United States?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is now raising a very much wider issue than the question on the Paper.

  ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS).
  Mr. HOPKIN MORRISasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the experiments performed upon a monkey, denominated for the purposes of the experiments monkey 420, involving severe and enduring pain; and can he state whether in this ease the animal was forthwith painlessly destroyed?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the experiments performed in the course of the investigation into an outbreak of rabies in Trinidad an account of which was published in the "Lancet" of 19th September last. I am advised that the symptoms recorded in the report of the experiments were mental in character due to the infections, and that there is no reason to suppose that the animal was suffering severe pain which was likely to endure.
  Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the article describing this experiment, it is stated that the animal was kept alive for a period of 10 days?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I was unaware that it was 10 days, but that does not affect the answer which I have given.

  DEATHS (STARVATION).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary whether he can state how many deaths were recorded as due to want, or accelerated by want, by coroners during the year ended 29th February, 1932?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Certain figures are published annually in the Criminal Statistics issued by the Home Office. The figures for 1930 will be published shortly, but the Criminal Statistics do not give just the information desired. I may, however, refer the hon. Member to the figures published by the Registrar-General in his Statistical Review for 1930 (Part 1, p. 22), according to which the number of persons whose deaths were classified as due to hunger or thirst was 14.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman honestly think that more people die of over-eating and over-drinking?

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES (SPEED, LONDON).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary what methods are employed by the Commissioner of Police to secure the observation in Central London of the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit by Green Line and other similar heavy passenger coaches; and how many prosecutions have been instituted since 1st November, 1931, against drivers and/or proprietors of this type of vehicle for exceeding the speed limit in the Bayswater Road, the Edgware Road, the Embankment, and Whitehall?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The usual methods of obtaining evidence of the speed of motor vehicles—measuring the speed of a following vehicle or timing the vehicle over a measured distance—are followed in the case of heavy passenger coaches in London. Between 1st November last and 29th February three summonses were applied for against drivers of such coaches on the Embankment, and two written cautions were issued in relation to excessive speeds on the Embankment and in Edgware Road respectively.
    Mr. MABANE: Is it not notorious that these coaches persistently and daily exceed the speed limit on these routes, and
    1956
    is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the number of prosecutions is sufficient to provide an example to the drivers and proprietors of these vehicles?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand that the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police is giving his special attention to this matter.

    MINOR MOTORING OFFENCES.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked dm Home Secretary if he can make any statement as to the modification of the attitude of the Metropolitan Police on the subject of prosecuting motorists for minor offences; what was the number of such offences in the last month; and whether this policy will free any considerable number of policemen, and, if so, how many, from the discharge of their ordinary duties?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Revised Orders as to the procedure in traffic cases were issued by the Commissioner of Police on the 2nd instant and take effect from to-day. They provide for a greater measure of decentralisation in handling the reports in certain classes of cases, and extend the categories of offences which may be dealt with by caution. The steps now being taken are a development of the procedure introduced in 1928, and involve no innovation in principle. There will, of course, be no change in the practice with regard to cases of dangerous driving. The number of traffic offences, excluding those relating to dangerous or careless driving, or being under the influence of drink or drugs, reported in January last, the latest month for which figures are available, was 7,062. The Orders should certainly result in a considerable saving of the time of the police and of the magistrates and of members of the public as well, but it is not possible to estimate how many police are likely to be freed for other duties.
    Mr. HUTCHISON: If policemen are to be released from these duties, can they be appointed to special cross-roads, where children come back from schools to their homes, and where at present they are not able to cope with the traffic?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I will convey suggestion to the Commissioner.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: the alleged offenders under these that Will new

    1957
    regulations still have the option of refusing to accept the warning notice and of asking for a prosecution?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

  OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that sexual offences against children under 16 are increasing; that the five-year average for indecent assaults against them is the highest recorded for over 30 years; and what steps does he propose to take to check these offences?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The figures of offences of defiling girls under 13 show a decrease, but those respecting girls from 13 to 16 an increase. There is reason to believe that the statistics are affected by a greater readiness on the part of relatives and friends to report offences to the police instead of concealing them. I would add that the number of persons proceeded against also shows an appreciable increase. With regard to the second part of the question such statistics as are available for recent years will be given in answer to a subsequent question by the hon. Member for North Lambeth.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would he wise to increase the number of our women police, because many parents will report to women when they would not report to men, and is he aware that a committee set up to look into sexual offences recommended that we should have more women police?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: It is possible, and indeed probable, that offences are more readily reported in some cases to women police, but a very large increase in the number of women police might not succeed in stopping the actual offences themselves.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Was not that the recommendation of the committee set up to look into this question, and have there not been other recommendations for an increase in the number of women police?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps the Noble Lady will put down a special question on that point.

  DARTMOOR PRISON (DISTURBANCES).
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Home Secretary how many of the ringleaders of the Dartmoor mutiny, who are to be tried for their part in the disturbances, have at any time been inmates of the Borstal institution?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I should have been glad to have given the hon. Member the information for which he asks if it were not for the rule that no public reference should be made to the antecedents of persons against whom legal proceedings are pending. If the hon. Member will repeat his question when the legal proceedings are over, the information can be given.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he can inform the House if the 30 convicts at Dartmoor, recently tried before the visiting magistrates, had any skilled assistance in preparing their defence; whether an independent shorthand note was taken of the proceedings; and whether he will lay the record of the trial before Parliament before confirming any recommendation that the visiting magistrates may have made with regard to punishment?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The convicts in question were charged before the board of visitors of the prison with offences against prison discipline and the procedure followed was that prescribed by the statutory rules. These rules provide that a prisoner shall not be punished until he has had an opportunity of hearing the charges and evidence against him and of making his defence. There is no provision for enabling prisoners charged with prison offences to have legal assistance, and such a provision would not be compatible with the procedure necessary for maintaining discipline in prisons. The rules prescribe the nature and limits of the punishments which the board of visitors may order, and give the board power to order such punishments without the need of any confirmation except in cases where corporal punishment is ordered. As in this instance no corporal punishment has been ordered by the board, no question arises of confirmation of their orders, and effect was given to them forthwith.

  UNSOLVED MURDER CASES.
  Sir C. CAYZERasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of unsolved murder cases recorded since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure in March, 1929; and the number of unsolved murder cases recorded between the dates March, 1926, and March, 1929?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Figures for the periods named are not available, but I can give figures for 1927 and 1928 in comparison with those for 1929 and 1930. Excluding murders of infants under one year and mostly newly-born, and deaths following abortion, in the first two-year period, there were in England and Wales murders of 196 persons known to the police; in the second period of 189 persons. The number of cases in which the suspected person did not die or commit suicide, or in which there was no arrest, was 4 in the first period and 9 in the second.
  Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the number of unsolved cases since the publication of that report, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision as to the setting up of an inquiry to take evidence in private from members of the Criminal Investigation Department as to their difficulties in these cases?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The increase is exceedingly small and has no relation whatever to the report.
  Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early date.

  SHOP WINDOW RAIDS, LONDON.
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Home Secretary if the Metropolitan Police, in view of the increasing number of smash-and-grab raids, will suggest to the larger retailers the desirability of employing outside watchmen as well as inside?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: As I pointed out in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) on 18th February, the number of such raids in the Metropolitan Police District in 1931 showed an appreciable decrease
  1960
  on 1930. The Commissioner of Police would welcome action on the part of retailers for the better protection of their property, and has called attention to the matter in his annual reports, but he does not think it is within his province to make specific proposals in particular cases.

  EDUCATION.

    OUTWOOD AND KEARSLEY SCHOOL, FARNWORTH.
    Sir JOHN HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Education whether the senior section of the Out-wood and Kearsley Council School, situated at Farnworth, near Bolton, has been visited and inspected by His Majesty's inspectors during the last four years; and, if so, at what date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The mixed department of this school was visited by His Majesty's inspectors in September and October, 1929, in the summer of 1930, in January, 1931, and in January, 1932.
    Sir J. HASLAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, inspectors visited the school, but no inspection took place, and may I have a copy of the inspector's report?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: No formal report was made in those cases.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether in the interests of the dairying industry, he will consider the advisability of co-operating with the Minister of Agriculture with a view to evolving a scheme for the compulsory daily supply of milk to all children in the country of school age?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware of the great increase which has taken place in recent years in the numbers of school children receiving a daily supply of milk, both under schemes for which local education authorities take responsibility and under those conducted under the auspices of the National Milk Publicity Council. My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Agriculture are both anxious to see

    1961
    a further extension of these arrangements and are co-operating with the National Milk Publicity Council to that end; but they have no power to exercise any compulsion in this matter either on local education authorities or on the parents.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, seeing the increased health of those children who have been given milk, it would be a better policy for the Government to give a subsidy for milk instead of for wheat?

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health the number of schemes sanctioned by him to local authorities, under the Housing Act of 1930, for the clearance of unhealthy areas; and how many persons will be re-housed when such schemes are completed?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Up to the 29th February last I had received resolutions declaring 394 areas in England and Wales, the clearance of which involves the displacement and re-housing of approximately 64,000 persons, to be clearance areas under the Housing Act, 1930. These resolutions do not require my sanction.

    LANCASHIRE BOROUGHS.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health the number of insanitary dwellings in each of the following boroughs: Preston, Wigan, Leigh, Bolton, and Warrington, stating the number of insanitary houses which have been demolished during the years 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have no material on which to base a reply to the first part of this question. I am sending the hon. Member a, statement of the figures for which he asks in the second part.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health what is the total shortage of houses in the following boroughs: Preston, Wigan, Leigh, Bolton, and Warrington, respectively; whether any housing schemes undertaken by these boroughs have been postponed or cancelled; and if so, what was the capital value of such proposed schemes in each borough?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I am not in possession of all the information for which the hon. Member asks. I am, however, sending him a note of the particulars available which bear upon his question, and comprise a number of figures in tabular form.

  STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Prime Minister Whether the Government is considering means for regulating the conduct of business on the Stock Exchange in order to protect the investing public from irregular practices by company promoters and speculators; and whether he will consider setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into the general conduct of business on the Stock Exchange with the view of preventing wasteful investment and loss to investors?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is the Lord President of the Council satisfied that things can remain as they are at the Stock Exchange, and that the events that have been reported in the Press in recent days are to be permitted to continue?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. Some statement was made in a recent case, and I trust that that statement may at an early date receive the consideration of the authorities of the Stock Exchange; but, with regard to the evils to which the hon. Member refers in the latter part of his question, I would remind him that it is almost impossible by legislation to separate the gentlemen who are anxious to get rich quick, and the gentlemen who are anxious to help them to get rich quick.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the business of the House to prevent people getting unduly rich at the expense of credulous people who take their word?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to appoint a

    1963
    committee to inquire into the question of the sterilisation of the mentally defective?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As was stated in reply to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Keighley (Captain Watt) on the 15th February, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy, I propose in the first instance to arrange for a preliminary investigation of the scientific issues involved in this matter.

    WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many rural parishes are in need of public water supplies; and will he consider taking steps as early as possible to make special grants to rural district councils to enable them to remedy the conditions under which many of the inhabitants obtain their daily supplies?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the inadequacy of the water supply in some rural parishes. Conditions generally have improved in recent years, loans amounting to £2,000,000 in respect of rural schemes having been sanctioned by my Department during the last three years. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot hold out any hope of special assistance being available from the Exchequer, but I may point out that it is open to county councils to contribute to the cost of schemes.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of disabled ex-service men who have come before the public assistance committees in any given recent week; and whether there is now any more co-ordinated policy on the part of these bodies in dealing with such applications for help?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that no statistics are available. The principles to be adopted were defined in a circular of 3rd January, 1930, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend. I have no reason to suppose that those principles are not generally understood and acted upon. In so far as there may be unjusti-
  1964
  fiable divergence of practice in this or in other matters, I hope that local conferences may be effective in securing a greater degree of uniformity.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, TILBURY.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the number of people in the Tilbury area receiving Poor Law relief: and the number of school children receiving mid-day meals supplied by the public assistance committee or local educational authority?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Persons in receipt of poor relief are chargeable to counties and county boroughs as a whole, and the returns received in my Department do not distinguish the numbers in smaller areas. The second part of the question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  Mr. H. MORRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recommendations of the May Committee in regard to the finances of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to give effect to such recommendations?
  Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the then Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on the 17th September last, the position as between the Exchequer and the British Broadcasting Corporation has been reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, and the Corporation has agreed to forgo, out of their proportion of the revenue from wireless licences under the scale now in force, the sum of £50,000 for the period up to the 31st March, 1932, and the sum of £150,000 in the course of the financial year 1932.
  Mr. MORRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the British Broadcasting Corporation has forgone the sum of £50,000, it is having more than that under the new agreement of 11th June last year?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXPENDITURE (LEAP YEAR).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total extra cost of the civil and defence services during the ensuing financial year due to there being 53 weekly pay days in the year?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The total extra cost is estimated at about £865,000; £381,000 of which is on account of defence services and the remainder on account of civil services. This figure relates to the directly paid staff of the civil and defence services, including the Post Office and Revenue Departments, and does not include any estimate, which it would be difficult to frame, of the extra cost on grant-aided services.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. I understand that Tuesdays and Thursdays are allotted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and may I ask whether it is not ordinary courtesy on the part of the Government that either the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be present to answer questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange that national savings certificates on reaching maturity shall automatically be transferred in the name of the holder to a Post Office savings bank account at 2½ per cent. interest.?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: No, Sir. Savings certificates issued before the 1st April, 1922, which are not converted under any of the offers contained in the prospectus of the 29th December, 1931, may be retained by their holders until the 31st March, 1940, and will bear interest after the tenth year from the date of purchase at the rate of ld. per certificate for each completed month, a rate substantially more favourable to the holder than that allowed on a Post Office savings bank account.

    BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE).
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount of loss incurred in repaying the credits recently to France and America; and to which capital account will the amounts be charged?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): If the hon. Member means how much more sterling was required to repay the credits than the sterling they produced when they were borrowed, the answer is about £17,500,000. This difference is represented by an increase in the internal sterling debt of the country.
    Mr. MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the latter part of the question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer does deal with the latter part.
    Mr. MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not favour the Treasury improving the value of the pound and reducing the fiduciary note issue, so as to avoid this loss of sterling?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Does this answer mean that provision will have to be made in this year's Budget to make up this deficit?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    WAR DEBTS (REMISSION).
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual amount of the charge upon public funds in respect of interest upon external loans left uncovered by the remission of debts due by foreign Governments in respect of the late War?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The money lent to the Allies during the War was borrowed at an average rate of interest of slightly over 5 per cent. The total amount of the War Debts covered by Funding Agreements is £1,246 millions on which interest at 5 per cent. amounts to £62½ millions. The total annuities payable under the agreements amount to £17½ millions, and on this basis (which leaves out of account

    1967
    any provision for repayment of the money borrowed) the uncovered charge upon public funds is £45 millions a year.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Are we to understand that the amount paid by the taxpayers in respect of these agreements is £45,000,000 a year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I must ask my hon. Friend to take the answer which I have given.
    Mr. KNIGHT: With great respect, this is an important point. Is the House to understand that the charge on the British taxpayer arising out of the remission of War debts is £45,000,000 a year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It can be put in that way.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that in arriving at this figure account is taken of the amount due in respect of reparations?

    IMPORT DUTIES (REVENUE).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the revenue obtained from the duties imposed under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and the Horticultural Products (Emergency Duties) Act for the months of January and February, respectively?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The approximate amount of revenue received from the duties imposed under (1) the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, and (2) the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, during the months of January and February, 1932, was as follows:

    January.

    February.

    £

    £

    Abnormal Importations

    316,000

    287,000

    Horticultural Products

    43,000

    52,000

  CINEMAS (ENTERTAINMENT DUTY).
  Major PROCTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will receive a deputation on the subject of the losses incurred by small cinemas due to the lack of attendance owing to the Entertainments Duty on the seats costing 6d. or less?
  Sir V. WARRENDER: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider any representations that interested parties may desire to make in writing; and, if it then appears that any useful purpose would be served, he will arrange for a deputation to be received on the subject.
  Major PROCTER: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that this tax on cheaper seats is closing down quite a number of small cinemas in the country, and thus making the lives of the poor just a little less bright?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come in, may we ask him to reply to this supplementary question?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must apologise, but I am afraid that I did not bear it. I regret that I am late.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES (COTTON WASTE).
    Major PROCTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the customs officials in Manchester are making cotton waste dutiable; and, in view of the fact that cotton waste is on the Free List, will he give immediate instructions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand, however, that two small consignments of goods described by the importer as unmanufactured cotton waste—which is the only description of cotton waste exempted from the general ad valorem duty—have been temporarily detained by the local customs officials at Manchester, as they were not satisfied that the goods were exempt from duty. A decision in regard to these will be given as soon as possible. Meanwhile delivery of the goods can be obtained on depositing a sum sufficient to cover any duty which may be found to be chargeable.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some discrepancy between the trade description of unmanufactured cotton waste, and the description given in the Import Duties Act; and will this matter be looked into immediately?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of that, and it is being looked into.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. CROSSLEYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state how the foreign orders for British cotton textiles at the White City section of the British Industries Fair compared with the figures for last year?
    Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It has never been possible to obtain definite figures of the amount of foreign orders placed at the White City or Olympia. I am satisfied, however, from the inquiries I have made, that the orders placed by overseas buyers with exhibitors in the textile section are greatly in excess of those placed at the 1931 Fair, and may even represent an increase of as much as 100 per cent.
    Mr. CROSSLEYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of foreign trade buyers who attended the textiles, White City, section of the British Industries Fair; and whether this constituted an increase or a decrease on last year's figures?
    Major COLVILLE: 3,839 overseas buyers attended the textile section of the British Industries Fair at the White City this year, as compared with 1,503 in 1931, an increase of more than two and a half times.
    Mr. CROSSLEYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department from what countries, not previously importing British cotton textiles in large quantities, any substantial orders were received at the textiles, White City, section of the British Industries Fair?
    Major COLVILLE: I am informed that a substantial volume of business was transacted in cotton textile goods at the British Industries Fair with the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. These are countries which in previous years have not occupied a very high position in the list of buyers of British cotton textiles.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not the answer prove the success which has already attended the Protectionist policy adopted by the Government?
    Mr. LAWSON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Scandinavia and Holland are going to keep their high place in the purchase of British coal?
    Major COLVILLE: I think it is very likely that they will do so.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the exhibitors at the British Industries Fair include firms which are mainly American owned and American controlled; and whether he will define the terms British industry and British firm for the purposes of the Buy British campaign, the British Industries Fair and the Ottawa Conference?
    Major COLVILLE: So far as concerns the British Industries Fair, all goods to be eligible for display must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire, and, provided the Department of Overseas Trade is satisfied that this condition is complied with, the question of foreign ownership or control does not arise. There is no special definition applicable to a campaign such as the "Buy British," which, though officially launched, can only be regarded as a patriotic appeal in the widest sense. As regards the Ottawa Conference, it must obviously be left to the Conference itself to frame any definition of the kind in question.
    Mr. PIKE: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the British Industries Fair there were exhibits by firms which are largely American in origin, and in future industries fairs would he be prepared to provide a new definition of the term "British"?
    Major COLVILLE: I shall be glad to go into any question which my hon. Friend raises. The Department of Overseas Trade has been very careful in choosing the test of British Empire origin which they apply.

    LEAD AND ZINC (IMPORT DUTY, UNITED STATES).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the rates of duty charged upon lead and zinc and manufactures of lead and zinc entering the United States of America; and whether any of these duties are preferential in respect of the products of any country?
    Major COLVILLE: As the particulars are somewhat long I will send them to my hon. Friend. I may say, however, that according to my information the duties on these products on entering into the United States are the same for all countries other than the insular possessions of the United States.

    FRANCE (BRITISH COAL).
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has any information in regard to the decision of the French Government that all coal imported into France from Great Britain must be carried by French ships?
    Major COLVILLE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister for Mines if this has his approval as being consistent with the navigation laws of Oliver Cromwell?

    FRENCH COMMERCIAL DEBTS (PRIORITY OF PAYMENT).
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that bi-lateral arrangements have been made or are in contemplation between France and Hungary and/or between France and other countries where exchange restrictions are in force to secure priority of payment for French commercial debts by means of a clearing-house system or by other methods; and whether these arrangements will be considered to be discrimination against this country within the meaning of the Import Duties Act on the part of either or botch of the parties to the arrangement?
    Major COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, if it should appear that any such arrangements involve discrimination against this country, representations will be made in the appropriate quarters.

    HIRE-PURCHASE SYSTEM.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to restrict the scope of the hire-purchase system?
    Major COLVILLE: My right hon. Friend cannot promise to introduce legislation on this matter but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to send in a statement showing why he thinks legislation on this subject is necessary and what remedy he proposes, he will consider it.
    Mr. ADAMS: Is my hon. Friend not aware of the tremendous amount of vexatious litigation caused to poor people who are trapped by unscrupulous trades-people?
    Major COLVILLE: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will adopt the suggestion made in my original answer.

    IMPORT DUTIES ACT (MANDATED TERRITORIES).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to importers of goods from mandated territories which are ultimately to benefit by preference under the Import Duties Act on account of the fact that the necessary Order in Council bringing these territories under the Act has not yet been issued; and when it is intended to take action in the matter?
    Major COLVILLE: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any inconvenience such as my hon. and gallant Friend refers to in the first part of his question. The necessary steps are being taken to issue the requisite Order in Council under Section 5 (2) of the Import Duties Act as soon as possible.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is there no hold up of goods from mandated territories?
    Major COLVILLE: That is implied in the first part of my answer.

  GOLD COINS (SALES).
  Mr. JOELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make a statement as to the attitude of the Treasury to the present trafficking in the gold coins of the realm, which has recently attained considerable proportions, in order that the public may be informed whether it is in the national interest that such trafficking should be stimulated or discouraged?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Seeing that it is clearly against the national interest that gold coins should be hoarded, I see no reason to object to their sale so long as the law prohibiting the melting of gold coins is not contravened.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reason why the selling price of gold goes up and down so rapidly? Is he aware that the price of gold went down 5s. per fine ounce in one day?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the value in sterling.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people are going round the rural areas and telling the poor country people who have hoarded some gold that, now that Britain has gone off the Gold Standard, the sovereign is worth only 14s. or 15s., but that they will give them £1 for every sovereign as a special consideration; and that they are getting a great many sovereigns from poor people in that way?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the procedure to which my hon. Friend alludes can only be taking place in Scotland.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the gold so collected is not being melted down?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on that point.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that this procedure is being carried on in Scotland?

  JAPAN (FOREIGN LOANS).
  Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the United States Government has recommended financial houses on Wall Street, New York, to refuse to grant financial facilities to Japan in view of her policy in China; and whether the British Government is prepared to cooperate with the American Government by placing an embargo on British loans to Japan?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to any action having been taken by the United States Government on the lines suggested; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregate amount of loan money to beet-sugar factories still outstanding under the Trade Facilities Act; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to provide for the repayment of this amount out of the profits made by the beet-sugar industry before the conclusion of the subsidy period?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Out of £2,215,000 guaranteed to beet-sugar companies under these Acts, roughly £900,000 is due to be repaid to the lenders by instalments ending in 1938; and roughly £400,000 is due to the Exchequer in respect of payments made under the Treasury guarantees. Payment of the former amount cannot be accelerated and recoupment of the latter will be required in the normal course as and when the companies are in a position to discharge their debt.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average dividend paid by these factories amounts to 14.7 per cent.?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that point is really relevant. The question is the dividend paid by the particular companies to which the money has been lent.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of what is happening in regard to the beet-sugar subsidy, and does he not think we shall get into far greater difficulties with the wheat subsidy?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state approximately to what extent the acreage now devoted to sugar-beet has taken the place of acreage respectively devoted to other crops previous to the passing of the British Beet Sugar Subsidy Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to estimate even approximately the extent to which sugar has supplanted other individual crops.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the average quantity of home-grown beet-sugar produced per acre of beet during the whole of the subsidy period to date; and how this amount compares with the yield of sugar per acre grown from cane in Jamaica, Trinidad, Natal, Queensland, and Java, respectively?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As this answer contains a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The average quantity of sugar (all polarisations) produced per acre of sugar-beet grown in Great Britain during the subsidy period to date is 22.08 cwt. The average yields of sugar per acre of cane grown in the places mentioned in the second part of the question are:

    Jamaica (1928–29), 27.78 cwt.

    Trinidad (1929–30), 54.70 cwt.

    Union of South Africa (1928–29), 17.62 cwt.

    Australia (1929–30), 35.04 cwt.

    Java (1930), 119.07 cwt.

    The yields for British territories are calculated on the acreage and production figures given in the Statistical Abstract for the British Empire (Cmd. 3919), while the yield for Java is based on information given in the latest Report of the Department of Overseas Trade on Economic Conditions in the Netherlands East Indies.
    Mr. PURBRICKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the origin of the raw sugar imported by the different beet-sugar factories in Great Britain during the season which is just ending; and whether any and, if so, how much of these supplies came from the British Colonies and/or the Dominions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The imported raw sugar refined by British beet-sugar factories during the 1930–31 "off" season was obtained from the following sources: British West Indies, Mauritius, the Continent (mainly Poland and Germany), Cuba, Java, San Domingo and Surinam. Supplies from British West Indies and Mauritius amounted to 24,395 tons out of a total of about 195,000 tons.

    WHEAT BILL.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in fixing
    1976
    the guaranteed price of wheat at 45s. in the Wheat Bill, he has aimed at giving a fair profit to those who grow wheat in this country at the cheapest cost of production or at the average cost of production?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In fixing the standard price of 10s. per cwt. careful consideration was given to all available information concerning costs of production: that figure was selected as likely to afford a measure of assistance to growers of wheat generally who are faced with the present abnormal conditions and without encouraging an extension of the cultivation of wheat to unsuitable land.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the sight hon. Gentleman think that paying a subsidy for wheat will not have the effect of encouraging farmers to grow wheat who never yet have grown it and never will grow it economically?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Noble Lady must not assume anything of the kind.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that no subsidy for wheat is proposed and that none is contemplated?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask what is the price of the Russian wheat which comes here?
    Viscountess ASTOR: You will be buying it.

    YORKSHIRE BACON FACTORY, LIMITED.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Yorkshire Farmers' Bacon Factory, Limited, is likely to go into voluntary liquidation; what is the financial liability of the Government in this undertaking; and what steps does he propose to take?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the Government's financial interest in the society is confined to the outstanding balance of £8,968 15s. of a loan of £10,000 made in 1927, and secured by a first charge on the society's land and factory premises. As to the last part, the matter is receiving consideration.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any reason why the Government have not taken steps to prevent this factory going into liquidation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Not in answer to a question.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does net the right hon. Gentleman see that what has happened in this case is a reason for putting a duty on pig products?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this bacon factory has gone under because the farmers refused to supply their pigs to the factory?

    MILK INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now state when he proposes to set up a reorganisation commission for the milk industry?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope to be in a position very shortly to set up this Commission, but I cannot at the moment give any date.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cheshire milk industry is extremely anxious that this matter should be dealt with as soon as possible, in view of the necessity for fixing milk contracts?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad to understand that the milk industry is prepared to go on in this matter. There is great hope that we shall be able to do something in that respect.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this commission will be entitled to inquire whether, as regards the increased price paid for milk by consumers, at least a part of it is passed on to the producers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The commission will be able to inquire into all relevant circumstances.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not have been better—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady must sometimes put a supplementary question which has some bearing on the question.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker, but you have not heard my supplementary question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I heard the beginning of it.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will any financial help be given by the Government to the milk reorganisation scheme?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government are not responsible for the reorganisation.

  TRUSTEE SECURITIES (AUSTRALIAN LOANS).
  Sir J. HASLAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to add any Australian loans to the Treasury trustee list under the 1900 Act without a revision of terms and safeguards designed to protect trustees against a recurrence of the recent delay in interest payments due to British holders of certain New South Wales loans?
  Sir V. WARRENDER: My right hon. Friend is not aware that any new Australian loan is in prospect, and the question does not therefore at present arise.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CUSTOMS OFFICIALS (Howls).
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increased duties falling upon Customs officials as the result of the Import Duties Act, 1932, he will arrange to extend the normal hours worked by Customs officials from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., in conformity with ordinary dock working hours, and to discontinue the present practice of charging a special overtime rate for the attendance of Customs officials between the hours of 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: My right hon. and gallant Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend, which would have the effect of extending the normal daily hours worked by officers of Customs and Excise from eight to nine.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (DUPLICATING MACHINES).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of duplicating machines now in the possession of the Stationery Office were made in Germany; and whether British-made articles will be obtained in future for this purpose?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The total number of duplicating machines in the public service is 3,400, of which 232, or rather under 8 per cent. are of German origin. These machines are utilised for certain special work for which they are peculiarly suited.

  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS (BARNSTAPLE).
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Barnstaple the assessment for Income Tax purposes follows the revised assessment for rating purposes, which, on business premises generally, was increased in the assessment made two years ago to three times the previous valuation; and whether, in view of the different principles which govern assessment for rating and Income Tax, respectively, he will cause a new assessment for Income Tax to be made?
  Sir V. WARRENDER: The annual values of properties for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax have, in Barnstaple as elsewhere in the country, been determined under the rules of the Income Tax Acts applicable to Schedule A. Those values are distinct from the values for rating purposes which are determined by a separate authority. The latter are naturally taken into consideration as one of the factors in arriving at the former and it may well be that in. some areas there is a similarity between the two. In any event, however, there was, in connection with the recent general re-valuation for Schedule A, a statutory right of appeal open to any taxpayer who was dissatisfied with the annual value placed upon his property. In the case of business premises owned by the trader, as my hon. Friend knows, the amount of the assessment for Schedule A is a deduction for the purposes of Schedule D.
  Sir B. PETO: Arising out of the earlier part of the reply, can the hon. Gentleman say how it is that, if there is only a general similarity between the assessments for these two purposes, the assessments are the same in every case?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
  Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for pension by ex-service men now suffering from bronchitis, but in respect of whom gas poisoning during the War is admitted by both parties, have been dealt with by his Department in each of the last five years; and how many of such applications have been granted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I regret that the statistical records of the Ministry do not enable me to give the particulars asked for.
  Mr. KERR: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in a certain number of cases bronchial trouble still continues, even though it is alleged that the effects of gas poisoning have passed away?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That is a matter for argument, but I shall always be pleased to consult my hon. Friend if he will come to me about any case that he has in view.

  COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (JUVENILE OFFENDERS).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in. the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories in the application of improved methods of dealing with juvenile offenders?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): A committee was appointed by the Secretary of State in 1930 to review the question of the treatment of juvenile offenders in the Colonies. The question was also considered at the Colonial Office Conference in 1930. A draft model ordinance on the subject was subsequently forwarded to all Colonial Administrations, and measures are now under consideration that would have the

  1981
  effect of assimilating colonial legislation, to the extent that local circumstances permit, to the standard contemplated for this country in the Bill now before the House.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Commission take into consideration the advice given by King Solomon with regard to juvenile offenders, "Spare the rod and spoil the child"?

  EARL HAIG STATUE.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the First Commissioner of Works on what date it is anticipated that the statue of Field Marshal Earl Haig will be erected in Whitehall?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): Under the terms of the contract entered into with the sculptor the memorial should be ready for erection in the summer of 1934.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that the statue, before being put in public, should be submitted to representatives of the British Legion and the ex-service men's organisation for their final opinion?

  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to issue a gazette in respect of the operations on the North-West Frontier from October, 1930, to March, 1931?
  Sir V. WARRENDER: I have been asked to reply. Recommendations for rewards in connection with these operations are at present under consideration. Any finally approved will be published in the "London Gazette."
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is there any method by which we can get the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General to be present to answer their questions?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    COVENANT (AMENDMENT).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have now forwarded to the
    1982
    Council of the League of Nations their views as to the lines on which they think agreement could be obtained to the amendment of the covenant, with a view to bringing it into harmony with the Pact of Paris, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the assembly on 25th September, 1931?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No, Sir. The views of His Majesty's Government will be made known when the committee to discuss this matter meets during the Disarmament Conference.

    MANCHURIA.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the representative of the Japanese Government on the Council of the League of Nations has informed that body that his Government has supported the setting up of an independent Government in Manchuria; and whether he will call the attention of the Japanese Government to the bearing of such action upon their obligations under Article 10 of the Covenant and Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Washington Nine-Power Treaty?
    Mr. EDEN: The statement in the first part of the question goes further than is warranted by the records of the Council, according to which the Japanese delegate merely stated that Japan regarded favourably the establishment of Manchuria's independence, which he interpreted as equivalent to autonomy, and welcome hopefully the new autonomous regime. In the circumstances the second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the statement that now appears that the representative of Japan has welcomed the Government in the name not only of Japan, but of foreigners in Manchuria, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply which he has given?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. My answer is based on the official records of the speech of the Japanese delegate himself, and we are not responsible for anything else.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1983
  whether the Government has considered the contents of the note of Secretary of State Stimson, United States of America, to Japan, dated 7th January, 1932; whether they have agreed to co-operate with the United States of America in the intimation contained in this note of their intention not to recognise any situation, treaty, or agreement entered upon by the Governments of Japan and China which is in violation of the covenants and treaties already existing between the signatories to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris; and, if not, what action is proposed?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 2nd of March. Since then the hon. Member will no doubt have seen the Press reports of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Geneva on the 7th of March, suggesting a declaration by the League of Nations in the sense quoted in the question.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether an agreement has now been reached on that Resolution in the Assembly?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir, I cannot say.
  Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether his attention has been called to a statement made at the Assembly of the League of Nations by the Chinese Delegation on the 8th March, in which it is alleged that the Japanese Government contemplate despatching troops to the Tientsin area; whether he has information on the subject; and whether, if he is satisfied that these allegations are well founded, he will make representations to the Japanese Government, in view of the situation in Shanghai and in China generally, as to the danger of moving troops to Tientsin?
  Mr. EDEN: I have been asked to reply to a question, but I have had no notice of this one. I have had notice, however, of another question with reference to Shanghai.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry if there has been a mishap in sending the question. The next question that I was going to put—
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have not seen this question; it has not come to me at all. The question which I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going to ask, about Shanghai, we did get last night. I asked the Foreign Office to attend to it, and they have the answer to it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry; I thought that both questions were sent in at one time.
  Mr. BALDWIN: Only one reached me.
  Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the negotiations between the Governments of China and Japan on the one hand, and the Powers which have special interests in the Shanghai settlements on the other, for the conclusion of arrangements which shall render definite the cessation of hostilities in the Shanghai area and regulate the withdrawal of the Japanese forces; whether these negotiations have broken down, and, if so, the causes of the failure; and whether be will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to bring about an armistice in the Shanghai area, untrammelled by political conditions relating to the settlement or any outstanding questions between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government.
  Mr. EDEN: The situation is, I think, not quite such as the right hon. Gentleman seems to assume. The Council of the League of Nations were informed by my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, on the 29th February, of the conversations on board His Majesty's Ship "Kent" for the purpose of arranging a cessation of hostilities. On the same day the Council made a proposal for a conference to take place for the definite reestablishment of peace in the Shanghai area, subject to local arrangements being made for a cessation of hostilities. The conference was to include representatives of other Powers specially interested in the Shanghai Settlements as well as Japan and China. Further, this conference was to be undertaken on the basis, first, that Japan had no political, territorial or other exclusive designs in that area, and, second, that the safety and integrity of the International and French

  1985
  Settlements must be preserved under arrangements which would secure the Settlements and their inhabitants from danger. The proposal was accepted by the Chinese Government on the condition of a cessation of hostilities on the basis of the terms drawn up in His Majesty's Ship "Kent." It was also accepted by the Japanese Government. The terms drawn up in His Majesty's Ship "Kent" were referred to the Chinese and Japanese Governments for confirmation, but have new been superseded, so far as the Japanese Government are concerned, by others which I hope to be able to give to the House very shortly. These latter terms have not, so far, been accepted by the Chinese. Both Governments, however, in addition to having accepted the Council's proposal, are parties, through their representatives in Geneva, to the Assembly resolution of the 4th March. This resolution calls upon them to ensure that the cessation of hostilities already announced shall be made effective, and recommends negotiations, with the assistance of the other interested Powers, to render the cessation of hostilities definite, and to regulate the withdrawal of the Japanese troops. These negotiations cannot be said to have broken down, for, in the absence as yet of a local agreement between the Chinese and Japanese, on the terms for an effective cessation of hostilities, they have not been actually entered upon. It is not clear at present how this unfortunate hitch can best be overcome, but the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that His Majesty's Government are not only contributing their utmost to assist, but also have no desire or intention to complicate the position by introducing matters extraneous to the issue immediately involved.

  LIBERIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether normal relations exist between this country and Liberia at the present time; whether any countries have broken off relations with Liberia; and the present position with regard to the proposals of the League of Nations to suppress slavery there?
  Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are represented
  1986
  at Monrovia by a Chargé d'Affaires, who has, however, not yet presented his credentials. The United States Government are in a similar position, but I am not aware that any country has withdrawn its representative altogether. The proposals of the League of Nations are to be considered further by the Liberia Committee of the Council of the League in April or May, by which time these proposals will also have been considered by the Liberian Parliament. In the meantime, and in view of persistent reports of ill-treatment of sections of the population in Liberia by the Government forces, His Majesty's Representative at Monrovia, in concert with certain of his diplomatic colleagues, on the 7th March made strong representations to the Liberian Government that these practices should cease. Steps are being taken to verify the results of these representations, and the League Committee are being kept informed of these developments.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT ATTACHÉ.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what country the additional assistant naval attaché has been appointed; and whether there is any special development in the country that would make his knowledge of engineering useful to Britain?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The additional Assistant Naval Attaché has been appointed to assist the three Naval Attaches in Europe who are accredited to 21 countries. In many of these countries engineering is making rapid strides.

    FIRST SEA LORD (EMOLUMENTS).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reason for an increase in the civil salary of the First Sea Lord for the year 1932 of £84, seeing that there is a decrease in the civil pay of the Second Sea Lord of £280, the Naval half-pay in each case being £1,092 per annum?
    Lord STANLEY: The First Sea Lord's emoluments have been subject to the special cut of 10 per cent. applied to all officers of the Crown Services in receipt of more than £2,000 a year. The

    1987
    apparent increase in salary since 1931 is due to the fact that, for reasons of economy, a house allowance (cut by 10 per cent.) has been substituted for the furnished official residence with which he was formerly provided, as indicated by the footnote on page 245 of the Navy Estimates.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BUDGET DATE).
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Lord President tell us the business for next week, when the House will rise for the Easter holiday, and the date of the Budget.
Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday; Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill, remaining stages, Tanganyika and British Honduras Money Resolution, Committee stage; and further progress with certain of the Bills which have been announced for to-morrow.
Tuesday; The third Allotted Supply Day, Report stage of the Air, Navy and Army Estimates. We will put down Air first to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite.
Wednesday and Thursday; Committee stage of the Wheat Bill.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
If there is time on any other day, other Orders will be taken. It is hoped to take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 24th March, and the House will meet again on Tuesday, 5th April.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to open his Budget on Tuesday, 19th April.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: When are the Government going to introduce the amending Bill to the Rent Restrictions Act?
Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot say.
Mr. COCKS: Has any sudden cataclysm overwhelmed the Cabinet?
Mr. BALDWIN: Not that I have heard of.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 30.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[3.48 p m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Albery, Irving James

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Christie, James Archibald

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Clarke, Frank

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Clarry, Reginald George

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Atholl, Duchess of

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fox, Sir Gifford

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Fraser, Captain Ian

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Colman, N. C. D.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Colville, David John

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Conant, R. J. E.

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

Bernays, Robert

Cooke, Douglas

Glossop, C. W. H.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cooper, A. Duff

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Copeland, Ida

Goff, Sir Park

Bossom, A. C.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Goldie, Noel B.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Gower, Sir Robert

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Crossley, A. C.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Granville, Edgar

Broadbent, Colonel John

Curry, A. C.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Denville, Alfred

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Buchan, John

Donner, P. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Doran, Edward

Hales, Harold K.

Burghley, Lord

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

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

Burnett, John George

Drewe, Cedric

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Duckworth, George A. V.

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hanbury, Cecil

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Duggan, Hubert John

Hanley, Dennis A.

Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Eden, Robert Anthony

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Carver, Major William H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Emrys-Evans, P. V,

Hops, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Hopkinson, Austin

Hornby, Frank

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Horsbrugh, Florence

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Scone, Lord

Howard, Tom Forrest

Mitcheson, G. G.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Smithers, Waldron

Hurd, Percy A.

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H,

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

North, Captain Edward T.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Patrick, Colin M.

Stones, James

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Peake, Captain Osbert

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Pearson, William G.

Strauss, Edward A.

Johnston, J. W, (Clackmannan)

Peat, Charles U.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Petherick, M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Ker, J. Campbell

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pike, Cecil F.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Potter, John

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

Leckie, J. A.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Thompson, Luke

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Purbrick, R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Llewellin, Major John J.

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Mabane, William

Ramsden, E,

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Rankin, Robert

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

McEwen, J. H. F.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Robinson, John Roland

White, Henry Graham

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Maitland, Adam

Rosbotham, S. T.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Rothschild, James A. de

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Salmon, Major Isidore

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Martin, Thomas B,

Salt, Edward W.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Meller, Richard James

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Ward and Major George Davies.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Price, Gabriel

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H, (Merthyr Tydvil)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hirst, George Henry

Thorne, William James

Cove, William G,

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Kirkwood, David

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.

Groves.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to transfer to the University Courts the right of presentation or appointment to certain chairs or professorships in the faculties of divinity or theology in the universities of Scotland; to remove restrictions as regards appointment to chairs or professorships in the said universities; to extend the powers of the University Courts of the said universities with regard to the making of ordinances; and for purposes connected therewith." [Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords].]
Consolidation Bills,—That they communicate that they have come to the
1990
following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 129, in the case of the Petition of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations, against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

BILLS REPORTED.

  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  WORKSOP CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.

      SIR PHILIP SASSOON'S STATEMENT.
      Order for Committee read.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      4.0 p.m.
      The Estimates which I have the honour to introduce to-day bear in every part the imprint of a sincere and, I venture to submit, successful effort to contribute substantially towards the urgent requirements of the financial situation, without permanently impairing the high standard of efficiency of the Air Services. The net Estimates, at £17,400,000, are down by no less a figure than £700,000, a particularly heavy decline on the comparatively small total expenditure of an expanding and developing Service. There is also a large reduction in the gross figures due to decreased Appropriations-in-Aid in respect, primarily, of the Royal Air Force in India, the re-armament of which is now virtually complete, and also of the Fleet Air Arm for which, as for the rest of the Air Force, there are no new formations to be provided in the coining year. As the House will realise, to effect so large an economy with a minimum of injury to the Service has been a difficult task, and one to which the Air Council have devoted long and anxious thought. That has only been achieved by a variety of expedients, many of them admittedly makeshift measures which it will not be possible to repeat another year.
      The reductions in pay both of Service and civilian personnel decided upon by His Majesty's Government last autumn, as part of a general reduction in public salaries and wages, have, of course, contributed towards the economies effected. As, however, the numbers of Air Service personnel are comparatively small, the saving under this head is necessarily small also. I should like in this connection to say that the cuts bore very hardly upon individuals, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to all ranks of the Royal Air Force for the splendid spirit which they displayed
      2008
      when they heard of the decision of His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. There was a ready recognition of the country's needs and of the fact that it was the duty of the Royal Air Force to bear its part in the sacrifices required of the nation.
      The fall in the prices of commodities has enabled us to budget on a materially lower scale under Vote 2, and to a lesser extent under certain other Votes. Vote 3, representing as it does over 40 per cent. of the total Air expenditure, has necessarily had to make the largest individual contribution towards the reductions demanded of the Air Ministry, but it will be noted that the reduction in the net figure is proportionately lower than on other Votes, as, for instance, the Vote for Works and Buildings, which is down by nearly 8 per cent.
      I need not dwell upon the importance of an adequate expenditure upon technical development and continued experiment and research to the efficiency of the Air Service and the safety of its personnel. The Air Council have been most careful, in making their economies under this head, to ensure that adequate provision shall be left for the proper maintenance of machines and engines and their ancillary equipment, because no measure of economy could be justified which would add to the risks which are taken by the personnel of the Royal Air Force in the performance of their duties. It is that over-riding fact which has made the task of the Air Council in allocating the economies which have been demanded of them in the interests of national economy so difficult. It has rendered it necessary to make many sacrifices in many directions in which, in happier days, the maintenance or even an increase of expenditure would have been desirable. In this relation I may refer to the decision to break up the R, 100, from which a substantial saving is expected, and also the cancellation of the 33-ton flying boat which was designed to carry passengers and mails across the Mediterranean. Firm believer as I am in the future of flying boats—and I am sure many hon. Members in the House share my views in this respect—I confess to a personal regret at the inevitable necessity for abandoning this big civilian boat with its capacity for carrying 40 passengers, long range and good

      2009
      sea-going qualities. The fact remains, however, that the £100,000 which its construction would have entailed would have exhausted all the money now available for the development of other designs of more immediate importance and necessity to civil aviation.
      Another enforced economy which hon. Members will see in the Estimates is under Vote 4. The saving of £140,000 on Works, Buildings and Lands has been achieved only by postponing renovations and improvements which are urgently needed. The cost of providing works, buildings and lands for a new and growing Service is necessarily heavy, and although the expenditure under these heads during the past 10 years has been considerable, the fact remains that many units of the Air Force are still housed in temporary buildings of War-time construction. Apart from any question of the health and comfort of the personnel concerned, these temporary buildings have long outlived the period of service for which they were designed, and they are constantly in need of being patched up, and, therefore, are exceedingly uneconomical to maintain. The decision, therefore, to postpone for this year the replacement of certain of these temporary structures has only been arrived at as being the lesser of two evils. It is a policy that could not be repeated indefinitely.
      Having regard to the very full explanation given in my Noble Friend's accompanying Memorandum, I do not think that there are any other financial features in these Estimates to which I need specifically invite the attention of hon. Members, but I would like to remind the House, as they were reminded when the Air Estimates were presented last year, that last year's Estimates, despite a steady growth in the size of the Royal Air Force and continuous improvement in its technical equipment, were actually lower in total than the Estimates for 1925. The minute supervision and the vigorous pruning of all heads of expenditure which made that result possible have necessarily added to the difficulty of finding the further savings which have been required and realised in this year's Estimates.
      I will now, with the permission of the House, turn from the narrow, though
      2010
      more than ever vital field of finance, and will attempt to give the House, as is customary on these occasions, a brief survey of some of the major activities of the Royal Air Force and of the development of civil aviation. It was my privilege and good fortune to make, during the recent Recess, a comprehensive round of British overseas air stations, in the course of which I covered some 8,000 miles by air in a variety of service and civil machines, and revisited units of the Air Force stations in Malta, Egypt, Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and India. The journey brought home to me, even more forcibly than did my former official tour, the far-reaching character of the revolution, for it is no less, which air transport is effecting in the sphere of world communications. For, whereas the stages of my former tour were specifically worked out beforehand and the tour itself was really in the nature of a test or experiment, my last journey was one which might have been carried out by any private individual who was sufficiently interested in the different places to which it took me.
      I was greatly struck by the remarkable progress that has been made during the last five years. I wish that it were possible to put before the House a large-scale map of the world, which would bring home clearly to hon. Members a picture of this progress. They would then see, if I may employ a term which is used in quite different though not unconnected circumstances, that this map is being steadily and methodically covered by a network of "thin red lines," the lines, that is, marking the course of air routes which have been developed, or are being developed, by the pioneer enterprise of the Royal Air Force and followed, or being followed at no distant interval, by regular civil air transport. Once again, trade is following the flag, but by new routes and routes no less romantic, even in these days of ever-growing scientific attainment, than in any period of our history. Everywhere that I went I found those responsible for administering the far-flung territories of our Empire profoundly impressed by the rapidity with which the mobility of the Air Arm is increasing, and, if I may so style it, with the ubiquity of British aircraft.

      2011
      Everywhere is proof of that interesting and, to my thinking, most satisfactory feature to which I have referred, namely, the way in which military and civil activities have followed each other and fulfilled complementary roles. It is a feature which seems to have come into being naturally and spontaneously at the very beginning of things. In the early years after the War it was the Royal Air Force which blazed the trail across the desert areas which lie between Egypt and Iraq, to be replaced in due course by the weekly civil air service which today carries our mails to and from India. Similarly, the series of regular annual flights by Air Force machines in formation from Cairo to the Cape has gradually opened up the very difficult countries in Central Africa for a regular civil air service. Despite a number of adventurous private flights, the successful accomplishment of which has moved our admiration and wonder, the geographical and climatic conditions of Central Africa present an obstacle to regular civil air transport which the present resources of civil aviation would have found insuperable without the aid so given. It is to the friendly and helpful co-operation of military and civil flying that we owe the fact that to-day we have between London and the Cape a regular weekly civil air mail service.
      I need not dwell upon the commercial value of this quicker system of communication which has been established between Great Britain and India on the one hand, and the Dominion of South Africa and all the Central and East African administrations on the other, nor upon the great benefits which are likely, in due course, to accrue there-from in the fields of politics and trade alike, but I should like, in passing, to pay a tribute to all the African administrations concerned in the development of the African route, and especially to the Government of the Union of South Africa for the friendly co-operation and also for the substantial financial contribution they are making towards this new link in the chain of our Imperial communications.
      It is proper to point out that this pioneering work, whereby the Air Force is clearing the trail for future civil air routes, is not the cause of any
      2012
      special expense to the taxpayer. The efficiency of the Service and the strategic needs of our Empire alike demand that long-distance Service flights should be carried out at regular intervals so that our aircraft and personnel may at all times be prepared efficiently to carry out their military duties. It is our good fortune that these experimental Service flights, so necessary for the training of the Air Force, can so readily be turned to such good account also as a means of opening up new civil air routes for the future.
      This pioneering role is by no means finished. A flight from Egypt to West Africa is now a regular annual feature in the programme of the units of the Middle East Command. Hon. Members will have seen in my Noble Friend's Memorandum a reference to the flight which left Egypt last October for a cruise to Nigeria and the West African Colonies. They will have read of the unfortunate interruption of that flight due to the outbreak of yellow fever in the Gold Coast. That interruption, however, is only a temporary matter. The flight will be repeated in due course, and I hope that in time a branch civil air line will be brought into being which, connecting with the Cape-Cairo rouse at some point in the Sudan, will bring the West African Colonies—Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Gambia and Sierra Leone—within a few days' journey of this country.
      One of the squadrons of the Middle East Command is at the moment engaged upon a flight in East Africa, visiting Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, the itinerary of which will cover some 7,000 miles. Again, Air Force machines now fly regularly along the barren coast of the Persian Gulf between Basra and Muscat, and experimental flights have been undertaken eastwards from Muscat and thence along the southern coast of Arabia towards Aden. To link up with these operations, the squadron at Aden is extending its activities north-eastwards and is gradually opening up the little known territories of the Hadramaut littoral. Some time ago, the Air Officer Commanding in Iraq flew from Basra, a distance of over 1,700 miles, by flying boat to Murbat on the South Arabian coast and there joined hands with the Officer Commanding at Aden, who

      2013
      had flown 750 miles north-eastwards with a flight of land planes to meet him. In the reverse direction a flight has just been concluded from Aden to Egypt and back, and a unit of the Royal Air Force has already started from Egypt on a return visit to Aden. So the whole vast perimeter of the Arabian Peninsula is being encircled by air. As I have informed the House, I myself was able only a few weeks ago to fly along the southern shore of the Persian Gulf and visit the little known and desolate Trucial coast between Bahrein and Muscat, passing en route over the boldly jutting lion's paw of the Musandin Peninsula. It is a surprising seascape, with steep and rook-bound cliffs, but with many inlets in which flying boats can take temporary shelter.
      Farther east, beyond India, the squadron of flying boats based on Singapore has, in the course of the past few years, cruised far and wide both southeastwards via the Dutch Indies towards Australia, and north-eastwards to India, exploring alternative routes along the coasts of Siam and Burma and via the Nicobar and Andaman Islands. On the 15th of this month three Southampton Flying Boats are due to leave Singapore on a training flight to Port Darwin, where they will be met by six land planes of the Royal Australian Air Force, and thus initiate liaison with the Royal Australian Air Force similar to that already established with the South African Air Force in the series of regular annual flights from Cairo to the Cape to which I have referred. The experience which is being gained by these cruises, and the knowledge acquired of favourable or adverse climatic and geographical conditions are very useful and indeed essential for Air Force purposes, as well as being invaluable to the organisers of our new civil air lines.
      Besides long-distance flights of this kind, which are undertaken for the double purpose of making the Air Force overseas efficient to meet any military eventuality and at the same time for opening up fresh routes for civilian enterprise, the Air Force is now continuously engaged in innumerable minor activities of what I may call a "productive" character. In all parts of the world, it is constantly being called upon to perform innumerable miscellaneous
      2014
      jobs, such as searches for parties lost in the desert, the conveyance of medical assistance to remote stations, or the transport of serious cases from such stations to some centre where they can receive skilled medical treatment.
      It was the custom to say, in the days when the world was larger than it is now, that wherever one went in the world one was sure to find that a Scot had got there first, but nowadays, when the world has so far contracted that men of all nationalities can get themselves into trouble in its most remote corners, it is equally true to say that, wherever in the world one may get into difficulties, the Royal Air Force can always be relied upon to arrive in time to extricate one from the worst consequences of one's misfortune.
      Whether it is the discovery of a touring car belonging to the Egyptian State Telegraphs lost in the sandy wastes of the Libyan desert; the giving of a helping hand to a district commissioner in the collection of taxes from semi-nomadic tribes whose sense of public duty is not so keenly developed as that of the British Income Tax-payers; the carrying of water and supplies to an East African trade expedition stranded north of Wadi Half a with only one small bottle of water left between them; the conveyance of supplies and mails to, and moral support of a political agent on tour in the North West Provinces of India; the location and provisioning of an Italian aircraft forced-landed on the coast of Somaliland; the escort and evacuation of sick members of a column operating in the hinterland of Aden, or the conveyance by flying boat from Ras-al-Khaimah to Bahrein of the Sultan's brother for treatment for eye trouble—at all times and in all places the deus ex machina is a unit of the Royal Air Force.
      Mr. BATEY: Do we vote £17,000,000 for that?
      Sir P. SASSOON: Those are some of the minor things they do. The demands of that kind are indeed so frequent that they are considered as a matter of routine. They do not often figure in the reports; but they are, in spite of the hon. Member thinking them but small activities, helping to maintain the prestige of the British flag and the good

      2015
      name of Great Britain in all parts of the world, and they are bringing peace and order and civilisation to many backward people. They are the means, directly and indirectly, of saving a great many lives, both European and native, and, what is no mean consideration in these days, saving the expenditure or the loss of large sums of money. I confess that I find this aspect of the work of the Royal Air Force peculiarly fascinating, but I must have regard to the feelings of hon. Members and pass on to other matters with which they will expect me to deal before I resume my seat.
      During the past year there have been no exploits of the kind which give public prominence to the work of the Royal Air Force overseas, but I should like to mention the operations which were very skilfully and successfully carried out by the Air Forces in Iraq in conjunction with the Iraq army, which ended in the surrender of Sheikh Mahmud and in the elimination thereby of a constant source of unrest and disturbance in Kurdistan. I might also mention the conveyance of troops to Cyprus at very short notice which was interesting as being the first occasion on which a very large body of troops had been conveyed across a considerable width of sea, but which, apart from the significance of that feature, was a comparatively small affair. This year one must look at home to find the exploit for which the year will be remembered.
      The facts and figures concerning the winning of the Schneider Trophy and the setting up of a new high speed record for the world, are set out very fully in my Noble Friend's Memorandum, and I do not think that I need refer to them any more. But it is my wish and, I think, also my duty to pay tribute in this place and on this occasion to the supreme skill and thoroughness of the designers and constructors of the engines and machines which brought us the victory, to the technical staffs of the Air Ministry and the National Physical Laboratory who collaborated with them, to the high courage and remarkable physical and mental efficiency of all members of the High Speed Flight, from whom the winning pilots were chosen, and to the splendid public spirit and generous patriotism of Lady Houston, without whose munificent
      2016
      gift there would have been no British entry.
      There can be no doubt that such notable proof, in the three successive victories, of the outstanding excellence of British design, British material, and British workmanship Las been of real assistance and value to the British aircraft industry, and in maintaining the high reputation of British workmanship in general. The experience gained in the making of the winning machines and engines has also been of real value in the designing of new equipment for the Royal Air Force. The result is, that although reckoned by size alone we still take only fifth place among the air forces of the world, it is satisfactory to know that the air force of no other nation is better equipped than our own and that the standard of training and efficiency in our Air Force is higher than that of the air force of any other country. But it is my plain duty to enter a warning that to maintain this standard we shall inevitably require in 1933, and in future years, substantially more money than the House is being asked to vote in these Estimates.
      By the end of 1932 the equipment of all regular units with machines of comparatively recent design will be practically complete. We should have carried the process of rearmament a good deal further if it had not been for the financial crisis, which entailed so big a cut in the Vote for technical equipment to which I have already referred. But when this year's programme is complete, 33 squadrons will be equipped with types introduced into service in 1930 or later. Practically all the remaining squadrons in the First Line will be equipped with machines introduced into service not earlier than 1926.
      The turning over of fighting aircraft from wooden construction to metal is now virtually complete. Apart from many other advantages, a substantial lengthening of the life of aeroplanes between overhauls is expected to result from the change. With the exception of single seater fighters, for which, naturally, manoeuvreability is of prime importance, flying boats and certain obsolescent or experimental aircraft, all aeroplanes in service have been fitted or are about to be fitted with slots.

      2017
      4.30 p.m.
      The taxpayer is given an opportunity to judge of the general efficiency of the Air Services on the occasion of the annual Air Exercises, which in the year now under review took place in July and completed some 2,000 hours flying without untoward incident. A feature of these exercises was the part taken, for the first time, by Cadre Night Bombing Squadrons, which are composed partly of Special Reserve personnel. Auxiliary Air Force Squadrons also took part again in the day bombing operations. That the standard of flying and general training of the regular squadrons should be high is only in keeping with the fine traditions which the youngest of the Fighting Services has already made its own. No pains are being spared to increase that efficiency still further, particularly in respect of "blind" flying, with the aid of special instruments, deck landing and armament training, in all of which directions definite progress is being made. It is, however, peculiarly satisfactory to know that the units containing non-regular personnel, both Cadre and Auxiliary, are able to take part in large scale exercises with Regular units, not only without discredit, but with an efficiency which actually exceeded the expectations of those who were responsible for the experiment of introducing this element into the Home. Defence Force.
      There has been a satisfactory increase of strength in the Cadre and Auxiliary Squadrons during the year, and the general standard of flying remains high. As regards the University Squadrons, the number of hours of flying has again increased. For the first time formation flying has been introduced for the more experienced members of these units. Both squadrons were maintained at full strength throughout the year, and each has a long waiting list. The country may rest assured that it is getting very good value indeed for the money spent upon the units with non-regular personnel. During 1931, a number of officers who joined the Auxiliary Air Force in its early days completed their initial periods of service. Of these, some have relinquished their commissions and returned to civil life; others, I am glad to say, have found it possible to re-engage for further service; yet others have trans-
      2018
      ferred to the Reserve of Air Force Officers. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all officers and airmen who gave their support to the Auxiliary Air Force at the beginning of its career for the part they have played in making it the success which it is to-day.
      I may now turn, by a natural transition, to say a few words about civil aviation. I have already referred to the inauguration of the through service to the Cape. That is a step taken to build up on solid foundations the network of Imperial Air Routes which will one day link together all parts of the British Empire. Despite substantial reductions of mileage flown in Australia and Canada, as a result of acute financial depression, the total mileage flown in the British Empire during 1931 upon routes in regular operation shows an increase of some 9 per cent. upon 1930. Proposals are on foot for bringing into operation, it is hoped in the near future, another 12,000 miles and more of Empire routes. When these routes have been opened, the Empire will possess over 37,000 miles of organised air routes.
      The total mileage of Empire lines compares very favourably with that of all other countries except the United States of America, which, owing to her geographical size and position, is so well suited for the development of air transport. In fact, with the exception of the United States of America, the British Empire mileage is the largest. We have always pursued in this country a policy of avoiding undue coddling of air transport by State financial assistance, and have followed conscientiously the plan of encouraging air transport in such a way that it may be able, at the earliest possible moment, to "fly by itself" The result is that, though it is clear that the process will take much longer than was at one time hoped, few other lines, if any, can show so satisfactory an approach towards a commercial basis for their operations as do the air lines of the British Empire.
      Another eminently British and satisfactory feature of civil aviation in the Empire is the continued growth of amateur flying through the medium of Light Aeroplane Clubs. There is a substantial increase in the number of flying

      2019
      licences and certificates of registration current during the past year. No doubt, a revival of general industrial prosperity would result in a marked improvement in this direction. There has also been an increase in the number of aerodrome licences issued during the year, due principally to the big development in the activities of "joy riding" companies. As an example of growing air-mindedness, this is all to the good; but it is very desirable that greater progress should be made in the provision of, or at any rate the reservation of sites for, municipal aerodromes. The day cannot be far distant when every city of any importance will have its permanent aerodrome; and delay in securing convenient sites can only result in increasing unduly the cost of providing them. At the present moment there are no more than 57 licensed permanent aerodromes, landing grounds and seaplane stations in Great Britain. It may be that, in view of the existing financial stringency, it is too much to expect munipalities to embark upon the comparatively heavy expenditure involved in the establishment of a permanent aerodrome, but I do urge that the authorities concerned should decide without delay upon the location of their aerodromes and secure sites from being built over. I hope that other municipalities will be quick to emulate the foresight and enterprise of those which have already taken in hand work of this kind.
      Outside Great Britain, a large number, some 16 in all, of private long-distance flights have been carried out during the year with a very satisfactory freedom from serious accident. Outstanding among them, though all were remarkable performances, are Squardron Leader Bert Hinkler's solo crossing of the Southern Atlantic from west to east in a Puss Moth, Miss Salaman's and Mr. A. G. Store's record flight to the Cape in less than five and a-half days, Mr. J. A. Mollison's record flight from Australia to England in under nine days, and Mr. C. A. Butler's record flight from England to Australia.
      I will reserve what I have to say on certain very important issues—more particularly disarmament and airship development—until a later stage of the
      2020
      Debate. Nor can I deal, as I should have wished to do, with technical development and research. These are subjects which in themselves might easily take up more of the time of the House than I have already occupied. No doubt, hon. Members will refer in the course of the Debate to any points in which they are specially interested, in which case I will endeavour to deal with those points later. For the moment, I content myself with pointing to the high standard of performance of British machines as proof that the problems of research and technical development are being tackled earnestly, continuously, and on the whole successfully.
      The Air Service is a young service; young not only in the years of its existtence, but in the years also of the great majority of those who serve in it. It is likely that the last feature will always remain to characterise it. It is to be expected, therefore, that so long as the spirit of the Air Service is sound, it will be a spirit of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is a catching thing, and it would be unreasonable to expect that those of more mature years who are connected at all closely with this essentially young Service should altogether escape the spirit of enthusiasm which to-day pervades it, and I trust will always pervade it. I do not remember an Air Estimates speech in this House the tone of which has not been instinct with enthusiasm for the Air Service in all its branches, and particularly for the Royal Air Force. I do not expect mine to be regarded as an exception. I ask the House to believe that the closer one gets to the British Air Service, the more clearly one realises that it is indeed a proper subject for enthusiasm. I have claimed for the British Air Service that it has the best of machines, the best pilots, the most efficient ground organisation and the best technical skill and workmanship behind it. It is a large claim; but I believe it to be justified.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: The House will, I am sure, desire me to offer to the right hon. Baronet our cordial congratulations upon the very excellent way he has presented the Vote. If I mistake not, this is the first time that he has discharged the task. I could not imagine it being discharged with greater efficiency than it has

      2021
      been done this afternoon. There is no doubt about his enthusiasm concerning his Department, and I have no doubt that he has been able to communicate some of that enthusiasm to the various ranks of the Service.
      I will ask the House to consider with me one or two aspects of the Vote in regard to which the right hon. Baronet made little or no reference. A perusal of the White Paper gives rise to many emotions. For instance, there is the romantic story which the right hon. Baronet told of the achievements in various parts of the world of individual members as well as collective bodies of the Air Service. Listening to the story, so dramatically and romantically given, I naturally felt, like everybody else, whatever may be my private views concerning the Air Service as such, some sense of legitimate pride in the achievements which stand to the credit of the British Air Service. They have displayed a daring and endurance which is beyond praise. When we are told in the White Paper that they have been able to fly at the rate of 407 miles per hour, it conjures up visions of the long hours devotedly given by experts, technicians and others who have made such achievements possible. I need hardly say that an achievement of that sort is one of which we are enormously proud. Moreover, there is the further fact that our airmen have flown across trackless forests and over pathless oceans carrying letters and other communications whereby people in the uttermost parts of the world are able to interchange their thoughts and greetings.
      These reflections naturally give us a sense of exhilaration, because they show that man is to an ever-increasing degree enlarging the scope of his mastery over physical nature. We are very glad indeed that our own people are pioneers and leaders in that particular department of activity. But there is another emotion which is generated by a consideration of this White Paper, for not only are we introduced to the story of grand achievement within the realm of physical endeavour, but we also have a sense of apprehension generated by reading some other portions of this official document. For instance, we find a record of natives being bombed from the air in some parts of the world; we have stories of
      2022
      the first time transported suddenly by air across a stretch of sea to participate in the task of suppressing rebellion or not in some portion of the Empire.
      It is singularly striking that an instrument which is comparatively new among the instruments at the disposal of man, an instrument so capable of good in the world, with infinite potentialities from the standpoint of extending the bounds of peace and understanding in the world, has so suddenly and completely become an adjunct of the war machine. In the statement of the hon. Baronet and in this White Paper this juxtaposition of civil and military activity, through the medium of the air arm, is ever present and should be ever present to our minds. I am not complaining against the Government, as such, at this point. If we examine the matter we find that this association of civil and military aviation is practised in all countries of the world, and therefore it is not a fault that I can attribute to my own country alone. But it is of great moment to those who watch the development of this new activity of mankind. Indeed this association of civil and military activity under the aegis of one Ministry is indicative of the great change that is coming over the very nature of war itself in the world.
      Aerial warfare, in the very nature of things, must be more ruthless and more ruinous; it must become more destructive and more deadly, and its weapons, unlike the weapons of the land Army or of the Navy, are to a far greater degree the weapons of offence than of defence. The use of these weapons is such that in their operations whole nations, not belligerent armies only, will be involved. I notice that the right hon. Baronet sought to comfort us with the reflection that this service is a comparatively cheap one. Well, of course, it is, compared with the Army or the Navy. But if we test the potentialities of the Services, however divergent and however remotely apart may be the actual amounts expended, the air arm is infinitely more deadly than either of the other Services. I will put it in another way. An expenditure of £1,000,000 upon land forces or naval forces would not produce an instrument nearly as deadly as the expenditure of a similar sum upon aerial development.

      2023
      Therefore we ought not to take undue comfort to ourselves on account of the fact that the Air Force is to cost only £17,500,000, compared with the larger expenditure on the other Services.
      The appalling thing to which I want to direct attention is this—that even though you are able, as this year, to point to a reduction in the expenditure upon aerial development, the actual reduction of expenditure on the military side is in nowise a comforting thing from the standpoint of future warfare, for such is the nature of aerial development that the civil side of it may be made applicable and adapted to war purposes within a small measure of time. Therefore, a limitation upon the more military side of it is not at all comforting. We must be assured that the reduction, if at all, shall be a reduction arising from a definite desire to remove military warfare entirely from the air. Of course it is quite clear to us all that the world cannot afford at this moment to limit the development of its civil aviation. On the other hand, while we have to develop civil aviation, we must try to limit the development of military aviation if we are to make tracks towards Disarmament in the world. Therefore it is small wonder when we see this enormous development of civil and military aviation in the world and reflect upon how easy it is to convert from civil to military purposes—it is small wonder that the people of the world are saying, "What shall we do to be saved?"
      I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Baronet did not devote some portion of his speech to a, discussion of the attitude of the Government to the question of Disarmament, and did not elaborate, in some degree at any rate, the paragraphs relating to Disarmament on pages 1 and 2 of the White Paper. There is now meeting in Geneva a Disarmament Conference, and this country is amply represented there. I have studied the various proposals that have been put forward at that Conference on behalf of the countries represented. I think I am right in saying that, while there are differences of detail in the various schemes advanced, there is, singularly enough, present to nearly all of them—our own country, I am sorry to say, excluded—a proposal concerning either the abolition or the
      2024
      internationalisation of the control of aerial warfare for the future. I must say how very disappointed I am to find that our own Government, through its representatives at Geneva, has not found it possible to make far more challenging, bold and courageous proposals at Geneva in regard to this particular section, namely aerial equipment, than has in fact been the case. The almost universal reference to this particular point about aerial warfare, indicates that the people of the world are beginning to realise that aviation cannot go side by side with mere nationalism. That is understandable.
      If an airman goes up into the air for a journey, as the right hon. Baronet has done recently, in his flight he must pass over the territory of other nations, and that implies that if aerial development is to take place to an ever-increasing degree, the interest of all nations becomes automatically involved in the conditions under which aerial development shall take place. State separatism obviously cannot meet the requirements of tomorrow. Take, for instance, the flight to which the right hon. Baronet referred. There have been several flights from this country to Australia, or the other way round. Each of those flights must have involved traversing French territory, some part of central or Southern Europe, the crossing of some part of the Near East, or the traversing territory which is not usually regarded as part and parcel of our own Empire. That brings us automatically up against the question whether ways and means cannot be devised whereby this kind of development, inevitable in the future, shall take place without regard to Imperialistic, or nationalistic considerations. In the old days we used to speak of the Imperium Romanum. Now we speak of the Imperium Britannicum in regard to the sea. But you cannot visualise a condition of affairs where any particular nation can with safety and with confidence anticipate the period when it and it alone can exercise unchallengeable domination in the realm of the air.
      That brings me to this proposition: The Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, uses this singular expression in the White Paper:

      2025
      "Meantime, despite general recognition of the growing dependence of the British Empire on air power as on sea power".
      5.0 p.m.
      I do not understand the phrase, unless it be that there are people in charge of this particular arm of our national activity who visualise the exercise by Britain of a form of power in the air comparable to the power which we have exercised in the past on the sea. If it be true, clearly this country had better know precisely to what it is being committed. It conjures up a form of rivalry so dangerous, and in the end so destructive of our best national resources, that when the people realise it they will speedily take steps to repudiate it. It is because people in all parts of the world, people of all parties and of no party, realise the international character of aerial navigation that we are impelled to press for some form of international control of civil aviation. I emphasise the word "civil." It is little use concentrating simply upon the international control of military aviation, even if you can get it, because it is so easy to adjust and adapt civil aviation in a time of stress and struggle for military purposes. It is not enough merely to have control of military aviation, you must have control, international control, of civil aviation as well. Obviously, this cannot be secured except through the medium of some international body. I am not putting forward a purely party point of view, or even a new point of view in any way; for the need for some international control of aviation was mooted as long ago as 1889 at a congress convened at the invitation of the French Government. Although the delegates were not officially appointed delegates of the Governments they consisted of people from all parts of the world, and at that congress, as long ago as 1889, the idea of international control of aviation was discussed.
      In my judgment we cannot allow civil aviation to go on without some sort of inter-state activity in this direction. If civil aviation is not to be made an adjunct of the air machine by any country in any part of the world then clearly the corollary which follows on that proposition is that we must end the liaison between civil and military aviation. When I reflect on the fact that civil aviation is largely controlled by the Air Ministry I feel a sense of apprehension,
      2026
      not because I have a suspicion that the Air Ministry and its staff are not favourable to the development of civil aviation but because I fear they regard civil aviation and its development purely from the standpoint of the convenience of the military machine; and we cannot afford to minister to that kind of mentality in these days. But if we press for a divorce between civil and military aviation then the question arises, how are we to tackle the question of the reduction and elimination of military aviation? Varying standards are offered whereby we may judge the strength of the respective aerial forces of the nations. Some people want to budgetary standard, others want a different standard, but, I repeat, so long as it is possible for a nation legitimately under international law to equip and train and pass into reserve and ultimately into its civil forces people who have been trained for military purposes by the military arm, then, clearly, a mere limitation of military aviation will be wholly ineffective.
      Moreover—I do not want to stress this point unduly although there is something in it—whatever conventions we may have, when nations are driven to war and are fighting with their backs to the wall in a death struggle as it were there will always be a tendency to override conventions, as indeed has been done in another part of the world at the moment. But if you can get agreement amongst the nations of the world that civil aviation is to be exempt from this incursion by the military side there is some chance of the people being rid of the horror and apprehension they entertain concerning the future.
      Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that this country is the fifth in aerial power?
      Mr. JONES: There are some differences of opinion regarding that, but whether we are first, or fourth or fifth, is irrelevant to my argument. I want to urge that this country should be bold and courageous in its proposals to the Disarmament Conference, that all nations without distinction should press for the complete elimination of military aviation throughout the world. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member will follow my argument. I am not asking, as he seems to imagine, for something that is revolu-

      2027
      tionary or new. I would remind him that we are committed in honour, by word, by written document, to the proposition of Disarmament. When we assembled with other nations around the table at Versailles we imposed almost complete disarmament on Germany, but we did so on the express assurance that that disarmament was to be the precursor of disarmament on the part of other nations. We are committed in honour to disarmament, and I submit that I am not asking this House to do anything other than what it has already endorsed when it endorsed the Treaty of Versailles some 10 years ago. Why do I press a positive proposal so much more in regard to Air Forces? The reason is obvious to everyone. First of all, air forces, when used in times of war, can be the most deadly and destructive of all implements of war. The effect of their use cannot even be limited or confined to those who are actually belligerents. Not only cannot their use be confined to the belligerents but, in point of fact, the Field Service Regulations themselves contain these words:
      "The aim of a nation which has taken up arms is therefore to bring such pressure to bear on the enemy people as to induce them to force their Government to sue for peace."
      In other words we are now face to face with a, new instrument which, when vigorously applied, can so strike terror not only into the hearts of the belligerent forces but into the hearts of the noncombatant people to such a degree that in their terror and apprehension they will bring pressure to bear on the Government of their country to sue for peace. I need not trouble the House with what this means for non-combatants, but I should just like to give one quotation from a military source, from a book entitled "Tanks in a Great War" by Lieut.-Colonel.
      "In the next war fleets of fast moving tanks, equipped with tons of liquid gas against which the enemy have no possible protection, will cross frontiers and obliterate every living thing in fields, farms, villages and cities of the enemy country. Meanwhile, fleets of aeroplanes will attack the great industrial and governing centres."
      Mr. PIKE: And the tanks.
      Mr. JONES: Not only does this form of warfare involve the belligerents but it is of such a character and so terrifying and staggering in its potential con-
      2028
      sequences that a whole people, not to speak of villages and towns and cities, might by the development of this form of warfare be almost completely obliterated from the face of the earth. This new weapon, this deadly and destructive weapon, is one which it seems to me, now in the earliest days of its development, we ought, in co-operation with other countries, to bring to an end and banish it from warfare of the future. I have almost completed what I desire to say. I have tried to avoid making a purely party speech and to direct attention to this question in its international aspect, regardless of party issues altogether. The party to which I belong is strenuously in favour of Disarmament being vigorously prosecuted by this and every other Government of this land. During the time that we were in office we strove to make adequate preparations for the conference which is now meeting at Geneva. I venture to think that not only the party to which I belong, but the people of the whole country will be gravely disappointed if, out of the discussions which are now proceeding at Geneva, there does not eventuate a general agreement among the nations of the world that this, the most deadly weapon which man has yet devised, shall be abandoned as an instrument of warfare among men.
      Captain KNATCHBULL: In rising to address the House for the first time, may I plead for that indulgence which the House always most generously gives to those who are undergoing that ordeal. To be perfectly frank, I admit that my feelings at this moment bear a remarkable resemblance to those which I experienced on my first passenger flight in an aeroplane, in 1912, just 20 years ago. As this is a very technical Debate in which to make a maiden speech, may I be allowed to give a very short personal reminiscence to explain why I venture to do so. As far back as 1915, I was one of the small band of soldiers who were lent to the Navy in connection with air operations at Gallipoli, and at the end of the War I was brigade-major of one of the brigades of the Royal Air Force in France. After the War, I was staff officer to the Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, and later on I was connected with the financial side of the aeroplane industry for a considerable

      2029
      time. I may therefore claim to have some slight knowledge of the subject. If there is one branch of the subject, however, in which I can claim to be an expert it is the behaviour of an ordinary land aeroplane when it falls into the sea. Icarus, we are told, disdaining parental admonition and advice, flew too high so that his wings were melted by the sun. He fell into the Aegean Sea—so did I.
      If one examines the reasons for maintaining a State-aided Air Force and civil aviation system one finds at once that the subject falls under three headings, namely, defence, communications and, very much in the third place, sport. Until wars are made impossible by agreement between the nations, defence must, of necessity, come first. Here I differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), who said that the aeroplane of to-day was really a weapon of offence more than of defence. In the late War the chief method of defending oneself against air attack was to attack the enemy aerodromes and destroy the machines in their sheds. To defend yourself you must have offensive aeroplanes. It must be the daily prayer of any right-minded person Plat such a catastrophe as another war should not happen, but, if it does happen, the existence of an efficient Air Force in this country at the beginning of that war might save this country from the first brunt of attack by an enemy Power. It would certainly do a great deal towards keeping our frontiers safe. If we look at the frontiers of India we see how, day by day, our squadrons fly over those mountain ranges, making absolutely certain that they cannot be surprised by an enemy. Surely that is a good reason for keeping an efficient Air Force.
      If one is going to consider the possibilities of a future war one must be allowed to base one's conception of what it is likely to be on the experiences of the late War. That War, in all conscience, was horrible enough, and the only thing that we can say with certainty about any future war is that it is bound to be unutterably worse than the last War. Anybody who has read the first volume of the "Official History of the War" will remember the paragraph which describes how in 1917 the Army Council sanctioned plans for the production of 240 squadrons of aeroplanes. It was only the interven-
      2030
      tion of the Armistice which prevented this terrible plan from being carried out, and as the History says saved the world from that carnival of destruction.
      The expansion of an Air Force, from a. peace footing to a war footing, necessarily takes a fairly long time, and the main question which we have to bear in mind is: Are there any means by which we can shorten that period should an emergency arise I In the consideration of any possible future war, obviously the essence of the matter is the efficiency of machines and personnel, and it is of these two points that I wish to speak. I take first the question of equipment and machines and I go back again to our experiences in the late War. We cannot help remembering how air power swung like a pendulum from one side to the other. One can never forget the terrible casualties suffered red by same of our squadrons on the active sectors of the front when the enemy had the upper hand in the air. When squadron officers collected night after night in the mess and found that they were four, five or six short, a feeling almost of helplessness was created. Precisely the same thing happened to the other side when we had the supremacy in the air. In the last two months of the War all the captured enemy letters and diaries were full of references to the German Air Force "letting down the infantry." It was doing nothing of the kind, but we had a technical supremacy in the air then and were driving the German Air Force out of the air. Surely what we have to aim at, should any future war arise, is to have a, technical supremacy at the beginning. That I believe we shall have, because our machines to-clay are magnificent, but we must take steps to retain that supremacy once we have achieved it. Any steps in that direction must of necessity be among the most important considerations for this country all the time.
      I, therefore, ask the Government not to carry too far the policy on which they have embarked of reducing the number of types of aeroplanes in each branch of the service. I feel sure that, if that policy is carried very much further than it is being carried to-day, the result will be to drive a large proportion of the aircraft industry clean out of business. Should an emergency arise, we shall

      2031
      require not so much the workmen who are engaged in the building of aircraft as the technical staff, the designers, the draftsmen, and these can only be maintained by an industry spurred on by the incentive of competition. Obviously, if the industry knows that four or five different types of single-seaters are going to be employed, then four or five firms will be striving to keep those up-to-date and to make improvements. If you reduce the number to two, obviously it means that only two firms will be carrying out that work.
      Turning to the question of personnel, there again one can but look to the late War for one's lesson. If an emergency arises we have to remember that our first line to-day is very small compared with that of any other country. We need not go into an argument as to whether we are a first, second, third or fourth-rate air Power. The fact remains that we have vastly fewer aeroplanes in our first line than any other big Power. Therefore, anything which we can do to build up and to keep in being a reserve, which can be drawn upon, is essential. We have in this country now organisations which we had not in the past. I speak here of the light aeroplane clubs. Their record is well known to most hon. Members. During the last seven years 23 of these clubs have turned out no fewer than 1,554 new pilots, quite apart from the large number of old pilots who are kept in training by these clubs. As long as these clubs are maintained and kept efficient and up-to-date they form the ideal pool for future pilots in the event of war. I do not claim that these clubs can turn out fully-trained war pilots. Obviously that is impossible, but they do turn out a large body of men with a very sound knowledge of piloting and with a considerable smattering of ground training, and, above all, they spread the cult of airmindedness which must be an enormous asset to any country in the future.
      If these clubs are to be kept going in the future, however, they will have to be enabled to live. By that I mean that if they are going on, they will have to be able to give their members cheap flying. They will have to be able to teach cheaply and to supply their members with cheap flying once those mem-
      2032
      bers have learned to fly. That can only be done at the expense of a Government subsidy as to-day, but the subsidy as it, stands, namely, that they can earn up to £2,000 a year—£10 for new licences and £10 for renewals—is, to my mind, quite useless. No club can possibly earn anywhere near the maximum figure. It does not seem much use offering a club £2,000 a year and then making it impossible for the club to earn it. I believe there is only one club which earns over 50 per cent. of the maximum, and nearly all earn something nearer a quarter than a half of that £2,000. I would therefore ask the Under-Secretary what the Government propose to do for the light aeroplane clubs in the future. Personally, I would like to see them getting a larger sum for new licences and so much per flying hour on club machines, or, in other words, payment by results. When you boil it down the results can only be measured in actual flying hours. Furthermore, I ask whether, when the time comes—and I hope it may come to-day—for the Government to announce their plan, they will formulate that plan in such a way that the flying clubs will be able to know where they stand for some years to come and that they will get certainty of tenure, instead of being left as they are to-day, with the subsidies ending in July.
      5.30 p.m.
      There are two other points which I desire to mention, and the first is the Australian extension of the Indian service. I realise the importance of economy to-day, as everybody must, but we have to-day a South African service and we have an Indian service, and until we get the Australian extension we cannot claim to have completed the main trunk line of inter-communication inside the Empire. Until we have this trunk line, the smaller lines cannot grow out of it as they will, I am convinced, in the future. The future air lines in the Empire will grow up as the railways did, the main lines first and the branch extensions afterwards. I would urge on the Government, as soon as possible, to get busy with the Australian extension, because there is a danger which I foresee, and that is that if we delay very much longer, the Dutch will very likely start that service for us, and I think it would be rather a calamity—one might

      2033
      almost say rather a disgrace—if the main trunk lines of the British Empire air services were not entirely flown under the British flag.
      There is one other point that I would like to mention, and that is to say how very glad I was to read in the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for Air telling us of the altered conditions for short service commissions. It is of enormous importance in this country to see that the age limit has been reduced to 21, because you will now get a large body of young men who will be leaving the Service not very much older than the young men who have gone through the universities and who will have, not only the ordinary, general education, but also a sound technical education and that, to my mind, priceless boon, a sound training in the handling of men. I should very much like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he can tell the House how they are getting on with finding occupations for these officers when they leave the Service, and whether the economic crisis which has hit us so badly to-day has in any way affected our getting suitable numbers and types of applicants for these short service commissions.
      In conclusion, I should like very much to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on that sentence in the Memorandum which says:
      "In particular, no action has been or will be taken which might in any way adversely affect the safety of flying personnel."
      I think that in these days of economy it is a great thing to feel that no stone will be left unturned to look after them. One must remember that the flying personnel of the Air Force takes very much greater risks in peace time than any other branch of His Majesty's Service, excepting the submarines, and I feel sure that the House will agree with me when I say how very glad I am to see that statement, and that I feel that it should be the first duty of the nation to do all that it can to look after the safety and general well-being of these gallant officers and men.
      Mr. MANDER: I trust that I may be allowed to offer the very warm congratulations of the House to the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford (Captain Knatchbull), who has just spoken. I
      2034
      am, sure that there is no more danger of his getting into a flat spin in this House than there is outside, and we shall look forward with the very deepest interest to the many contributions that I am sure we all hope he will make to the discussion of this and other subjects in this House. He spoke on a matter of which he has the closest personal knowledge and in a, manner that was both effective and exceedingly graceful and delightful.
      I should like also to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the most interesting and able account which he gave of the year's activities and on the pride that he very rightly showed in the great Service that comes under his control, and in which, at one time, I played a very humble part. I share with him regret that, owing to the economies that have had to be carried out, many of the activities of the Air Ministry have had to be curtailed, and I agree that it is most regrettable that the great flying boat which was being constructed, and which would have done a great deal for the prestige of this country, has had to be given up for the time being. I hope the Air Ministry will take the earliest opportunity of proceeding with it again.
      The right hon. Baronet told us that later on he proposes to deal with the question of airships, and there, too, I must say that I think it was most deplorable that the R 100 had to be abandoned before we had had any chance of flying it. It seems to me that it is our duty to be pioneers of airship development, just as we have been in all other kinds of development, whether on the water, under the water, on the land, or in the air, and, personally, I believe that airships have a very great part to play in the future of transport in different parts of the world. After all, the R 101 had nothing wrong with it; the disaster did not take place because of anything that was faulty with the ship, and I hope the Government will keep a nucleus staff going in this country, so that, when they have the money available, they will once again take up the task and see that we are not falling behind Germany, America, and other countries, which, I believe, are still going on with airship development in spite of the fact

      2035
      that we are too poor at the moment to do it ourselves.
      I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question with regard to the Schneider Trophy. I should like to associate myself with all that he said in praise of those who contributed to the great success of this country in that competition, but does he not think that the time has now come when the Schneider contest in its present form ought to be reconsidered? We have got to the end of an era. The trophy is finally, as I hope, settled in this country, and I would ask whether he does not think that steps should now be taken—possibly they are being taken—through the proper channels to consider whether the contest ought not in future to be conducted along quite different lines. It is difficult to see that this continual striving for greater speed is of very great value, or is of the same value as we might get from progress in other directions. Will he consider whether a contest for a long-distance flight, or something of that kind, would not be more appropriate to air development? Perhaps in his later remarks he will be good enough to deal with that matter.
      I entirely agree with his remarks about the provision of municipal aerodromes. I am sure that before many years are passed every one of our great cities in this country which desires to be up-to-date and abreast of the times will see that it is essential to have a municipal aerodrome, so that people can readily get from their city to others, and I think the municipalities, although they may not be able at the moment to find the money with which to buy the land, ought to be looking around and, possibly, by means of options or in other ways, securing land before it becomes too expensive and before it is built upon and is no longer available for this purpose. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us something satisfactory on another point, which was dealt with by the last speaker, and that is the provision of light aeroplane clubs, and putting them on a permanent basis, so that they will know for some years to come exactly what programme they can place before themselves.
      I want to make a few remarks with reference to a subject that was dealt
      2036
      with by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), and that is disarmament from the air point of view. There is a number of proposals before the Disarmament Conference at Geneva at the present time. There is, first of all, the French plan, which is realistic, like all. French plans are, and has as its two. main points the handing over of all heavy bombing machines to the League of Nations itself, as a start of international air force, and the leaving of the medium-sized machines in the possession of the several States, provided they are made available for use by the League of Nations if called upon far any purpose. I think it will strike most people that that particular proposal errs in the direction of asking for maximum French security and thinking, first, foremost, and all the time, of French interests in many different ways, and that it does not have sufficient regard for a reduction of air armaments throughout the world and for equality of armaments between one country and another, in particular between disarmed Germany and other countries. But I have no doubt that there is matter in that French proposal which deserves the very careful study of all who are considering these matters at Geneva, and I have no doubt that the Government will be considering it to see how far they can draw out of its proposals something that can be of permanent value. There is another proposal that has been placed before the Conference by several States, and that is nothing less, than the complete abolition of naval and military aviation, and by that, of course, I mean. the air forces in different countries. I am interested to notice that the Secretary of State for India, who was in the House just now, when be was speaking in the Debate on the Air Force Estimates in 1924, used a sentence which exactly fits in with this proposal. He said:
      "The only practicable solution of the problem is not a reduction of air armaments but a prohibition of aerial warfare altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1924; col. 728, Vol. 171.]
      If those are still his views, as I hope they are, I trust that he will use his influence with the Government to see that consideration is given to supporting proposals of that kind when they are brought before the Disarmament Conference. No

      2037
      doubt anything of that kind would have to be carried out very gradually and over a long series of years, and no doubt provision would have to be made for countries like ourselves with Colonial responsibilities, which would for police purposes obviously have to have aeroplanes along the North West Frontier of India and other places to carry out what is police work and what is nothing really of a military kind at all.
      It may be said that if we were to abolish naval and military aviation, there would be the danger of civil machines being taken over and armed at the very earliest possible moment. To meet that, another proposal has been put forward at Geneva, to the effect that civil aviation should be placed on an international basis. That, of course, gets up against various national feelings, and I am bound to say, personally, that I always prefer, when I fly, to be in the care of a British pilot, but I have no doubt that it may be possible in any international scheme that may be adopted to make provision for detailed matters of that kind. It is no doubt true that civil machines, in certain cases and with certain adaptations, can be used in due course for military purposes, but you would get a certain time lag, and you would prevent the immediate advance of countries oversea, which is so dangerous and which is so much feared.
      If you want to look for an example of the internationalisation of a means of this kind, you will find a very interesting one in the International Sleeping Car Company, which owns the well-known compartments which go from one end of Europe to another. It is owned internationally, it has international shareholders and an international staff, and if, for example—and this is very pertinent—any one particular country wanted to make use of the sleeping cars that we know so well on the Continent, and adapt them for military purposes, to instal machine guns or anything of that kind, they would very soon be given away by their conductors, of various nationalities, who would know exactly what was going on; and I think it is through an international staff that you do get information which would absolutely prevent any secret preparations, either in the instance that I have just given or in civil aviation, taking place.
      2038
      I read with very great interest the speech that was made in that same Debate in 1924 by the present Foreign Secretary, when he dealt in a most informed and comprehensive way with the whole of this problem in a manner that I think is well worth the study of hon. Members of this House at the present time. I hope the Government are going to give their serious attention to these and various other proposals which are before the Disarmament Conference. I hope they feel that the actual proposals of the Preparatory Commission are much too small and will not take us very much further forward. The proposals are, practically, that there should be a limitation of the numbers and horse-power of aeroplanes, and I think that if we were to limit our progress in disarmament to that alone, we should have done very little indeed. I hope the Government's representatives at Geneva will feel that it is possible, out of the various proposals which have been brought forward, to drive some sort of useful bargain.
      After all, the French are right when they say, "We are prepared to disarm if we know that we can rely on the pooled security that is promised to us by the League of Nations." They are very doubtful whether they will have that pooled security, and in putting forward their proposal for an international air force, in a very inappropriate form, as it is in some respects, they are putting forward something which will have to be dealt with in a realistic way at some time, and the sooner the better. If in exchange for an embryo air force at the disposal of the League of Nations of an international kind we can obtain a substantial reduction in the Air Force of France—and in other things too—we shall take a great step forward. It will be well worth setting one thing against another and making what may appear to us in this country to be a certain sacrifice in order to set it against the advantages which we should get from the reduction in French armaments, which I imagine are the greatest obstacle to progress towards a successful issue of the Disarmament Conference.
      Dealing with another aspect of the same subject, I want to make reference to chemical and bacteriological warfare. Things of this kind, while they may not come on this Vote, are borne by the

      2039
      aeroplanes that are provided by the Vote. A number of proposals have been put forward for a prohibition of the use of this kind of warfare, but I submit that it is not enough simply to prohibit the use; we want to prohibit the preparation—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member recognises from what he himself said that this item is not borne on the Vote and is not a matter that can be discussed now.
      Mr. MANDER: I was making only a passing reference to it, and I was hoping that it was in order because warfare of this kind would be carried out by aeroplanes.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was getting on to a discussion of the manufacture of these things, and that cannot come within this discussion.
      Mr. MANDER: On the more general question of air warfare, we want to be very careful that we do not in the Disarmament agreement simply arrive at a means of carrying out air warfare along certain polite lines of a gentleman's agreement. If we are to have aggressive warfare in future—which I hope we shall not—I hope that it will be as horrible and brutal as it can possibly be. I hope that it will affect every man, woman and child in the world. The more horrible and widespread it is, the more people are likely to sit up and say that they will not tolerate it, whereas, if it is limited to certain special lines, people will not take the same notice of it. If, as I hope, we shall limit any activities of this sort to defence, that is a very good ground for making the limitations of the kind to which I have been referring.
      If it is found, as a result of the work at Geneva in the next six months, that no really satisfactory agreement is arrived at, the Estimates that are brought forward next year will have to be of a different kind from those which we are now discussing. The hon. Baronet has pointed out that they are modest; they are 10 squadrons below the programme of the Air Ministry some years ago. If we find that the machinery of the League and the Disarmament Conference break pooled, and we have to rely, not on the full security of all nations to which we are looking forward, but to the
      2040
      strength of our own right arm alone, it will be necessary for the Government to bring very much higher Estimates before the House, and it will be the duty of the Government to bring the question or our air defence before the Committee of Imperial Defence and ask tie Committee if we are really in a position to maintain ourselves against any possible combination of States abroad. If the post-War system of co-operation fails, the old pre-War system of every man for himself will be realised, and I hope therefore that we shall do everything we can at Geneva to make triumphant the system of co-operative effort for which the War was fought. I hope that this wonderful new achievement of aviation, this marvellous example of man's mastery over matter, will be used for the service of mankind and not for his destruction. I am certain that if that is done our pilots will prove themselves the most gallant and efficient of all those who travel upon the wings of the wind.
      M. WHITESIDE: I crave the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I would not be so presumptuous as to rise if I did not hope that as a pilot I might be able to contribute some practical suggestions which might be of interest to the House and of some assistance to my brothers of the air. I believe that we are now at the turning of the ways, and that this Government will see the end of this tragic post-War period of depression. Now is the time, therefore, when we must decide once and for all what place, if any, commercial and civil aviation is to take in our industrial life; whether we are to follow haltingly in the footsteps of other nations or to lead as of yore. If I might be so bold as to express one observation, which has occurred to me as one of those bright young things to whom an hon. Member in the Opposition so scathingly referred at the beginning of this Parliament, it is this: There is a section in the House to which the hon. Member belongs, who are for ever voicing their pacific intentions, but are apparently quite unable to regard any new invention apart from its possible powers of destruction in time of war.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has tabled an Amendment suggesting that civil aviation should

      2041
      be placed at the disposal of the League of Nations. Why? Because the hon. Member is thinking of the next war. Civil aviation is a means of transport. The hon. Member might with equal intelligence suggest that we place our mercantile marine at the disposal of the League of Nations, because it is as easy to transform a merchant ship into a vessel of war as to turn a civil aeroplane into a military aircraft. It is, however, a fact, which no hon. Member even of the Opposition can deny, that the League of Nations has no corporate spirit. It is the happy hunting ground of foreign Ministers, and the very pilots who would have to fly these machines, if placed at the disposal of the League, would be the nationals of some country. The whole idea is so preposterous, so ridiculous, that it could have emanated only from the Opposition. I am a believer in the League, but I am convinced that all this talk about future wars is not in the interest of peace. If, however, armaments are necessary for the maintenance of national security, I maintain that the encouragement of civilian pilots is the cheapest and most effective means of gaining that objective. As long ago as 1925, the present Secretary of State for Scotland, in a very able speech in a similar Debate, said:
      "it is quite true that in 1914–18 the Navy was still our sure shield. Aeroplanes could come over London and drop bombs, and cause a great deal of alarm, inconvenience and damage.… To-day the Navy holds supreme command of the seas, and yet London can be destroyed without the Navy being able to fire a shot.… Every one of our great cities would be liable to similar visitations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1925; col. 1569, Vol. 181.]
      In the same Debate, the Under-Secretary for Air said:
      "We are fully alive to the importance of establishing and encouraging commercial air routes, and of not letting this country fall behind its neighbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1925; cols. 1591–2, Vol. 181.]
      What is the result of that? The total Air Estimates for military and civil aviation amount to £17,000,000 odd—the cost of three battleships, which are incapable of firing one shot in the defence of London. We are to encourage the development of commercial air routes, and the total estimate for civil aviation amounts to £473,000. Civil aviation is in a parlous state. I believe that I am correct in saying that if it
      2042
      were not for the profit which light aeroplane clubs make on their social amenities, not one of them would be solvent. Our light aeroplane clubs are the envy of the whole world, but since they were formed in 1925 we have been suffering from an abnormal depression—a depression which has fallen most hardly upon civil aviation, for, unfortunately, flying is still considered a rich man's hobby and not a national necessity. The public are sceptical of the safety of flying, the assurance companies exaggerate its dangers. The country is, in fact, taking the same attitude towards aviation that our ancestors took when it was proposed to run stage coaches. Let me give one or two quotations to make my point plain. In the latter part of the 17th century, when it was proposed to run stage coaches between London and Edinburgh, Sir Henry Herbert rose in this House and used these words against the Motion:
      "If a man were to propose to convey us regularly to Edinburgh in seven days and bring us back in seven more, should we not vote him to Bedlam?"
      We can now travel to Edinburgh in safety over night. What reception did the railways receive? Again let me quote, this time from the Quarterly Review of that date:
      "What can be more 'palpably absurd and ridiculous than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stage coaches? We should as soon expect the people of Woolwich to suffer themselves to be fired off upon one of Congreve's ricochet rockets as trust themselves to the mercy of such a machine going at such a rate. We will back old Father Thames against the Woolwich Railway for any sum."
      One writer 'became so alarmed that he said:
      "This invention would prevent cows grazing, hens laying, and would cause ladies to give premature birth to children at the sight of these monsters rushing through the countryside at the rate of eight miles per hour."
      If locomotives could do that, what of the Graf Zeppelin? If I were to suggest to the House that before many years are past we shall be transporting people through the stratosphere at the rate of 300 and 400, or even 500 miles an hour, I, like my predecessor, would be voted to Bedlam. But these things will come to pass. In my opinion, 20 years hence the distribution of passenger traffic between the railways, the roads and the air will

      2043
      be altered out of all recognition. If we are to remain a great nation, we must look ahead.
      6.0 p.m.
      Let me turn to the difficulties with which civil aviation is confronted. They are primarily economic. Civil aviation is divided into two distinct groups, commercial aviation and private flying. Let me deal with private flying first. As I have mentioned, the light aeroplane clubs are at the very root of private flying. Those clubs are in receipt of a subsidy which is granted according to the number of licences issued. I do not in any way wish to criticise our chief instructors, nor do I question their judgment, but I maintain that it is neither right nor profitable that the subsidy should be granted, not according to the proficiency of the pilots turned out, but according to the number. There are in England to-day many pilots who are of no potential commercial value, and, from the point of view of defence in time of war, are quite useless. I believe that if the subsidy were given according to the number of hours flown instead of the number of licences issued, it would assist private flying immeasurably. I would go further and say that if a drawback of the 8d. a gallon petrol tax were allowed to those civilian pilots who would sign on to be called up for military service in the event of war, we should do much to build up a strong Royal Air Force Reserve. Private flying is, in my opinion, unnecessarily expensive. I am given to understand that as much as 30 per cent. of the cost of an aeroplane is in respect of the charges paid for the A.I.D. inspection. I do not suggest that that inspection is not necessary, but as more and more competing aircraft manufacturers spring up the very power of competition will ensure a high standard of workmanship. I believe the price could be materially reduced to-day. Private flying will, however, never pay until there are regular landing grounds all over the country.
      The Air Ministry has urged municipal authorities to set up aerodromes, or at any rate to reserve suitable fields for future use, but what is the position today? The original Air Ministry basis for municipal aerodromes provided for 400 to be set up, that is, every town with a
      2044
      population of 20,000 or over would have flying facilities. To-day there are 11. The municipal authorities say they have no money for the purpose, but if they would look to the future they would see that money spent on these aerodromes to-day would be well spent in view of the business and the traffic which would be brought to their towns in the years to come when aviation has come into its own. If one wishes to fly to Newcastle—I take Newcastle merely to illustrate my point, and could repeat the illustration over and over again—one has to land at Cramlington, which is nine miles away. The aerodrome there is maintained solely by the Newcastle Light Aeroplane Club. While I am on the subject of aerodromes I would add that I believe I am correct in saying the Air Ministry laid down in their regulations that aerodromes should not have a gradient of more than one in 50. I have often stood at Croydon and watched Moth machines taxi-ing over the ground and seen them actually disappear in the dip. I do list know what the gradient at Croydon aerodrome is, but it cannot be less than I in 40. Exactly the same remark applies to Stag Lane. The levelling of the ground at aerodromes is of the utmost importance, because when an aerodrome is lit up by floodlight at night any undulation comes out as a black spot to the pilot, and unless he knows what that black spot means he may easily lose his life.
      Further, commercial flying will not go ahead until we have lighthouses all over the country. It is sheer waste of money to subsidise aviation if the full benefits are not reaped, and they cannot be reaped until night flying is as popular and as common as day flying. If I may be so bold as to make one further suggestion, and in doing so to quip the Under-Secretary, I would draw his attention to an answer which he gave to a question suggesting the feasibility of placing the names of railway stations on their roofs. He said that such a proposal would not be feasible, as it would cause low flying. I agree with him that it would not be feasible, but the reason for that is that station roofs are notoriously dirty, and it would cost a considerable amount of money to clean them. If, however, the name were written in concrete, or even

      2045
      in white pebbles, upon the platform, that difficulty would be overcome. But whatever method of ground marking is adopted, it must be established on some system, and not allowed to develop in the present haphazard manner.
      I must apologise for keeping the House so long, but I would like to say one or two words about commercial flying. At present we are subsidising Imperial Airways, whose policy is to fly giant 42-seater luxury air liners to Paris, and also to carry the air mail to India and to South Africa. I will deal with the air mail later. We have no aerial transport between London and Hamburg, or between London and Berlin or Amsterdam or Vienna, no means of aerial transport, in fact, to the very places to which business men would most wish to get in normal times. I believe we should get a far greater yield on our money if, instead of subsidising giant air liners, we set out on a policy of subsidising fast 9-or 10-seater air taxis, not running three times a day, but running at regular intervals of every two hours to all those Continental places. Such a thing has been tried in America. Their large Argosy liners did not pay their way, and so they put on smaller and faster machines running at regular intervals of an hour, and now they have a profit on those services.
      So far as the air mail is concerned, speed in delivery of the mail is of the very utmost importance from a business point of view. To-day the air mail goes to India once a week, and takes a week to reach India. That is twice as long as it need take. If a route were selected from London to. Sofia, Sofia to Basra, and Basra to Karachi the journey could easily be completed in three clays by day and night flying, and nothing is needed for that except efficient ground organisation. Such a route would at any rate have the advantage of not being liable to dislocation through the efficiency of the Persian soldiers, a consideration which the Under-Secretary must appreciate. We all know the desire of the Postmaster-General to speed up the mails. Does he not subsidise the fastest liners by buying cargo space, and paying thousands of pounds to the railway companies for the carriage of mails? But what does he do for the air mail? Subsidise it? Not he! He charges addi-
      2046
      tional postage—which is not all handed on to Imperial Airways. He takes a percentage and retires chuckling to his roost in, Mount Pleasant. I hate to attack a Minister behind his back, but I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Air will approach the Postmaster-General and speak to him as users of the telephone would wish. In 1930 the American postal authorities subsidised their airways to the extent of £4,444,000. If we leave out the millions we have almost exactly the figure at which we are subsidising commercial aviation in this country.
      One of the greatest difficulties with which commercial flying has to contend is the fog element, and that prejudices aerial transport in the eyes of the public. The difficulty of fog is being rapidly overcome by means of a combination of the compass and directional finding wireless, and it is now possible to fly to Paris through almost any weather. When the radio beacon now being established at Croydon is completed, flying to Paris will be simplified beyond conception. Blind flying is making enormous strides. The point I wish to make is that encouragement and assistance ought to be given to such aids to aerial navigation. I should say that almost 70 per cent. of the efficiency of an air line is dependent upon its ground organisation. The risk of collision would remain, but, if I may be Jules Vernian for a moment, I see no reason why in the future machines should not give out some kind of electric aura which would notify other machines of their approach. Indeed, I believe experiments on these lines are being carried out in America to-day. If we look to the future it may well be that when civil aviation has come into its own we shall be able to build up an enormous entrepot trade in this country, bringing us as much wealth as is brought to-day by our mercantile marine.
      I have spoken too long. If I have transgressed or abused any of the privileges which this House extends to those of its Members speaking for the first time, I apologise. If I have been in any way indiscreet, it is because I have spoken on a subject on which I feel deeply; and I would also plead, in mitigation of my offence, a youthful enthusiasm. I realise that these Estimates have been cut

      2047
      according to our present financial position; but I believe that in spite of all the disadvantages with which aviation is faced in this country, we remain the greatest aeronautical nation. Our commercial machines may not be the fastest, but they are the safest, and our pilots are the finest in the world. Under the able and enthusiastic leadership which we at present possess I look to the future not with misgiving but with hope. I believe that through the bonds of fellowship and understanding which will spring up between the pilots of the Mother country and of our great Dominions, Crown Colonies and Protectorates, we shall do much to strengthen still further those ties which unite us in the greatest League of Nations history has ever known.
      Mr. BATEY: I want sincerely to congratulate the last speaker upon a well-delivered maiden speech. He did a wise thing; he waited until he was able to talk upon a subject which he thoroughly understands. I was rather sorry to hear, according to what he said when he began, that he has such a poor opinion of the Opposition, but I can only say that when he knows us better he will alter his opinion. The latter part of the speech of the Under-Secretary was a very interesting part, but the idea left in my mind was that he was impressed with the spectacular splendour of the Air Force. He talked about the Air Force seeking for lost people in the desert, being used to search for Egyptian cars in the desert; but we are not attending a banquet to the Air Force at which speeches are being made congratulating its achievements we are here to consider these Estimates, and we are entitled to ask the Minister to face up to them.
      I wish the Minister had given us explanations of certain of the items in the Estimates. He said he rather regretted that the Estimates had had to be cut down this year. We have been told that these Estimates are below normal and that next year they may have to he increased. I would like to remind the Secretary of State for Air that the National Government were returned pledged to a policy of economy. We have before us now Estimates for the Air Force amounting to £17,000,000, and these are being
      2048
      put forward by a Government pledged to economy. There is not mush room for congratuiation upon that fact. We are now voting £17,000,000 for the Air Force, and with the Estimates for the Army and Navy we shall have voted the sum of £103,000,000 for national defence.
      The Minister claims to have saved £700,000 on these Estimates, but I think he might have saved a good deal more. We go on year after year subsidising Imperial Airways, and I think the Minister should be asked to give some reason for the increase of this subsidy. I would like to ask if the time has not come when Imperial Airways should be in a position to do without a subsidy altogether. We ought to be told more about that subject, and I hope the Minister will give us some further information upon it. With regard to light aeroplane clubs, I understand that the grants are paid according to the number of licences issued. This year the Estimate for this purpose is £8,500, as compared with £15,000 last year. I think some further explanation is required as to the basis upon which this money is paid to light aeroplane clubs. I agree that it is better to train men to fly in this way, because it seems to me that what men need most of all is to learn the habit of flying, and then they can be utilised in war time. I do not complain of the subsidy to the light aeroplane clubs, but I think we should have a clearer understanding as to the basis upon which these subsidies are paid. These payments go on year after year. This year they amounted to £1,500, and last year the amount was £5,000, and I would like to know how these subsidies to the national flying services are calculated.
      The same criticism applies to the grants to county associations. The Estimate this year is £21,300, as compared with £21,000 last year. I would like the Minister to tell the House what the county associations are doing, and how their services can be utilised. I notice that there is an item of £4,500 under the heading "Entertainments." I see from a note in the Estimates that grants are made to officers in command of certain formations in aid of the cost of official entertainment. At present the amount varies from £30 to £270 a year according

      2049
      to the official position occupied. Seeing that the Government last year had to make drastic cuts in various directions, I do not see why they should spend £4,500 on entertainments and at the same time cut down unemployment benefit. That is an item which ought to claim the early attention of the Minister. I do not claim to be an irreligious man, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Air Force has a chaplain-in-chief who is paid £1,205 a year. There are 25 other chaplains in the Air Force, and they are paid £404 each. There is also au allowance to ministers of religion of £7,500, and these services cost no less than £20,000 a year. In view of the great need for economy, I think the Government might have economised upon those items, because these men are simply limpets.
      The Estimate for the retired list this year has increased by no less than £27,000, and this is quite a new departure. One can understand a retired list in the Navy and the Army, but this is quite a new department in the Air Force. The Estimate is for £147,000. I notice another item of £672,000 for petrol and oil. The Minister has told us a good deal about our preparedness for war. I submit that although in these Estimates we are providing £672,000 for petrol and oil, if a war broke out the supply of foreign petrol and oil would be our most vulnerable point, because the enemy might intercept our supplies, and the £17,000,000 we are spending on the Air Service would be useless, because the aeroplanes would never be able to take the air without petrol. When we are spending all this money year after year upon the Air Force I think it is our duty to make sure that the Force would be of some use if war broke out. In order to secure this object, I suggest that provision should be made in this country for the extraction of petrol and oil from coal, in order that the Air Service would be sure of a petrol and oil supply in case war broke out, and foreign supplies were stopped. In the interests of the Air Service, I ask the Lord President of the Council seriously to consider the question of making provision for the extraction of petrol and oil from coal.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I think that Members of experience will have
      2050
      noted a very significant fact about this Debate, and that is that during the last hour and a half we have heard from this aide of the House two maiden speeches which I think all old Members will agree have been very remarkable speeches in deed, particularly as first efforts. The significance of the fact is that both of those speeches, each so very remarkable in its own peculiar style, were made by men who were actually skilled air pilots. What I want to impress upon the Government in connection with these Estimates is the point which has been raised in both of those maiden speeches, and which will probably be raised by other speakers in the Debate, as to these subsidies which are given in order to foster civilian flying—not, so far as I am concerned, commercial flying, but what we may call amateur flying. To my mind, the sooner commercial flying gets on its own feet, if I may use a metaphor which is singularly inapplicable to that art, the better.
      On the question of light aeroplanes I speak with some little personal knowledge, because, if all goes well, and my skill improves with sufficient rapidity, I shall myself be qualified to call myself a pilot within the next week or two. In the case of the club of which I have the honour to be a member, the position, to put it quite plainly, is that that club cannot continue on the present basis of subsidy, and, if I may be forgiven for making a threat to His Majesty's Government on this matter, I would tell them that, so far as that club is concerned, they will not economise in the very least by stopping the subsidy to it, and for this reason. Owing to the fact that I have said such nasty things about Members of Parliament receiving salaries, I have been unable to accept that salary myself, but, if we cannot get His Majesty's Government to restore the subsidy to a reasonable basis, I can only inform them that, so far as one £400 a year is concerned, it will be drawn in the future, although it is not drawn now, and will be handed over to keep that club in existence. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will save nothing whatsoever if he cuts us down in that particular instance. Furthermore, one of my hon. and gallant Friends behind me has the honour of representing the

      2051
      constituency in the middle of which our aerodrome is situated, and there is little doubt that, rather than let the club perish, he himself would be willing also to draw his salary and pay it over to the club.
      I appeal to His Majesty's Government to take note of the very large body of opinion which, as is obvious from the course of this Debate, really exists on this matter, and to restore the subsidy on some basis which will enable these light aeroplane clubs to survive. The reason, apart from those already given by previous speakers, is that these clubs are obviously of immense importance to the future of this nation. Let me deal briefly with their importance in time of war. I have talked the matter over recently with experienced members of the Royal Air Force, and they all tell me the same thing—that the success of our Air Force in those very short and very bitter operations which we anticipate will be the course of all wars in the future must depend upon our being able to draw upon a large reservoir of more or less experienced pilots within the first few weeks. For the first week or two, no doubt, they will be able to provide the necessary pilots, but a period will come, within three or four weeks of the outbreak of hostilities, when they will have to depend very largely, for their success in the defence of the nation, upon such civilian pilots as they can draw upon and turn into war pilots within a reasonable time.
      In this connection, not having been a member of the Royal Air Force, I may perhaps draw the attention of the House to one of the greatest tragedies of all the tragedies of the late War. The Royal Air Force is young, but it has already learned the lesson of the two other branches of the Services of His Majesty—the lesson of keeping its mouth shut about its own tragedies. But, whether they like it or not, it is only right in this connection that the House of Commons and the public of Great Britain should understand something of the tragedy of the Air Force in the War. I refer to a period during the hostilities in France when the whole of our Army fighting on land was absolutely blind, was pursuing its manoeuvres and fighting its battles without any real information from the air; and the reason was that we had
      2052
      not got the pilots. As a previous speaker in the Debate has said, technical superiority had been established by the Germans, and our pilots were being wiped out one by one as quickly as they were being trained. It so happens that a friend of mine had some responsibility for the training of pilots at that time, and he has told me that the matter was so terribly urgent that the Army was fighting, as I have said, absolutely blind, and that it was absolutely necessary to send up men as pilots who really ought not to have been put in that position at all. There is no tragedy like the tragedy of the young man who is sent into action, as an airman must be, absolutely alone, and knowing all the time that he has not a dog's chance to escape being shot down the very first time he goes up. That, I say, is the great tragedy of the War. It might have been avoided if the progress in civilian aviation in this country at that time had been such that we could have had a large pool of skilled pilots, skilled in civil aviation and capable of being turned into fighting pilots within a comparatively short time.
      To turn to one aspect of the use of civilian aviation in peace time, if the House will pardon me and have patience I should like to point out that, in the opinion of many of the greatest thinkers of this age, the whole human race is at a crisis of its existence—that many great thinkers now are of opinion that it is quite possible that the future of humanity may be a retrogression rather than a progression. Already there are very great organised forces in Europe and throughout the world, determined to suppress the individual mind of man and to make a mass mind for nations and even for the whole of humanity: and that, in the opinion of many, means the end of civilisation as we know it, and a definite retrogression. It may be the great and high destiny of this country to fight against that retrogression, that reversion of mankind which many thinkers fear to-day. To my mind, if this country is to do that, one of the first things it must do is to look to the training of the young men who are coming forward, and to give them those opportunities of developing the individual mind, as against the mass mind, which may be the salvation of mankind against reversion to the very beasts themselves.

      2053
      My own short experience leads me to believe that no young man who has been put through his course and has learned to know the air, can be anything but an ally of the forces of real civilisation and real advance if that struggle comes to a head within the next generation or two. That has long been my feeling, and for that reason, although I can but ill afford it, and although my age might seem to forbid it, I myself, in order that I may take part, if I am spared, in such a movement, have taken to the air.
      Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) on his most excellent speech and his practical enthusiasm on air matters. I would like to endorse all that he has said with regard to light aeroplane clubs. I only intervene to put forward one suggestion, but before doing so I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the very able and efficient way in which he has laid the Air Estimates before the House. I cannot, however, honestly congratulate him on the nature of the Estimates themselves. This country at the present time is appallingly weak as far as our home defence forces are concerned. I am one of those who believe that the advent of air power in the world has considerably handicapped our sources of home defence. For example, London, which is the centre of communication, of food supplies, of government, and of the administration of the country, has become a, very vulnerable target, which is not easily defended against air attack, and I think we have reason to fear that our home defences in their present state are not capable, from the point of view of sheer numbers —I am not casting any reflection on their efficiency—of protecting this country against hostile air attack.
      The Under-Secretary has told us that this country now holds the fifth place among the Air Powers of the world. Other countries have been increasing their war Estimates, whereas we have steadily reduced ours, and this process has been going on since the War. At the end of the War we were the first Air Power in the world; we had the largest Air Force that the world had ever known at that time; but now, I repeat, we are the fifth Air Power in the world. It seems to me that this policy
      2054
      of benevolent self-righteousness on our part is not going to have the effect of tending to bring peace to the world. I distrust the effete theory of disarmament by example. If we are to have disarmament, it must be true disarmament, and true disarmament is all-round disarmament. I believe that we could best use our influence effectively to obtain that true all-round disarmament by increasing our bargaining power, and I would again emphasise the point that at present we are absurdly weak in the air, and that this country, of all countries in the world, has every good reason to increase rather than reduce its air power.
      At the present time we find that we are 10 squadrons behind the 1923 programme. If it is not possible to complete this programme for economy reasons and I think there is considerable doubt whether it can he completed, for I understand that this is the fourth time it has been retarded—I would suggest that, these 10 squadrons should be provided by an increase in the Auxiliary Air Force. I think the House knows and appreciates the fact that the Under-Secretary of State has a very intimate and real knowledge of the Auxiliary Air Force, and anyone with knowledge of these matters certainly appreciates his valuable services as a member of the Auxiliary Air Force. In making this suggestion I do not wish in any way to draw an undue comparison between the Auxiliary Air Force and the Regular Air Force. No one who knows anything about the Regular Air Force could fail to have the highest opinion of the efficient way in which they carry out their duties, but I should like to emphasise the point that the Auxiliary Air Force is indeed composed of efficient and effective units. These units carry out perfectly efficiently the work, for which they are provided, of single-engine day bomber squadrons, and they cost approximately one-half of what regular squadrons cost. It seems to me that that is a great point in favour of this suggestion.
      I fully realise that the formation of an auxiliary squadron is not as easy as the formation of a regular squadron. It takes time. It is two years at least before an auxiliary squadron becomes an effective unit. I think this suggestion is perfectly practical, that the Air Ministry should change its policy and establish, in place of these 10 regular squadrons

      2055
      that we are behind the 1923 programme, at least 10 auxiliary Air Force squadrons. As far as Scotland is concerned, I would commend to the Ministry seriously to consider the possibility of establishing additional squadrons at such places as Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, and possibly Edinburgh. The Under-Secretary last year expressed a wish that auxiliary flying boat squadrons should be established, and I should like again to suggest to the Ministry the possibility of establishing a squadron at Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee, where I think they would find that there were excellent facilities in that respect. I should like to draw attention to the unprovocative and unaggressive nature of the Auxiliary Air Force. Its object is to defend the people of this country against hostile air attacks. It is true that, in defending this country, it might be necessary to attack the enemy's air centres, but the Auxiliary Air Force cannot be sent abroad and therefore cannot be used as an aggressive expeditionary force. I should like to urge on the Under-Secretary that he should seriously consider, in the interest of national safety, economy, and of increasing our effective influence with other nations, to seriously consider going ahead with a programme of establishing Auxiliary Air Force squadrons in the place of the now non-existent regular Air Force squadrons for the 1923 programme.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: You, Sir, must already have come to the conclusion that no young Member of Parliament is any good unless he is a pilot, because we have had the most distinguished speeches from people who have taken to the air. I rather wanted to stress that point in view of what fell from the hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition, because he rather conveyed the impression that aviation was entirely wrapped up with militarism. I want to dispel that idea. If you go into any of the modern social clubs, instead of the conversation being about hocks and spavins and hunting, it is about nose dives and flat spins. You have to appreciate that aviation appeals to youth very much, and has nothing whatever to do with war. Just as people like hunting for hunting's sake and not as in any way wrapped up with the future of the
      2056
      cavalry, so people like flying for flying's sake—nothing to do with militarism whatever. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench thought there was a possibility of abolishing aircraft. There is something to be said for abolishing submarines, because they do not really contribute any good to the world. They are a destructive force. But those who started and endeavoured to get flying a possibility had a greater vision than that they were just creating a war machine. Here was a great opportunity of linking one nation with another, a great new form of transport, and the idea that it should be abolished and that mankind should be deprived of the privilege because there is a potentiality towards war, and because this new means of transportation has a destructive force, is quite preposterous.
      We have had difficulties in the internationalisation of aircraft. The hon. Member mentioned that there were no boundaries between nations. That is true. That is a reason why aircraft, of all things, should be encouraged. But we have not been the nation which has stopped that. We have been stopped flying over tin-pot countries all over the world because they thought the old law of the air belonging to themselves prohibited this free intercourse of aircraft from one country to another. Before we get to the conception of an internationalising force such as is unveiled in Kipling's A, B, C, it seems to me that, before we get to restriction, we want a little more freedom in the air. As soon as we get that free flight from one country to another and true internationalisation of communication in the air, from that point on we might start doing a little limitation and disarmament along that line, but we have not got to that yet, and we have a long way to go.
      No one yet has paid a tribute to the long list of Air Ministers that we have had, luckily enough, since the War. They really have been a very remarkable lot. You do not hear of a First Lord of the Admiralty going round the Horn in a battleship. I do not know whether he ever goes to sea at all. But all our chiefs of the Air Service have been real practical flying men. We know how the Secretary of State for India flew to Bagdad when he was Secretary of State for Air, and the present Under-

      2057
      Secretary is commander of one of our squadrons, and no one is more in touch with the practical side of flying. It has been of inestimable value to us. There is only one thing to be said against it, and that is that we lost our great Air Minister, Lord Thomson, through his very keenness on the practical side. That was a great loss. But I think our Air Ministers deserve the greatest credit.
      I have taken part in these Debates on the air from 1918, when they started, and we have had a great fight. We are now strong. If the Army or Navy tried to interfere, there are enough people in the House to tell them what we think of them and put them in their place. But there was a time when we were absolutely trembling because at any moment we might have been swallowed up by the Army or the Navy, and we were nearly swallowed up by the Navy. It was only the vote of the late Lord Balfour that saved us from extinction. That has passed, and we must not abuse the strong position we are in. I hope we are not to have any of this interservice wrangling. I noticed certain questions the other day about whether the Air Force should run its own armoured cars in Iraq. The history of that is very simple. After great difficulties, the Government gave the control of Iraq to the air. The air naturally wanted to get a certain amount of co-ordination between aircraft and armoured cars, and the War Office was asked to supply them. They would not have anything to do with them and, the Air Force having its own transport, it was easy to supply and man them. It does not mean that they are becoming an armoured car unit. They are quite en, titled to run the cars. I do not like that kind of criticism. The Army ran a lot of gun boats in Iraq, yet the Navy did not come 'bursting in and say, "What are you doing running ships?" It was only a temporary measure, so it is to-day with the Air Force in Iraq.
      There are one or two points that I should like to emphasise from the point of view of civil aviation. The flying boar is no one's friend. The light scouting aeroplanes which land on ship are looked after by the Navy, but the big seaplane does not seem to be anyone's friend. I do not believe any country depends more on seaplanes than we are going to do. I regret very much that we
      2058
      have had to cancel the order for one in particular. We have not been given the reasons—I have no doubt they were adequate—but it is a point that we must follow up, because, of all countries, we are more dependent on seaplanes than any other. Let us go gently. We do not want a stunt machine like the DoX, because that was all talk and no flying. La us go quietly along and get something good. There are other ways in which the Air Ministry can help, for instance in encouraging the auto-gyro—it is not a revolutionary machine but it will help—and things like the Diesel engine want help. They all want great encouragement in the first instance, because the Air Ministry must remember that at present we have a fine export trade in aircraft. It is a very remarkable thing. No one thinks of buying American aircraft. The only couuntry that sells aircraft abroad is this country.
      I want to plead, finally, for the science of meteorology. I do not think the Air Ministry gives it the attention it should If more had been known about meteorology, Lord Thomson would be with us to-day. The R101 was wrecked because of lack of knowledge of weather. That was the chief reason. No one can predict the weather 12 hours ahead. They guaranteed 12 hours ahead that there would be a wind of 20 miles an hour only at 3,000 feet, and yet the ship had only left 1½ hours when they got a message that they would meet a wind of 60 miles an hour. I have always thought it a remarkable thing that, whereas scientists can tell you the exact second of an eclipse 150 years ahead, they cannot tell us whether we should take our umbrellas out this afternoon. Is not that a preposterous position to be? I believe, if we really concentrate on this science and get the right people in it, not only shall we know about the future of the weather, but we shall be able in some way to control it. As an ordinary Englishman knowing the climate of this country, it seems to me that the possibilities that the Air Ministry might confer upon the nation by controlling the weather would be immense indeed, and well worthy of intense research.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: We have all read with great interest the Memorandum accompanying these Estimates. In it the Air Secretary has told us about experi-

      2059
      ments that have been made and about research that is being carried out. There is one line of research that I would appeal to him to follow up. I make the appeal as a layman who does not pretend to know anything about aeroplanes. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to turn his efforts in research on the subject of noise. The noise accompanying aeroplanes is enormous. Noise is measured by decibels. It is said that the noise from an aeroplane cabin is from 80 to 110 decibels Church bells are represented by 60 decibels of noise, thunder is represented by 65 decibels of noise, and the loudest point on the Falls of Niagara is marked by 85 decibels. The noise in an aeroplane cabin is equal to the noise at the loudest point of the Falls of Niagara. Those are very striking figures. The noise in the ordinary aeroplane cabin is so shattering that a large number of people who go up in an aeroplane once never go up a second time. I suggest to my hon. Friend who has been speaking of the difficulty of getting men to operate aeroplanes, that one of the difficulties is the terrific noise and the shattering effect of the noise of the aeroplane upon the nerves of those who fly in an aeroplane. Noise affects us very seriously. One scientific man after another—one may read their speeches in the "Times"—have impressed upon the country the importance of considering the question of noise. One hears people say, "Oh, you get used to noise. I used to feel the noise in such a place very much but now I have become used to it." What does that mean? It means that in the effort to eliminate noise and its effects a person has become unconscious of its presence but his vitality is still used up and wasted. Noise affects the nerves, the capacity for thinking, the capacity for effort, and has a very deleterious effect upon those who are subjected to it.
      We are looking forward to a large increase in the number of aeroplanes and aerial machines. When the sky is covered with aeroplanes I do not know what life on this planet will be like. We have now motors of the roads, we have speed boats on the rivers, and when we have the sky covered by aeroplanes—well I really do not know what life will be like. An hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite said he hoped that some
      2060
      day we should have an enormous entrepot traffic through the sky. I appeal to those responsible for increasing the number of aeroplanes to take the matter of noise into their serious consideration and deal with it. Some large towns—I think Sheffield is one—refuse to have aerodromes because they shrink from the noises which accompany them. There is no escape from the aeroplane. If you find that a particular district is noisy to live in you can leave it, but the aeroplane is above you and there is no escape. I ask the Minister to include among the subjects of research, the subject of noise. If the Minister is able to do anything in the way of reducing noise it will redound to his advantage, the Air Service will benefit by it, and the nation as a whole will benefit.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: The moment when we open the throttle and embark upon our first solo flight is a landmark in the life of each one of us, and certainly no less a milestone is the occasion when, for the first time, we spread our Parliamentary wings and rise to address this House. As I engage in this venture, I thank the House for the assurance given to me by tradition that I shall fly in a calm atmosphere. First may I be permitted to strike a personal note? As I have the honour to represent here an industrial Division, it is with some regret that I have not succeeded in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, when the subject before the House was one more intimately connected with the welfare of my constituents, many of whom at this moment are facing the rigours of unemployment with the utmost fortitude. The reasons for my intervening in this Debate are twofold, first, because Birmingham has a special responsibility with regard to the materials and accessories of aviation, and, secondly, because it is to aeronautics, both in the Air Ministry and in the aircraft industry itself, that so far I have largely devoted my energies. But this intimacy is not without its difficulties, for I believe that one of the characteristics of a discreet maiden speech is a freedom from the contentious. To speak of the difficulties in which we are immersed without a flavour of contention is, I fear, to say nothing, and I trust, therefore, that I shall be doing right in assuming that a House which has already generously

      2061
      relaxed its conventions will grant me some tolerance in my dilemma.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the keynote of these Estimates is economy. This is unimpeachable, in the circumstances, but let us see the major effect of these economies. By far the greatest cut is on Vote 3A—Aeroplanes, Seaplanes, Engines and Spares, where we have a decrease in the Estimates of 1931 of over £750,000, or 12 per cent. The Vote is further explained to us in page 35, where we see that the whole of the amount of over £750,000 is to be saved on one item, Complete Machines. As I understand it, the complete machines referred to in this item consist of the two main classes, as we know them, in the aircraft industry, the production or adopted machines, and the new or experimental types. If the cut of over £750,000, representing 23 per cent. of the Vote, is spread equally over the production and the experimental types, it is regrettable enough, but if, on the other hand, the cut is greater on the experimental types, it is a most disturbing position indeed.
      It has been said, year in and year out, both in this House and in the country, that a strong aircraft industry is essential for this nation. In 1931 our aircraft works were a mere shadow of their former selves, but now, apparently, we are to suffer a. reduction of 23 per cent. of our shadow. The fact that hundreds of men will be dismissed from our aircraft works on this account is most serious. Good aircrafts cannot be commanded; they are evolved; evolved from the fertility of minds continuously applying themselves without interruption to the manifold problems of aeronautics. Of course, the aircraft industry must bear its burdens in the general national sacrifice, but has not this 23 per cent. cut in our aircraft manufacturing industry too highly mortgaged our future aeronautical development? Even the hardest man of affairs to-day realises that technical development and research cannot be purchased over the counter like so much merchandise. The ground has continually to be tilled and rendered fertile. This precaution, it seems to me at any rate, we have decided to omit, and we shall inevitably pay a very heavy penalty. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, how these Estimates are subdivided as be-
      2062
      tween production and experimental types and also whether it has been realised the extent to which this cut will lacerate our aircraft industry? Economy may conveniently be developed from two distinct standpoints, the strategic and the tactical—economies of policy and economies of administration. I wonder whether the Air Ministry is applying itself very assiduously to the tactics of the matter.
      I will give one or two brief examples of what I have in mind. I recently had the pleasure of seeing many Royal Air Force machines land upon the deck of one of our aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, two of them ran off the deck into the nets. I expected to see some kind of crane brought forward to lift the machines back on to the deck. What did I see? Huge baulks of timber were brought and placed on the top of the machines and tied together to form shear legs, and actually the use of those baulks did more damage to those machines than the original crash into the nets. I asked one of the senior officers on board the ship why the implements at his disposal were so elementary, and he told me that time and time again they had suggested that better equipment should be purchased, and that no notice had been taken on the ground of economy. With some knowledge of aircraft construction, I say, without fear of contradiction, that the damage, due to those baulks of timber being placed upon those machines, was in excess of the cost of a piece of apparatus which would have removed them efficiently and replaced them upon the deck. That is just one type of economy which possibly, in a review of the tactics of the situation, the Air Ministry might be able to multiply many times.
      Mass production is being emphasised as a national necessity, and I agree entirely. Yet many of the components of our air-craft are being designed and manufactured in ones and twos when they might be manufactured in grosses. Here, again, in such things as rudded bars, control columns, throttle levers, tail skids and manifold other parts of the aeroplane great economies could be effected, and I feel certain that the aircraft industry would be willing to co-operate with the Air Ministry in this respect. The Air Ministry, as a great technical Department, should have a better system of

      2063
      examining new ideas. It is with the greatest regret that I have to say that a new idea in the air world in this country needs big business behind it before it stands much chance of adoption. The one principle upon which all new ideas should be examined is efficiency, and if, as my right hon. Friend may think, there is machinery in the Air Ministry for dealing with these matters, I can assure him that that machine is rusty, and possibly if he could have it taken out and lubricated, it might be for the good of us all.
      On the technical side, I will mention briefly two points. The first is refuelling in the air. This American development is suffering, I am afraid, in this country under a severe handicap—and if the Noble Lady who usually sits in the corner below the Gangway should read my remarks, I sincerely trust that she will not think that this remark could possibly apply to her—in that the emanations of America are not, in this country, taken very seriously. But I submit that refuelling in the air, in spite of the fact that in the States it has been raised to the nth degree of fatuity will in time be a most important factor in Service and in civil aviation. I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, if he will say whether he will have some experiments carried out in this direction? Secondly, I would like to ask him what success he is having with the Central Electricity Board. In America, the grid has become a regular roaster, and many people are killed every year through coming into contact with the power lines. What is being done in connection with the lighting of pylons at night?
      Turning to civil aviation, the slight increase in the Estimates is certainly to be welcomed. Imperial Airways maintains its unrivalled international reputation for soundness of mechanical operation, but I would like to see a little more flair in their publicity and advertising methods, and, if their energetic managing director could find time to devote himself to this matter, it would certainly benefit his company. So far as the light aeroplane clubs are concerned, this Debate has stood out among all the Debates on the Air Estimates in showing
      2064
      absolute unanimity that the clubs are not being treated in a way best to suit the national requirements. Suppose we consider that in the long run civil aviation and Service aviation are of approximately equal national and Imperial importance, then I submit that the light aeroplane clubs are an important part of civil aviation. Yet we find that only 1–2,000th part of the money voted for the air is devoted to the light aeroplane clubs. From the standpoint of the necessities of the nation in private flying, this small amount cannot possibly be substantiated. Having had myself for a brief period the responsibility of one of these clubs in my hands, I can say without fear of contradiction that, unless the Air Ministry can find a more reasonable and a more generous system of payments, there is nothing for it but for the clubs either to close down or to become part of commercial aviation concerns.
      Bound up very intimately with both the light aeroplane clubs and with private flying is the question of insurance. The Noble Lord who represents the Central Division of Bristol (Lord Apsley) has during this Session put to my right hon. Friend a considerable number of questions on the subject of aircraft insurance. The innuendo has always been that our insurance is too expensive and that we do not get benefit for it. It is, therefore, important that we should know the exact position of aircraft insurance. As a matter of fact, by dint of perseverance and brilliance of general commercial operation London is now the aircraft insurance market for the world. London was the only place where the Germans could insure the Graf Zeppelin and the Do. X. Even with the great trans-continental air lines in America the risks have to be re-insured in London as the only market that will take them. That shows not only that our rates are exceedingly reasonable, but, more important possibly with a new type of risk, that, when we snake a claim, the claim is being considered sympathetically on the basis of principle rather than on the letter of the policy. That is indeed a most important point.
      Whereas in that respect the Air Minister can afford to let well alone, there is another aspect of insurance to which I wish to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary, namely, person insurance.

      2065
      There is nothing in my estimation which is so holding up flying for civil purposes in this country as the attitude of the life insurance companies. Granted they have permitted us to fly on regular air lines, but, if you want to fly as a member of a light aeroplane club, they ask you for approximately 25 per cent. extra annual premium simply for this additional risk. More than that, if you pay that premium for a short period and then cease to fly and write to them, as the policy holder who received this letter did, this is the reply you get:
      "The extra premium payable is a continuous one under which the society is unable to grant any rebate for the year in which aviation has not taken place."
      In other words, if you are the policy holder and you get mixed up in this nasty business of aviation you will there and then have 25 per cent. excess premium put on your policy, and you can try to wriggle out of it in the future if you like but you will not have any success. Curiously enough, exactly the same state of affairs existed in France a few years ago, and the French Government saw that it was a bar to the development of private flying. They therefore approached the great life insurance companies of France, and, as a result, today once a pilot has a certificate of proficiency be is allowed to fly without extra premium. I cannot think that the British insurance companies will take a more narrow and less patriotic view than the French. I would particularly ask my right hon. Friend if he will approach in such manner as he thinks best the insurance companies with a, view to their modifying their action in this respect.
      With regard to the British certificate of airworthiness, a little before his death Sir Sefton Brancker asked me my view of an idea he then had of a special mark on machines to which the Air Ministry had allotted a British certificate of airworthiness, British in the sense that they were wholly British and not merely validated foreign certificates. That is a very useful development and one which in particular would help insurance by enabling those in insurance to know which are pedigree British aircraft and which are only British by adoption. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend that he proposes to adopt the suggestion which originally came from
      2066
      General Brancker. General Brancker, when he was with us, was the very mainspring of British civil aviation, the very embodiment of inexhaustible energy. We could not pay a greater tribute to him than to see that his name is perpetually connected with British civil aviation. We have our hall-mark for silver, and, as this mark on an aircraft would be the hallmark of aviation, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it should be known as "The Brancker Mark."
      With regard to the Air Navigation Acts, the Air Ministry has immense power under these Acts, which in general has not been abused. In connection with the correspondence recently in the "Times" on the subject of advertising by searchlight, I thought one very sinister aspect was revealed. One night, when one of the operators of these searchlights, who was well known to the Air Ministry, was operating this light displaying the name of some proprietary article in the skies, the Air Ministry, knowing perfectly well who was displaying that light, did not take the precaution of writing to the actual operator but wrote to his client whose name was in the sky. That is beyond all the canons of decent Government. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend that this will not be treated as a precedent and that, in fact, quite on the contrary, so long as he remains in his office—and I hope it will be for many a long day—he will fake steps to see that this does not occur again.
      Aviation was nurtured in the atmosphere of war and of governmental control—from Alpha to Omega a rigid bureaucratic regime. When civil aviation first put in an appearance, the Government of that day unfortunately succumbed to the clamour of officialdom that it should be treated in exactly the same way as its older brothers, military and naval aviation. Recently, by the wisdom of some of its foster-parents at the Air Ministry it has been able to escape some of these bonds. We noted with pleasure the Approved Firms' Scheme, and the authority granted to Lloyd's Register and the British Corporation to undertake the renewal of certificates of airworthiness. Since last summer an ominous inaction seems to have descended on the Air Ministry. Nor can this be because the next move is uncertain and contentious; it is quite the re-

      2067
      verse. There is a phenomenal agreement between those at the Air Ministry and those in, the aircraft industry, who are most entitled to speak on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who considers aircraft safer than taxicabs, stated many years ago that civil aviation must fly by itself. It is to this very end that the aircraft industry is asking for its freedom. Is it an unreasonable request? Of course, my right hon. Friend, if he desires, may take shelter behind one hundred and one conventions, but is not this a matter worthy of a bigger outlook and a better purpose? This industry, which has secured for this country the vast majority of the export aeronautical contracts of the world, which has given her the Schneider Trophy and the world's air speed record, which has given her engines which have brought to these shores the land and sea world speed records, this industry is asking my right hon. Friend for a practical acknowledgment of its manhood. He has here, indeed, a great opportunity and I ask him to seize it.
      I have spoken at some length. but I have endeavoured to indicate ways in which without extra expense our air power may be strengthened. I trust that some at any rate of my suggestions are worthy of adoption. The National Government is facing great problems with commeasurate opportunity. The air is no exception. So may I close with the sincere hope that my right hon. Friend, though he may not command success, will do more, deserve it.
      7.30 p.m.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I feel sure the House will like me to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken, on his very able speech. He has shown great knowledge of the technique of the air, and I hope that he will remain long a Member of this House to take part in our Air debates. I should like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Air on the very able way that he brought forward the Estimates. He has shown just as much skill at that Box as he showed last year at Hendon, when he took his squadron of aeroplanes and manoeuvred them in the air so skilfully. I always feel that our Air questions are in good hands when
      2068
      they are run by the right hon. Baronet. He has come back to office after 2½ years absence, and I know that he will deplore with me the large number of air accidents last year in the Royal Air Force. There were 43 accidents and 72 lives were lost. I read in the Press that some of those accidents were due, perhaps, to the Handley Page safety-slot not being fitted properly, or a pilot may have learned on one machine and been suddenly put into another machine, or as another hon. Member in his maiden speech suggested, the aerodromes are not levelled properly. I read in the Press the other day of an accident at Malta, When two seaplanes collided and both pilots. were killed.
      I have earned the right to criticise on this question of accidents, because I did the pioneer work for the submarines in the Navy, and we never lost a man. When I started the Royal Naval Air Service and ran it for many years we had far fewer accidents in that Service than they had in the Royal Flying Corps. I hope the Under-Secretary will consult with the Secretary of State for Air and go into these accidents and see if something more cannot be done to prevent them. It is no good telling us that everything possible is being done and that the flying hours rate of mortality is less than ever before. The fact remains that there were 72 deaths in the Royal Air Force last year. On behalf of those gallant officers who gave their lives in the air and on behalf of their parents, I ask that the Air Ministry should go into this question a little further and see if something more cannot be done.
      The Under-Secretary said that he had a great flight the other day to the Far East, and called at Malta. I cannot think that he could have been satisfied with the air defences of Malta. We want another aerodrome at Safi, and we want protection for our flying boats in one of the harbours there. Only 10 days ago there was a gale blowing at Malta, and the officers could not get to their ships and had to stay ashore. If we had had three or four flying boats lying there they would all have been wrecked. It is not fair when we have a station at Malta and our flying boats have to use it, that proper protection is not provided for the flying boats. Therefore I hope the Air Ministry will look into

      2069
      the question of providing suitable protection for the seaplanes that use Malta. Then there is Gibraltar. I was there a short time ago and I found that there is no protection there for seaplanes. The year before last they had grand manoeuvres in the Navy and one fleet was stationed at Gibraltar. I noticed in the Press that three seaplanes were to go out there and take part, but I do not think they went, because there is no proper seaplane protection at Gibraltar. This matter needs to be looked into. I would ask the Under-Secretary to consult with the Air Minister and see if he cannot this summer spare the time —it only takes a few days to go—to go out to Gibraltar and Malta and examine the Air defences. The Naval centre of gravity has shifted from the North Sea to the Mediterranean and I feel that we are neglecting our Air defences in such important places as Malta and Gibraltar.
      With regard to flying boats, I am sorry that the large flying boat was abandoned. The Under-Secretary says that it was abandoned for the sake of economy. I do not know whether or not that is the reason, but the boat had been ordered. I think they ought to have gone on with the experiment, because we want to be the first nation in the world in the building of these flying boats. There is one hope for us in regard to flying-boat design, and that is that we are told in the Memorandum that Farnborough has got a tank and that a large tunnel is to be constructed. I hope that the Minister will see that we get something out of Farnborough. Farnborough has been like the League of Nations. It takes the money and does not give us very much. I recollect placing an order at Farnborough for the Admiralty for a, torpedo seaplane. We paid the money, but we did not get the machine. I would ask the Under-Secretary to give instructions to Farnborough to get out a design of a large flying boat with 10 per cent. better performance than any other flying boats in the world, and to see if they cannot do something to improve the design of flying boats.
      Remarks have been made about the Schneider Cup machines, and I join with my colleagues in everything that they have said about those machines. It is only 22 years since we started with a seaplane in the Navy. We got a machine
      2070
      and put floats on it, but we could only get it into the air for a few seconds. It would only go a few feet in the air. We had an Anzani engine of 60 h.p. and with a weight of five lbs. per horse-power and a speed of 45 miles per hour in the air. In those 22 years we have produced a machine that will go into the air with an engine of over 2,000 horse-power, with a weight under lb. per horse-power, and a speed round the Schneider Cup course of over 340 miles per hour. That is a tremendous advance. Everybody connected with the air, the aeronautical industry, the design staff, the aeronautical engineers and the pilots are to be warmly congratulated on that great achievement of the Schneider Cup machines. When I saw the great pageant at Hendon and saw the Schneider Cup machines, I could not help feeling that Parliament. was right in having a separate Air Service, because we never should have got that development if the older Services had been in charge of the Air Service. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will protest with every fibre of their being should anybody come forward again and try to split up a most efficient Air Service between the two older Services.
      The Air Ministry ought to go into the question of noise, which was raised by an hon. Member sitting on the Liberal Benches. I have had many letters sent to me about the noise of aircraft, but I have not sent them on to the Air Ministry. Something ought to be done about it. I know that the noise inside the aeroplane has been reduced considerably, but the complaint is about the noise outside, from the engine, from the exhaust and from the tips of the propeller. The Under-Secretary might consider the advisability of offering a prize of £5,000 for the best suggestion for making our flying machines more silent. In the early days of the development of the air engine we offered a similar reward. It would be a good thing to do, and it would be appreciated by a tremendous number of people in this country who complain about the noise of the machines flying over their houses.
      When I look at the Memorandum I have to congratulate the Air Ministry on reducing their Vote by £11,000. I think that is due to the very able efforts of the Permanent Secretary to the

      2071
      Ministry, and I know that he will always run the Air Ministry as economically as possible. The Memorandum is admirably drawn up, but I think there is one snag in it. On page 2, it says that
      "His Majesty's Government would view the situation witty, anxiety"—
      that is in regard to the number of our Air Force—
      "but for their earnest hope and expectation that the Disarmament Conference now in session at Geneva will bring about a reduction in air armaments."
      I have looked at the figures of our machines. The Under-Secretary says that we are the fifth Power in the air, but when I look at the figures of other nations, including Russia, I find that we are the sixth Power in the air. That is far too low. If we are leaning on the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference for what air machines we are to have for our protection, we are leaning on a very weak reed. I do not think that the Government, the Air Ministry, the Committee of Imperial Defence, or the Chief of Staffs Committee should shelter themselves behind the Disarmament Conference. Many nations gave advice to the Disarmament Conference before it assembled at Geneva, but I think that Turkey's advice was the best. His Excellency, Kemal Pasha, said that a nation should have the army that it needs. I submit that we have not the Air Force that we need.
      Looking at the matter from the financial point of view, the total amount of money provided for defence purposes this year in the Estimates work out at something like £104,000,000, of which the Air Service gets only £17,000,000. They only get one-sixth of the available money. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said that the whole of the people could be obliterated from the earth. Well, we are the sixth Power in the air, and we are only allowed to have for the Air Service one-sixth of the total amount of money available for defence purposes. Therefore, I think he will agree with me that if the whole population could he wiped out from the air we should provide more money for giving us air security in this country.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: You cannot get it.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: The hon. Member says that we cannot get it. Some £104,000,000 is provided for defence purposes, and the Air Service only gets one-sixth. That is totally inadequate, and I protest against it most strongly. The other two Services get away with the money. I have heard the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) say that the Services all fight for the swag. All I can say is that the Secretary of State for Air did not get a very big share of the swag. I hope that the Under-Secretary will submit my views to him and ask him to dig his feet in next year and to get a little more of the swag for the Air Service.
      The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who spoke on the Army Estimates, made an excellent speech, in which he brought up the hardy annual of a Ministry of Defence. But the hon. Member for Limehouse is one of the best read men in the House, and he studies these subjects very carefully. He thought that we should have a Ministry of Defence. Ten years ago I introduced my Ministry of Defence Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. I agree with every word that was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Limehouse. To have such a Ministry is the only way to get these Estimates right and to get the money divided in the right proportions between the three fighting Services.
      I listened with very great interest to the excellent speech which the First Lord made in introducing the Navy Estimates, but there was one point on which I disagreed with him. He said that he was going to bring an aircraft-carrier home from the Mediterranean. I hoped he was going to say that he intended to send more youngsters up aloft 5,000 feet in aircraft to get their eyes skinned for war, or that he would put them underneath the surface of the sea in submarines and train them there. But not a bit of it. He said he was going to bring an aircraft-carrier home and to pay her off; and then he said that training was to be given in sailing ships. I am one of those—there are not many of us left now—who was trained on a royal yard. When I was in the training ship Britannia we had a tender, and I was often No. 1 royal yard and No. 2 top-gallant yard. I went to the Pacific in a sailing ship—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not go back to the Navy Estimates.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I only wanted to make the point that the First Lord is bringing an aircraft-carrier home and the money he is going to save he is going to put into a ship with masts and yards. As one who was trained in masts and yards, I am protesting that that training is not the slightest use for a man in the modern Navy.
      Mr. SPEAKER: We are not concerned with the modern Navy at the moment. We are considering the Air Force Estimates.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I, of course, bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I want to protest that any reduction or economy resulting from air carriers should not be put into training ships with masts and yards. We want every bit of money for developing our flying services. That is the point that I wish to make. We can only get these Estimates right if we have a Minister of Defence to go into them very carefully. There are many Members in the House who are pledged to make all economies possible, and I ask them to back up the creation of a Ministry of Defence for the more efficient administration of our fighting services.

    AIRSHIP DEVELOPMENT.
    Mr. WELLWOOD JOHNSTON: 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 the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty's Government should take all possible steps; by way of research, training of personnel, and maintenance of ground equipment, to facilitate the immediate resumption of practical experiment in the development of rigid airships as soon as financial conditions permit."
    Good fortune in the ballot, which never attends me if a financial prize is at stake, has on this occasion given me a more estimable reward by affording me the opportunity, in bringing forward this Amendment, to address the House for the first, time. It will, I know, afford me its usual indulgence. I desire to draw attention to the question referred to in the Amendment, because, in common with many others, I have been concerned by the great curtailment of activity that has taken place in connection with the de-
    2074
    velopment of airships, and by the decision, now unfortunately carried into effect, to scrap the Airship R.100. The Government proposes to spend not more than £16,000 upon the development of airships. It is true that they intend, for that sum, to retain a small, though only a very small, technical staff, and to keep their masts and other equipment in order. It is true that they may say that they are carrying out two of the objects set forth in the Amendment. But as far as research goes, the technical staff that they propose to retain is so small that I think it will not be able to do anything whatever in the way of constructive research, but will be confined to keeping a note of developments that occur abroad. In any case, for an ultimate resumption of practical experiment and of construction of airships, the most important requirement of all is the existence of a personnel trained in the construction and operation of airships, and for that the Government appear to be making no provision at all.
    I would like, accordingly, to ask whether the Government have any intentions beyond their immediate policy in connection with airships, and to urge them to consider the disadvantages that may ensue to us if through their policy we lose such knowledge and technical skill as have been acquired in the last five or six years. Let me at once say that I have no scientific or practical knowledge of, or interest in, aircraft in general or airships in particular, and as a mere layman, therefore, I have no technical qualifications which enable me to form an opinion of the slightest value as to the ultimate potentialities of rigid airships. But what as a layman I can see, indeed what I cannot help seeing, is that the Germans appear to have been able to construct a rigid airship that will go, and that will go safely, and they seem to have been able to fly it safely all over the world. I cannot help seeing also that both Germany and the United States are devoting considerable attention and considerable sums of money to airship development. It is only natural in these circumstances to experience the feeling that if the Germans can do a thing, we ought to be able to do it too. I cannot but deplore the fact that where, so far, the Germans have at least relatively succeeded, we should not only have failed

    2075
    relatively, but should virtually have given up trying.
    I interest myself in this matter not for one moment because of any interest in the military possibilities of rigid airships, but entirely on account of their possible civil use for commercial purposes. It does appear to be not impossible that there may be permanent limitations, as regards size and carrying capacity, to the development of heavier than air machines operating under their own power, at all events in the lower atmospheric strata. If that is so, it does appear that if airships can be successfully developed there may be a very great sphere of usefulness for them on account of their greater carrying capacity, their longer range of operation, and their ability, which the aeroplane has not, to remain in the air independently of the continuous functioning of their engines. If there is to be a commercial future for them, one thing that is certain is that there is no country in the world to which they might be more useful than our own. There are many features in connection with airships which I need not enumerate, on account of which, in the present stage, their commercial development by private enterprise is virtually impossible without some form of Government assistance.
    It is pertinent to inquire how far the present policy, or lack of policy, on the part of the Government, has been dictated by the disaster to R. 101, and how far by the need for economy. After the disaster to R. 101, the Government said that they would not announce their plans until they had some report from the Economy Committee. On 8th May last year the Economy Committee wrote a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer advising the adoption of pretty much the same policy as the Government are now following, and advising the scrapping of the R. 100. A Debate took place on 14th May, when the Prime Minister announced a policy which was not by any means an acceptance of the Economy Committee's recommendations. He proposed, not indeed to adhere to the plans in existence before the disaster, but to follow a middle course with, an expenditure of something like £140,000 a year, involving in particular the retention of the R. 100 and its reconditioning and use for experimental flights. That course met with the general
    2076
    approval of the House. I will not say that economy was not an urgent need at that time, because it has been an urgent need for years, but it is true to say that at that time, although the Economy Committee had been set up, the full urgency of the need for economy was not appreciated by the Government then in power or in office. Therefore, I think that the modification of policy which was announced by the Prime Minister on 14th May was dictated rather by the disaster to R. 101 than by the need for economy. The further curtailment since made by the National Government was no doubt dictated on grounds of economy. I think there can be little doubt that both the airship disaster and the need for economy have played a part in reducing the Government's activities to their present very exiguous state. Neither the disaster nor the need for economy alone would have led to so large a suspension of activity.
    8.0 p.m.
    I treat this matter on the footing that airships are certainly not a proved failure. I do not see how one can say that they are a proved failure after the enormous amount of flying done by the Zeppelins during the War, after the voyages of R.34 and R.100 to Canada, and after the world-wide flights which the Graf Zeppelin has made. Some hon. Members may not agree that they are not a proved failure, but I think I am certainly entitled to treat the question on the footing that airships have not proved themselves a complete and final failure. That was the view most emphatically expressed in the Debate by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for India, a former Minister for Air, and also the view acceded to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who presided over the Committee which inquired into the R.101 disaster. Let me remind the House of the view which the Prime Minister took at that time.
    "The position which we find ourselves in at the moment is this, and I think the whole Committee will he with me when I state it, that airships up to date have neither proved a failure nor achieved an assured success, and that the report, most illuminating as regards what appears to have happened to R. 101 in the last stage of its fatal journey, leaves that statement as I have made it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th May, 1931; col. 1391, Vol. 252.]

    2077
    The Secretary of State for India said that the report did not show that there was anything wrong with airships as such. Accordingly, I proceed on the footing that airships are not a proved failure. After a failure in an enterprise which is not a proved impossibility the natural instinct, the human instinct, and particularly the British instinct, is not to give up, as we seem rather to have done in connection with airship construction, but to try again with all the more energy and determination to succeed. Ultimate progress in the material sphere, and for that matter in the intellectual sphere as well, is only made by learning from failure, by persevering through disaster and by trying again after defeat. I do not think there are many hon. Members who have learned to ride the bicycle without falling off a few times. Mankind has not been deterred from further effort, now largely successful, towards the conquest of the air, by the fate of Icarus who flew too near the sun so that it melted the wax by which his wings were attached to himself. Hon. Members of the Opposition and their political associates in the country do not appear to have been diverted by what was for them the disaster of the last General Election from a continued advocacy of Socialism in our time, and, while I cannot predict their ultimate success, I can at least admire their pertinacity. If I may give one example from the intellectual sphere it was only after great difficulty and prolonged failure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) came to see the light on the fiscal problem, but he persevered, and I might say to the Liberal benches in front of me that there is no need to despair if you keep on trying with an open mind.
    Very different from the spirit of resignation to failure which the Government's airship policy seems to exemplify, was the spirit expressed by the Lord President of the Council at the time of the industrial difficulties of 1926. Sadly recalling the failure of his efforts to promote greater industrial harmony, he said that he had failed so far and that everything he cared for was being smashed up, but that that did not take away from him his faith or his courage. He said that he was going to pick up the bits and start again. That is the spirit which achieves success, and I am wondering
    2078
    whether we in this country should not have picked up the bits of the R.101 and started again, and tried to accomplish what up to that time we had not been able to achieve. So much for the, disaster as having influenced policy.
    What about economy? If the Government do no more in this connection than they are proposing to do I am afraid it is inevitable that we shall sacrifice very much of the knowledge and experience that has already been gained about airships in recent years, and lose much of the technical skill that has been acquired in their construction and handling. The certain result of that must be that if we want to start building again, or if we have to start building again, we shall have to build up all these things from the beginning and at a very greatly increased cost. Let me remind the House that the policy of the Government last May, an essential part of which was the retention of R.100, was urged upon the House by the three right hon. Gentlemen who are now Members of the Government as being not only the right course and the best course, but, most particularly, as being the economical course. The Prime Minister in that Debate said:
    "Suppose airships are not going to be complete failures, and suppose, owing to experiments and to experience gained, say, during the next three or four years, we feel we must go back to some active and practical interest in airships, it will be a tremendous mistake if, in the meantime, we have been training no men with the skill and capacity required specially for airship construction."
    Later on he said:
    "You have to keep a nucleus which is experienced in flying, which is experienced in the behaviour of ships, and which is experienced in the handling of ships, because if that is allowed to go, and you have to come back to some construction, then you have got to create the whole thing from the beginning, and not only is time wasted, but a great deal of money is squandered as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1931; cols. 1395–6, Vol. 252.]
    The Secretary of State for India in the same Debate said:
    "In view of the great advantages that airships may mean to the British Empire in the future, I do not see how we can scrap all the research and experimental work, the value of which I cannot overrate, which has gone on during the last five years. We cannot pull to pieces R 100 after she has made only one or two flights and allow America and Germany to proceed with a really ambitious airship programme. We

    2079
    should lose our technical skill, we should lose, what is almost equally important, our operating experience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1931; col. 1404, Vol. 252.]
    It is difficult, indeed it is impossible, to reconcile the present policy of the Government with the views expressed by right hon. Gentlemen so recently as last May, views which were accepted at the time by the House as justifying the policy then pursued. The need for economy may be greater now, and better understood, but that cannot make economical what has been decided to be uneconomical. There is one other consideration. I fear that the present position in this country amounts to little less than acquiescence on our part in German supremacy in this branch of aeronautics. The world is bound to think, even more surely than before, of the Germans as the experts in this connection. The Germans, people will say, can build airships and fly them successfully all over the world, but, though the British tried too, they were not much good at it. That is an idea which if it becomes prevalent is not only hurtful to our pride but damaging to our prestige, and it may some day, when airships become commercialised, deprive us of trading opportunities.
    I have no intention of risking my own life in an airship and it may be said that in those circumstances I have no business to suggest that the Government should do anything in the way of allowing other people to engage upon hazardous adventures in airships in the future. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Govern-should send its servants or allow any of its servants to embark on trips in airships until there is every reason to suppose that complete safety has been secured. What I urge is that they should prepare for the time when another voyage can be made with that perfect security which will be required. I am sure that the overwhelming desire of all those engaged in work in connection with the airships at the time of the loss of R 101 who were not lost with the airship was to go ahead at once and wipe out that failure and avenge their comrades by mastering the elements and the natural forces which destroyed them. I should like to remind the House of one more expression of opinion given by the Foreign Secretary in that same Debate. Speaking of the Government's proposal to retain R 100 he said:
    2080
    "If that is, as I believe it is, a good, practical, economical course, what a satisfaction that we should be able to adopt it! The dying thought of these men who were destroyed in France was, I am sure, that they were giving their lives to a great adventure. It is not the way of the people of this country to give up a great adventure because of a calamity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1931; col. 1416, Vol. 252.]
    The same right hon. Gentleman on the same occasion called attention to the fact that this is an international question in the sense that it evokes the co-operation of different nations for the general advancement of science and the benefit of mankind as a whole. He urged on that account that we in this country should at least do our share. He said:
    "We cannot expect America and Germany and other countries to afford us the value of their progress and developments if we do not do something ourselves."
    I commend that sentiment most humbly to the House.
    It is a source of legitimate pride to us that it has been the privilege of the British race to blaze many trails for the benefit of mankind as a whole. The opportunities of the British people for service and leadership in the world were never greater or more numerous than they are to-day. This is a comparatively very small matter, the question of airship development, but I should not like to think that we are taking our failure lying down, renouncing all claim to eminence, let alone pre-eminence, and putting aside all ambition to be a pioneering nation. In departure from the policy commended by the Prime Minister and other Members of the present Government to the House as the right and economical policy last May, and accepted by the House as such, the R 100 has been scrapped. I waste no time, as I have wasted no words in the Amendment, regretting what has been irrevocably done. Nor do I urge that the Government should at once start to build another large airship. What I urge, and what the Amendment affirms, is that short of building another airship at once they should do everything possible by preserving our knowledge and technical skill to prepare for the resumption of construction at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. WELLS: I beg to second the Amendment.

    2081
    In doing so, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. W. Johnston) not only on his luck in raising this subject, but on the manner in which he has presented his case. I am sure that the House will be very pleased to hear him on future occasions. I support the Amendment, because it reaffirms the decision which the House took last May. The Debate on airship policy on that occasion to which the Mover of the Amendment has already referred, was, to my mind, of great importance. It took place about six months after the disaster to R101 and after the report known as the Simon Report was in the hands of hon. Members. The decisions taken by the Government were taken deliberately and with considered judgment. The Prime Minister decided that Cardington should be kept as a nucleus and R100 restored for the purpose not only of flying experiments but of scientific experiments and he told us that the cost would be £120,000 in the first year, £130,000 in the second year and £140,000 in the third year. The right hon. Gentleman said these words:
    "In these days of financial stringency what can be saved must be saved but sometimes saving is a form of very shortsighted extravagance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1931; col. 1397–8. Vol. 252.]
    While I am speaking on the financial aspect of the question I should like to repeat what was then said by the present Secretary of State for India who was for a considerable time Secretary of State for Air:
    "I will say that it would not be true economy after this expenditure of money after this accumulation of technical knowledge to scrap this great experiment for the sake of £100,000 for three years."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1931; col. 1404, Vol. 252.]
    We have thus a general decision which was supported by the House of Commons and also by the right hon. Gentleman whom I have just quoted. I wish to ask why has that decision been reversed? It is not because of financial stringency because the scrapping of R.100 might easily have been postponed. I cannot think for one moment that that is the reason. It was a metal airship and it would have remained in its shed and suffered no hurt for months or even years. What was the reason therefore why R.100 was broken up. It looks to me very much like the deliberate destruction
    2082
    of a national asset. It may have been considered that its existence would have been a temptation to future Governments and that it was desired to make further experiments prohibitive in regard to cost and as difficult as possible. But we must remember that R.100 was a magnificent ship. It had a trial flight to America and back. It only had two short trials, the total flying time being 296 hours and during those flights, as far as we are aware, no serious trouble occurred and nothing seriously affecting its structure.
    The Mover has called attention to the fact that the Graf Zeppelin is still flying. I believe that it still has the original cover and that it is paying its way, at least it did so last year. Already, I am informed, a time-table has been arranged for it for next year when it is to cross the Atlantic on more than one occasion. R.101 cost £500,000. It has now been sold, I suppose for a paltry sum of a few hundred pounds. It is the finest piece of airship engineering the world has yet produced. Then Cardington has been closed down—the only place in the Empire where British airships might have been successfully developed. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his speech last year said that the airship was a sort of side issue. I think that the great difficulty in regard to the whole airship question is that it has always seemed to be regarded as a side issue. There was no senior officer specially trained in airships to advise the Air Council. That showed a want of thought on the part of the Ministry. They could not keep in touch with what was going on at Cardington.
    I agree that all the energy to-day is being directed to heavier-than-air machines and it is natural to concentrate upon a service which is so valuable and so successful. I should like in that connection to offer my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on the splendid work which has been done recently in connection with long distance routes especially in Africa and India. We know that the expenditure upon the service is very limited and I think that in the Debate there has been every encouragement to the Secretary of State to ask for a larger Vote. He cannot possibly carry on the experimental work which is necessary on the Vote now asked for. The results in regard to heavier-than-air machines have been remarkable during the last few

    2083
    years but even to-day we cannot safely cross the Atlantic on a heavier-than-air machine. The only machine that has been successful in crossing the Atlantic is the airship. We have crossed the Atlantic four times by airship. The Germans have crossed it many times, and have also been round the world, and no doubt they will cross the Atlantic by airship again very soon.
    I have a special interest in Cardington because it is in my constituency and the effect of the Government's recent decision there has been devastating. The Prime Minister in his speech last year told us that when the disaster to R101 occurred there were 860 employés at Cardington. To-day there are 16 non-industrial and 55 industrial employés there. I am glad to say that the Air Ministry have done their best to find work for those people who lost their employment through the cutting down of the various staffs. They found work for 108 and we realise how difficult it was because these men had specialised in this class of work and had each spent from three to six years at it. It is different from any other work and it is almost impossible for these men to get back into engineering or other trades when they have been so long engaged in airship work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) spoke about the meteorological department. We had a very fine meteorological department at Cardington. That has been removed, I do not know where it has been transferred but the work was most valuable.
    I submit that, although, of these two airships, one has been scrapped and the other destroyed in the disaster, yet we have learned something. I admit that the lesson has been costly, but we must recognise that we have learned a great deal which is of value in regard to airship development. We have learned much in regard to stresses in various kinds of materials and also with regard to the heavy oil type engine. I wish also to ask the Under-Secretary a question concerning a rumour which appeared in the Press some months ago to the effect that Dr. Eckener had made an application in connection with a company which was to be formed in America and Germany and this country for taking over Cardington
    2084
    as a base for airships. Cardington is a magnificent aerodrome as those who have visited it will agree—one of the finest in the country. There are big workshops and enormous sheds, each capable of holding about a hundred aeroplanes. The Government have also about 500 acres of land there which is absolutely flat with no buildings on it and hardly any trees. There are, of course, ditches and a few small dykes, but it would be a suitable spot for an aerodrome for ordinary aeroplane work, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give some hope to the people of Cardington that something will be done there before long to re-start and re-engage some of those who have lost their jobs.
    I would suggest also the forming of an airship school. For one thing, it would help in continuity of policy. Recent airships have been controlled by aeroplane experts chiefly, and the nearest approach to an airship school that we have had in this country was the experimental station at Pulham formed by the late Air Commodore Maitland, where most valuable work was carried out. It would be a very bad thing indeed for this country if we threw away all the knowledge which has been gained upon this subject during the last few years.
    I would also like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether the question of airship policy will come before the Imperial Conference at Ottawa. I remember that some years ago, at the last Imperial Conference, this matter was very much in the forefront, and hopes were raised in Canada, Australia, and South Africa of a general airship service; and a great deal of money was spent in preliminary work, in mooring masts, etc. I hope that this matter will once again be raised at the Conference, because I think it is impossible for this country to leave to Germany and the United States of America the future development of the airship. I do not see why those countries should show us the way that we ought to take the lead. We know very well that the sea has taken generations to conquer, and we cannot say that we have actually conquered it yet, so we cannot expect to conquer the air with airships in a few years. It will take probably many years, and the disaster that befell the R.101 has put us back, I suppose, for at least 10 years in

    2085
    airship development. I would say, in memory of those who gave their lives in that great adventure, Let us not turn back now, but let us carry on with experimental work and see if we cannot plan out something for the future so as to recover our position in airship development.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It has given me great pleasure to hear two hon. Members plead the cause of the airship. Most of the great friends of the airship perished in the great disaster to R.101, and to us who are left, but who grew up with most of those who were killed, it is very pleasing to hear two hon. Members pleading for what those who died represented, but what is for the moment a somewhat unpopular cause. I must say that I think the Mover of the Amendment has simplified the ease by stating, quite frankly, that there is no military reason for an airship at all. Once you dismiss the military side of it, the problem becomes a somewhat simpler one. You will remember that there was a book published by the Government, called, I think, "The Approach to a System of Imperial Air Communications." That was a very great ideal. It visualized great lines of big liners from one part of the Empire to the other, from which spears of aeroplane services should radiate, and it was the idea that that might become a real thing, something which would link up the Empire, that really animated the airship school.
    8.30 p.m.
    Then came the crash. The Prime Minister asked me—I was not a Member of this House at the time—to go on to that inquiry, and for six months, with the present Foreign Secretary and Professor Inglis, we did, I must say, dig into the question of airships as thoroughly, I think, as was possible. While I was an enthusiastic airship man before going into that inquiry, I must say that that inquiry shook my enthusiasm very much. It shook it terribly, and I feel that one can sum up the position to-day in a very few words. First of all, will it pay? If it is not a military proposition, on what other justification can it exist, if it is not to pay? I very much doubt whether you are going to fill an airship with 100 passengers when that airship is filled with hydrogen. The last
    2086
    disaster will take many years to eradicate from the human mind. It was one of the most tragic and dreadful things, and arising from such a simple cause, just a rather slow stranding, with consequent fire.
    The building of airships is now an international problem. It started in Germany, we copied the Germans, and now the Americans have copied us. They have built a machine with a capacity of 7,000,000 cubic feet. Ours was 5,000,000 cubic feet. I think that, along the lines of greater and greater airships, there is a possibility of success. The Americans are in a position in which we are not; they are filling their airship with helium. We cannot do that, and the enormous expense of this proposition quite appals. There may be political considerations which may make it worth while to show a great airship going up and down the world. It may be worth while, but practically, at the present time, I do not believe it is possible to ask the taxpayer to produce the money to go on with this matter. I am of the opinion that to keep the very smallest nucleus going is the right thing, but that for the next few years the most important thing to keep in the air is the pound, not the airship.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to congratulate very warmly the Mover of this Amendment on his remarkably eloquent and interesting maiden speech, and I hope that we shall often have the pleasure in this House of hearing his views, especially on the occasion of the Debate on the Air Estimates. I know that hon. Members listened to him with the greatest possible interest and with no little sympathy, as they did also to the remarks that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells), also on the subject of airship development. No one in this House, I know, can regret the policy that has been adopted during the last year in airship development so much as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, whose constituency is so closely associated with airships, but the House will recollect, as the Mover of the Amendment rightly said, that the whole question was discussed and gone into last May, when the position was made perfectly clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as it was also by my right hon.

    2087
    Friends the Secretaries of State for India and Foreign Affairs. No one is more qualified to discuss the details of the situation than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, with the exception perhaps of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who, quite apart from his general knowledge of aviation and of his long interest in these matters, was also on the Court.
    But the whole situation is governed by the question of finance. His Majesty's Government decided last August that, in view of the economic crisis, they had no option but to reverse their previous decision and to accept the recommendations of the May Committee. In accordance with those recommendations, the R100 has been broken up, with the exception of a single bay, which is being kept for experimental work. The Royal Airship Works at Cardington and the bases at Karachi and Ismailia have been reduced to a care and maintenance basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked what was the point of breaking up R100, and said that it would have been better to have kept it in its shed for a year or two, so that, if the policy were reversed, it could be taken out again to very good purpose. That would not have been the case. In view of the great financial stringency that exists, we cannot afford the sum that would have been entailed in the maintenance of that big ship. Quite apart from the fact that it would have cost over £1,000 a year to keep in the very minimum condition of fitness, I very much doubt whether, after a year or two years, this great metal airship would have been at all fit for flights of any extended nature. The corrosion that would have taken place, in spite of the maintenance and care lavished upon it, would have made it impossible to use it for any extended flights at the end of two years.
    As a result of the policy upon which we have decided, we have saved a sum of £120,000 in these Estimates. It would have been quite impossible to produce this substantial sum which was needed towards the reduction in these Estimates if we had not taken this step. No one regrets this decision more than the Air Ministry, but it must not be taken as a decision against the utility of airships.
    2088
    I believe, as the Mover of the Amendment said, that the case for airships has neither been proved nor disproved. I am very much against those people who say that the disaster to R.101 is any reason for going back on former policy or for considering that, because of that disaster, there is no future for airships. Only the exigencies of the financial situation cause us to call a halt for the moment in our investigations. We have been careful not to close the door upon the possibility of resuming our investigations as soon as circumstances permit. The existing machinery at Cardington and Overseas will be maintained, and the whole organisation can be set in motion with the minimum of delay as soon as money is available for the purpose. Meanwhile, bur policy is to hold a watching brief with a nucleus organisation, which will carry on a modest programme of experiments and keep closely in touch with all developments and experiments that are being carried out in foreign countries.
    In only two countries—the United States of America and Germany—are serious programmes of airship development being continued. I believe that in Germany, owing to the financial situation, the second large Zeppelin has not been laid down, although the scheduled time for it is long overdue. I believe that in both those countries the programmes have been considerably retarded owing to the financial situation. We have already arranged to send one of our most experienced pilots to the United States to establish first-hand contact with what is being done there and to keep us informed of developments. As far as Germany is concerned, similar arrangements are also being made. We shall, therefore, benefit from such development and the experience that is being gained; as far as experience is concerned, we are certainly losing nothing. We are doing everything we can with the limited funds at our disposal.
    It will be very wrong to allow ourselves to be stampeded into any action by the terrible disaster which overtook R 101, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey has said, this sort of thing is bound to react on the public mind and one must take it into consideration. But if that had been entirely the reason for the policy we are adopting, it would have been adopted directly after

    2089
    the disaster, and the policy decided in May last year would have been a very different policy. Probably it would have been the policy which we are adopting now. The hon. Member can be sure that our present policy is entirely due to the financial stringency, and I hope that at some future date it may be possible to resume the work of airship development as my hon. Friend would like, because, after all, we must remember that lighter-than-air craft have a very remarkable career behind them. The work of the Zeppelins in Germany and airships elsewhere have shown us what they can do. If they can be developed successfully, they hold out a promise of inestimable advantage to mankind, and to no country more than the British Empire, scattered as it is over the Seven Seas. No country could share more in those benefits than the British Empire. But for the time being, we are bound hand and foot by the financial situation, and we must contain ourselves in patience until better times.
    Amendment negatived.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Now that we have come back to the Debate on the original Question, I should like to make one or two remarks to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I should like to congratulate on the way that the Estimates were introduced. I am afraid, however, that I cannot entirely agree with all that is contained in the Estimates. In studying them, I have come to two conclusions: first, that we are spending too little money in the right way; and, secondly, that we are spending too much money in the wrong way. The right way is expenditure on the Royal Air Force. It is clearly stated in the Memorandum which the Secretary of State has published with the Estimates that the Royal Air Force is suffering in efficiency because of the cuts. The Memorandum states:
    "There has been no option but to sacrifice a number of important items in the programme, but effort has been concentrated on producing the results demanded of the Royal Air Force by the nation's necessities with the minimum loss of efficiency."
    It should be noted by every hon. Member of this House, on whatever side he sits, and whether he agrees with the expenditure on the Royal Air Force or
    2090
    does not, and also by everybody outside this House, that this policy of economy in connection with the Royal Air Force has been carried to a degree where it is now definitely affecting the efficiency of the Service. That that is the case is admitted by the Secretary of State in this official document, and it is no light matter, to be passed over easily, because whether we agree with having an Air Force or do not, at any rate we all want to get 20s. worth of value for every pound, and here is an admission that we are not getting it at the present time.
    I personally, in common, I think, with many other Members am disturbed at this reduction of expenditure on the Royal Air Force, particularly when we compare our expenditure on air armaments during recent years with that of European countries. The right hon. Gentleman himself told me, in answer to a question a few weeks ago, that since 1925 we have slightly reduced our expenditure on air armaments, whereas in the same period France has increased her expenditure by no less than 130 per cent., and the United States of America has increased its expenditure by no less than 150 per cent. Those figures make one think seriously whether, so long as we retain a fighting air force, it is worth while to pursue the cheeseparing policy we have been forced to adopt owing to the economic crisis, or whether we ought not to start a campaign throughout the country to proclaim that expenditure on the Services is not a wanton expenditure, is not, profligate expenditure or expenditure that is tempting people to fight each other, but is the best form of national insurance until the world ideal—to which. I think everybody subscribes—of universal peace and disarmament is attained; and it is only as to when that ideal will be attained that we differ from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway.
    I would ask the right lion. Gentleman, now that we have cut down to the bone —and, in fact cut into the bone—the expenditure on the Royal Air Force, and now that with this limited expenditure he wants the maximum possible number of first-line machines, whether he will definitely contemplate, as soon as circumstances permit, increasing the number of squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force. I do not suggest that this should be done at the expense of regular squad-

    2091
    rons, but. I think this is a line of policy which ought to be taken up. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows full well, as he has had the honour of commanding these squadrons, that their work has been a revelation as to their efficiency and achievement, and has surprised people both inside the Service and outside. Will he tell me whether it is the policy of the Air Ministry to increase these squadrons, and also at the same time to have single-seater fighter squadrons and, possibly, flying boat squadrons as well as the bomber squadrons to which they are confined at the present time.
    In looking at these Estimates one must remember that one is dealing with a fighting Service. At present it is politically unpopular, it is not the fashion, ever to mention the word "war." As the Financial Secretary to the War Office said in introducing the Army Estimates, we must keep that word away from every growing boy and girl in the country, and only when they are 17 may we reveal to them the awful truth. I think we ought to cut out sentimentality, to cut out sloppy thought, which is half our trouble to-day, and realise that we are dealing with a war Service, and that as long as we have a war Service we must consider it in relation to the possibility of a future war. The next war will I believe be decided by air power, but not air power as we knew it in the late war. No longer will military objectives be the chief targets of the Air Force. Rather will there be definite onslaughts, cruel, if you like, but deliberate onslaughts, on industrial and residential areas.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear.
    Captain BALFOUR: I am glad to hear the cheers of the Leader of the Opposition, because I agree with him that it is much better to face up to these facts, though after we have faced up to them we may well have a slight difference as to how to follow on from that point. I believe the next war will be very much a political war. By that I mean that the democracy which holds longest to its leaders, the democracy that follows the war policy of its leaders, will be the democracy of the country that wins; and the democracy of the country which first turns and abandons its leaders will be
    2092
    the democracy of the country that is conquered. We have got to face this new problem of the next war, this definite onslaught on residential and industrial areas in order to bring political pressure on political leaders. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest will give place to the survival of those with the greatest patience and with the greatest degree of capacity of self-sacrifice.
    If hon. Members accept my contention as to what the next war may bring forth, I would ask them to approach the war problem in the light of that contention. We must prepare from the staff point of view; we have to prepare our fighting forces with a view to tackling these problems. Very often from small beginnings there springs up some movement which has ever-growing influence. Although one may scoff at the movement at the moment, because it is so small, nevertheless it may come to have an abiding and a deciding influence when the next war comes. I believe there is growing up to-day in the Royal Air Force a new development, a new movement, which is going to be the deciding factor in the next war, and which should certainly be taken into consideration in connection with the present Disarmament Conference at Geneva.
    I am going to put this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman, and ask him if he will tell me whether I am stating a fallacy or a reality. During the last war we always assumed that, day or night, the operations of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Flying Corps must wait for suitable weather—that is, fine weather—but now we have the new development of blind flying, of instrument flying. A pilot can be trained to use new and marvellous instruments which will enable him to navigate his aircraft, under perfect control, and keeping on a perfect course, in fog or in cloud, without ever seeing the ground. I have been consulting some experts on this subject, and they tell me that now a pilot could leave the English coast in an aeroplane and fly on to London in thick fog or in cloud without ever seeing the ground, could get to what he thought Was the centre of London on his mathematically-calculated course, could release his bombs and fly back to the coast without ever having been seen by those on the ground,

    2093
    and that he would get within a quarter of a mile of his objective.
    If that can be done now, what possibility does this new development not hold out as regards the future It holds out a prospect something like this: On the north coast of Europe there will be a foreign air base, and at 10-minute intervals bombing machines will leave that air base and fly to the coast. The leader will send to his followers, by wireless telephone, information as to the weather conditions; and lot me stress the point that the favourable weather conditions then will be just those weather conditions which rendered aerial warfare impossible during the last War. He will wireless "Conditions are good," which will mean fog, rain, cloud—typical English weather. He will go on to the centre of London, followed by his successors at 10-minute intervals, they will drop their bombs, and they will fly back without ever having been seen by any of the anti-aircraft batteries or any of the fighter squadrons. They will be enveloped in the cloud, and will drop their bombs on their objective. I grant that they may miss it, may, indeed, miss it by a quarter of a mile, but they will have plastered their bombs over some residential or industrial area and annihilated civilisation in that particular area. If you get that possibility, I submit that it alters the whole scheme of the relation of the strength of our Air Force to that of foreign countries.
    Hitherto I, in common with many other hon. and right hon. Members who have studied this problem, have never taken seriously the contention that civil aircraft can be converted at once into military aircraft. It may be said that our military aircraft could easily shoot down civil aircraft, and it would be like shooting a rabbit at short range. By the new development the civil aircraft of any foreign country becomes a potential bombing aircraft. All you want is the necessary instruments for the pilots to fly through clouds. If you do that with civil aircraft, you can make them into potential bombing machines. I submit that this new development has made it absolutely necessary to take into consideration at Geneva the relative strength of civil aircraft as well as the service aircraft of the various countries in the world. I want the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, to tell me whether I
    2094
    have drawn too imaginary a story as regards the possibilities of civil aircraft. If I have not, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he admits my argument as to blind flying, and whether civil aircraft should not be taken into consideration when assessing the air armaments of any country? I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, if these facts are taken into consideration, they do not increase the disparity between this country and other countries, and make it more than ever necessary that we should reserve any further measure of disarmament until other countries have set us an example?
    9.0 p.m.
    I come to my second contention, that we are spending too much money the wrong way. Here I regret to say that, in common with an ever-increasing body of opinion inside this House and outside, I feel that the development of civil aviation is being definitely retarded by the monopoly subsidised agreements between Imperial Airways and His Majesty's Government. By virtue of those agreements the whole question of Imperial development is placed in the hands of one company responsible to its shareholders. That is a system which is costly, and has not up to the present achieved success. My indictment is that it. is absolutely wrong in principle. I grant that it gives the right hon. Gentleman and his Department an opportunity for getting out of the difficulties of an argument. If he is attacked as regards the development of air routes the right hon. Gentleman is able to say, "Oh, that is private enterprise, and we cannot interfere." On the other hand, if he is attacked as regards the expenditure he can say, "That is an Imperial development, and we must not grudge the expenditure," The present system eliminates all competition. The right hon. Gentleman may say that his policy has succeeded, but I maintain that it has not. I think everybody agrees as to the need of Imperial development. We all agree as to the coincidence of Imperial air routes being used by the Royal Air Force and commercial users, but I submit that the policy of development of Imperial air routes should be one controlled either by the Government or entirely by private enterprise.
    The present system is a sort of hybrid arrangement. If it were Government en-

    2095
    terprise there would be responsibility to this House, because we should be using the taxpayers' money, and there would be a check on the expenditure under Parliamentary control. If it were a system of private enterprise dependent on the achievement of certain conditions set up by the Government, if those conditions were broken the Government would be able to end that arrangement. The system should be either Government or private enterprise, but not as it is to-day. In the present state of our Imperial air routes I suppose that the Under-Secretary of State for Air made the best case he could with the very poor material at his disposal when he said that our Empire air line mileage was greater than that of any other country; but he did not say where it was flown over, and I shall listen with great interest to his defence of that assertion. The right hon. Gentleman told us to look at the route from Cairo to Egypt, which was 1,120 miles through the air and 975 miles by a foreign railway, and which would be available in time of war for the aircraft of this country. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say if that would not be available in the case of a European war.
    Take the route to Australia. There is a great, marvellous Australian route operated by Imperial Airways, but it has only been flown once by Imperial Airways, and then the aeroplane crashed. The end of it was that an Australian pilot had to come and rescue the mails and fly back from England to Australia, and he did this with a degree of efficiency which Imperial Airways have never been able to achieve. On this route lies India, and what has happened there? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Imperial Airways, the company in which his Department is so interested, has succeeded in achieving the maximum advantage in relation to the Government of India? I make this direct charge that these negotiations of Imperial Airways have been bungled, and bungled badly, as regards the Government of India. Communications are one of those services which had been handed over to the Government of India for their own administration, and, naturally, with the feeling and the desire of India to build up for herself—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): We cannot possibly discuss, on these Estimates, what the Government of India want to do.
    Captain BALFOUR: I was not going to encroach on the subject of the Government of India, but was merely going to develop the point that Imperial Airways, with the Government of India, adopted a policy which was not likely to succeed in achieving the efficiency which we desire to see, and for which we are voting money to-night, but which we are failing dismally to get. Messrs. Imperial Airways, in their negotiations with the Government of India, did not consult or give that consideration to Indian opinion which would have insured for those negotiations a successful conclusion. Had there been some consideration for Indian opinion, such as an Indian Board of Imperial Airways, had there been consideration for the feeling that communications were one of the Indian services, those negotiations would have been brought to a successful conclusion, instead of the All-Red route to Australia being stopped, as it is to-day, through the Government of India declining to allow Imperial Airways to run their service across India.
    Again, I do not think that the South African service is a very creditable service to-day. I see from the memorandum that the service is now operating, but I think that, if anyone takes the times of the services operating to-day, they will find that it would be considerably quicker to go by car, and in one case the mails arrived by boat rather earlier than by air. It, may be said that there has been bad luck with the South African route, but I would charge this to Imperial Airways, that the bad luck has been caused through the opening of the route before the machines suitable for it were ready, and that the reason why this had to be done was the impatience at the ever-increasing delays of the countries which this route traversed, and the dilly-dallying of Imperial Airways before getting the route going.
    I see that in the memorandum there is foreshadowed a further burden on the taxpayers of this country, of, I think, £10,000, owing to the possibility of the negotiations with the Government of Persia breaking down and its being necessary to have a West Arabian route. I think that we ought to know in the

    2097
    House of Commons something more about this expenditure before we pass it, tonight. We ought to know whether the taxpayers are to go on paying for the development of routes for Messrs. Imperial Airways when those routes are not used efficiently. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he of his own knowledge know if Imperial Airways surveyed this great Arabian route with a naval officer of great distinction and eminent service in submarines? That was scarcely likely to give the maximum of efficiency in surveying that route for air development.
    At every step Imperial Airways have had primarily to study the interests of their shareholders who always receive their dividends, sale and secure in the knowledge that the taxpayers will disgorge the necessary funds. At every step Imperial Airways have to study the interests of their shareholders at all costs, even at the cost of Imperial development. We have recently been discussing in this House a Tariff Bill, and fears have been expressed on all sides that inefficiency would be sheltered behind tariffs. [Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cheer. Let me tell them that there is a greater degree of inefficiency behind this monopoly subsidy than ever there will be behind the tariff. Imperial Airways have the finest pilots in the world—grand pilots, men of great experience, men of great caution and men of great ability; but, besides pilots, there is other organisation, and there is a directors policy, and I submit that there is inefficiency both as regards policy and as regards certain parts of their organisation. These great air routes are used almost entirely by Messrs. Imperial Airways, and, therefore, any other commercial user or any other private user is virtually in the grip of this great monopoly subsidy company.
    I do not want to make a charge of inefficiency without being able to prove it. I have here a letter which I will show to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes it, but I do not want to disclose the name. It is from a pilot who recently flew to Iraq, to India and to Persia, and this is what he says about the route:
    "I landed at Rutbah Wells to re-fuel. The landing fee was 6s."—
    more than the Government charge at their Croydon air port.
    2098
    "Petrol cost 6s. a gallon. Petrol could be obtained some half-mile further on from a petrol station used by the desert track motor cars, at 4s. a gallon."
    He says that when he landed at Basra he was charged, for native labour manhandling the Moth in and. out of the hangar 9s., and, for garaging, another 9s. The Government dare not make these charges, or the company would be unable to pay their subsidy out of the taxpayers money to the shareholders. He goes on to say that on his return to Bagdad to collect his machine, he required the machine at five o'clock in the morning, and went there to see the aerodrome officer at five o'clock. He was in bed, and refused any assistance, saying that it was too early, and also what an infernal nuisance these dashed civilians were—but "dashed" was not the word. He says:
    "I did not get the machine out of the hangar till six o'clock. I was here charged the usual exorbitant prices, plus £1 for the kind attendance of the aerodrome officer. When he eventually did attend, he attended in his pyjamas. On arrival at all the aerodromes in Persia which are controlled by the Luft Hansa, one had no sooner landed at the aerodrome than a small car would come out containing two Germans, who would give a stiff Teutonic how, welcome you, offer you their services, and recommend one where to get the cheapest petrol."
    That gives an idea of the treatment received from Imperial Airways on these great Imperial routes, which are supposed to be developed for the purpose of civil aviation, and not for the purpose of enabling a monopoly subsidy concern to ensure that its shareholders shalt receive their dividends. If that has happened once, it will happen again, and I submit that it must discourage the users of our great Imperial air routes, who ought to be encouraged—both private owners and rival commercial operators. This state of affairs is a disgrace. I do not mind scandals, but, if there is a Government scandal, this House of Commons can control it. If there is a private scandal, and it runs counter to the law, the law will control it. What I object to is a continuance of private scandals at the taxpayers' expense. The defence of the right hon. Gentleman will probably be three-fold, and I may perhaps help him in regard to it. It will be, firstly, that Imperial Airways and the Government are bound by agreements until 19391 It will be, secondly, that, if those agreements had

    2099
    not been entered into, there would be no civil aviation to-day; and, thirdly, that really the company is doing very well.
    As regard the first, I would only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Hambling Committee recommended a fifty-fifty basis—that the taxpayers and private enterprise should each bear their equal portion of the charges. But this has been abandoned long since. Imperial Airways had contributed something over £2,000,000 of your money, Sir, and mine, and the shareholders have subscribed something like £500,000. Surely, before the House of Commons votes any more money to a monopoly subsidy company, at least there should be an opportunity, which I am sure they would be glad to take, so that they could have another issue of capital and the private shareholders should be allowed an opportunity of bringing their four-to-one chance up to a two-to-one chance. If it is good enough for you, Sir, and myself and the taxpayers to pay out this money equally, it should be good enough for the private investor to subscribe for the necessary shares.
    On the second point, aviation might be on a healthier basis to-day if Imperial Airways had never been born. We should have been nearer the right hon. Gentleman's dictum that civil aviation must eventually fly by itself. We should have had something more like the American system, whereby the Post Office pays for the fast transport of air mails, whereby speed is the essence of air transport, whereby, there would have been a development of Imperial air routes with fast mail carriers, not worrying much about passenger traffic but giving a maximum of efficiency in business communications. I do not want to be unfair to the company, I am being very mild with them. Undoubtedly the company has done good work. It has good features. but another concern, a private enterprise concern with a Post Office mail subsidy, something more on the American system, with speed as the first consideration instead of dividends at the taxpayers' expense would have been better for civil aviation rather than the formation of this monopoly, subsidy company.
    As regards the last point in the defence, that the company are doing very well,
    2100
    perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us more figures as to mileage. If he quotes statistics so can I. It costs the taxpayers 2½ times the fare charged to an individual passenger to transport him from Cairo to Karachi. The fare is It costs the taxpayers £180 in addition. It costs us to take a passenger to Paris something like £8 in subsidies. He will tell me perhaps, as he has done before at Question Time, that I am using figures unfairly. I could equally tell him that he will probably use those selfsame statistics to the advantage of his case when he stands up to reply. But it is not. figures that count, it is facts, and the facts are that we are paying openly in subsidies, we are paying surreptitiously in loans and equipment, in advantageous terms for aerodromes set up in the desert with Government money, we are paying as regards staff at the Air Ministry and as regards meteorological service for the maintenance of Imperial Airways, and the results have not justified the expenditure. The Government is tied to Imperial Airways until 1939. I want to ask this assurance, that no fresh agreement, no fresh moneys, no fresh promise will be made to Imperial Airways and no fresh negotiations for further expenditure at the taxpayers' expense will be made until we have had an opportunity in the House to investigate the present state of affairs and until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of inquiring into and reporting on the results achieved to-day.
    I am sorry to ask one more question of some importance. There are two Government directors on the hoard of Imperial Airways. One of them flew to South Africa the other day on that great initial air flight on the all red route when the machine arrived two days late. I understand that a report has been received at the Air Ministry from the Government director. Will it be made public to Members of the House of Commons? I do not ask for private information as regards the financial or internal arrangements of the company. What I ask for is a report on the condition of the air route. I ask for a report as to the state of the aircraft and the route. I ask—and I think every Member in the House will support me—that we should have that report laid on the Table. They are Government directors and what is the good of them

    2101
    if we cannot get the benefit of their advice? Are the Government satisfied or are they not, and if they are not satisfied, what are they going to do about it? Are they going on under the present arrangements? If they are satisfied a good many of us are not. A good many in the country are not satisfied with the development that has been achieved under these arrangements.
    Hitherto the House of Commons has always been two Front Benches opposing each other, with the back benches supporting their respective Front Benches. The right hon. Gentleman now on the Front Bench is surrounded, except for a small segment of a circle, entirely by back benches. For the first time in recent Parliamentary history the back benches control the House of Commons and they are just feeling the glory of the position. They are just starting to know their power, and I glory in the fact. This is one of the instances when I shall use every endeavour—and I think a good many other Members will support me—to ensure that this question is ventilated—not that the issue is prejudged. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) seems to think I am biased. All I ask for is a straight and honest inquiry by the House of Commons into the present monopoly subsidy agreement. If he denies that inquiry, the surrounding troops will gradually come nearer and nearer until the right hon. Gentleman is enveloped by those who are determined to see that justice is done to the taxpayers and to Imperial air developments.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: After the fierce onslaught by my hon. and gallant Friend I feel that I must be extremely gentle. May I say how sorry I am that I did not hear the Under-Secretary's speech, but I explained to him that I had to be elsewhere. My regret is all the greater for I have heard on all sides what an excellent speech it was, and the only thing that has been some compensation to me is that I have had the pleasure of listening to very remarkable maiden speeches from the young representatives of the Air Force. Those speeches do credit to them as they do to the force which they represent. If it is not considered presumptuous in an old soldier, who saw much of the work of the Air Arm during the War, to con-
    2102
    gratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the force he represents, I shall be glad to do so. As an old cavalry soldier, I am glad to see that the old cavalry spirit of which we were so proud is not dead. Emulating Pegasus, the horse has found wings, that is all.
    I cannot spend the whole evening throwing bouquets at my right hon. Friend, for he is himself too good a horticulturist for me to emulate him in this connection. I had intended to put to him a certain number of precise questions, but, as the hour is late, I am not going to do so. I should like to make it perfectly clear that any remarks I may have to make are, of course, not in the least personal in their nature, and they do not mean in any way that I have not the most profound admiration for the whole of the Air Force. What I shall have to criticise is a certain spirit and a certain mentality to which I will allude in a moment. I have often thought, as I watched the right hon. Baronet defending his Department in this House, that it was not a very easy task. The Air Arm is a species of infant Hercules. The right hon. Gentleman is the political nurse of a promising, healthy, but somewhat bumptious child.
    9.30 p.m.
    Something has been said by at least one Member in reference to some questions which I put concerning the mechanised force in Palestine. One hon. Gentleman thought that clearly it was almost indelicate on my part to venture to ask questions concerning a certain branch of the Air Service in Palestine. If I had ever thought of not pursuing the subject, that speech would have determined me to go on probing the question to the very bottom. What is the question? The Air Force has set up a certain number of mechanised units in Palestine and Transjordan. It also has a couple of battalions. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said that naturally the Air Force was given a theatre of operations, and when they wanted mechanised units they went and got them, and nobody ought to venture to inquire into the subject. It was said that the War Office refused to give those mechanised units when they were requested. Let us get at the bottom of this. We were told by

    2103
    the right hon. Gentleman that 10 years ago, after mature consideration, Palestine and Transjordan were handed over to the Air Ministry. The implication of the answers he gave in this House was that the Government then decided that any additional forces required would be forthcoming; if the Air Force required battalions, then those battalions would be given; if they wanted mechanised units, those mechanised units would be handed over. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that that is what actually happened. I believe that what happened was that about 10 years ago the Air Ministry suggested it was perfectly capable of keeping order in those countries by means of aviation. It sounded cheap, and the idea appealed to Ministers. If it is a fact that the War Office refused those forces, and that the Air Ministry was entitled to ask for them under the decision given 10 years ago, then the War Office is very much to blame, and all it means is that there is a complete lack of co-ordination between Ministers.
    I should like to know if that is the case. On the other hand, if the War Office answered by saying that the Air Force undertook to keep order in Palestine and Transjordan with aviation, and asked why, therefore, it should give the Air Ministry extra forces, that is perhaps another matter. There is something there which this House is entitled to know, because it is on factors such as these that this House will have finally to decide whether it means to have a Ministry of Defence Or not. The House is perfectly capable of deciding whether there is that efficient co-ordination between the Services which ought to exist. I do think we are arriving at a perfectly ridiculous position owing to this method of handing over whole theatres and countries to the Air Ministry. In Palestine, for instance, according to the answer given me by the right hon. Gentleman, there is a total force of 3,500 men. Out of that number, 240 belong to air units, and yet the whole country is under the Air Ministry. On the face of it, I must confess it sounds absolutely ridiculous.
    Before leaving the subject of mechanised forces, the right hon. Gentleman advanced as his reason and justification
    2104
    for the Air Force creating mechanised units of its own, the fact that these armoured cars communicated by wireless with the aeroplanes. That is something which is childish. I have not heard such a contention put forward. Do not your aeroplanes in flight communicate with the guns? If they do, is that a. sufficient reason for the Air Ministry to start its own batteries? There are rumours that the Air Ministry desires to have handed over the control and duty of defending the North-West Frontier of India. I should like to know the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon this subject. Before any such decision is taken, I hope that those people who look very small and insignificant from the air but who, nevertheless, strangely enough, still have to win battles—I mean the infantry—are consulted.
    If the infantry, who have experience of the North-West Frontier, are consulted, they will tell many a tale of villages reported to have been destroyed but which were not destroyed at all. They will tell of how the hillmen under a threat of an air attack simply shelter in the caves, and, when the air raid is over, issue forth unscathed and unharmed prepared to tackle the advancing infantry. I know of one case when the hilimen did come out prematurely from their caves. When the matter was inquired into by a political officer, the hillmen explained that they abandoned their caves because they were being devoured alive by fleas. They were far more frightened of the fleas than of the right hon. Gentleman's flying machines. There is, perhaps, a lesson to be adduced there. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is very keen upon making reorganisations. I think that he might make a useful alliance with those insects. It might prove a very useful adjunct to his flying machines.
    Some of us object to the lack of co-operation which is displayed by the Air Ministry in dealing with the more senior Arm. The Navy and the Army are working perfectly amicably. There is not a shadow of difficulty between them, and I wish that the same could be said of the Air. All that we ask is, that the Air Ministry and its staff should display that spirit of good will and of co-operation without which we cannot possibly get efficiency in the Services. If the Air

    2105
    Ministry displays these virtues, it will receive the whole-hearted support of the soldiers in this House. If it attempts to economise—and its overhead charges are far too heavy to-day—it will earn our gratitude, but if the Air Ministry does not display that spirit of good will and of comradeship, and if it goes on, to use a gangster phrase, attempting to "muscle" into territory when it has no right to do so, we shall oppose it and use our very best endeavours to get the Air Ministry abolished, save as a minor organisation to look after civil aviation.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have listened to most of this very interesting Debate, and I join with hon. Members in congratulating the Minister upon his very clear exposition of the Estimates, and also in complimenting those hon. Members who have delivered maiden speeches. The Minister gave us a splendid panorama of a trip he undertook recently. I felt in my imagination as if I had been with him in an aeroplane passing over the Straits of Dover, Central Europe, arriving in Egypt, and proceeding far away into India. On the route we sighted some wrecked motor cars and two or three sick Emperors as well. And everything went on very well until we came back home. As we passed over the Isle of Thanet we encountered a storm. That is a fair picture of the Debate this evening. I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) that if one-half of what he said to-night is true—
    Captain BALFOUR: It is all true.
    Mr. DAVIES: I think that the Lord President of the Council ought to take note of his statements. It is another question as to whether he means it all. To one who is only acquainted with the Service from a distance, the statements which have been made this evening, and the facts which have been brought out in Debate, are really very interesting indeed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind spoke as a soldier and said that he did not know very much about this arm of our Forces, because he served in the Army. I am very much further removed from this Service. I am an old coal miner. The airman goes up and the collier goes down. Those at a distance can as a rule see a great deal of the game, notwithstanding.
    2106
    I wish to put two or three points to the Minister in charge. I was very sorry indeed that the Minister, in speaking of the reductions in the Estimates, congratulated himself on those reductions, primarily because they were brought about consequent upon the financial stringency through which we are passing. There was not a single word in his excellent speech which would indicate anything else but that if he had plenty of money he would double the strength of the Air Force. I think that he would spend very much more money upon it than he is doing now if funds were available. On the other hand, I wish to support the policy outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), that the nations of the earth should be very careful in handling this new instrument. We have heard contradictory statements to-day as to the use of civil aviation in this country. One hon. Gentleman who professed to know something about civil aviation said that it was never intended that this section should be used at all in war except for defending our shores. Lo and behold! the following speaker, who seemed to know quite as much about the subject, said that there was no sense at all in having civil aircraft unless it was brought into line for fighting purposes in the event of war. These contradictory statements have befogged the issue somewhat.
    The Under-Secretary made a statement that the Air Ministry could not afford to have these reductions in any subsequent year. He further said that among the nations we were fifth in the size of our Air Force. Comparisons have been given in past years by Ministers of the size of our Air Force in relation to the Air Forces of several other countries in Europe. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not give us some comparative statement, because it is hardly enough to tell us that we are fifth on the list. I noticed another omission. In the past we have had some figure given showing us the improvement in the number of casualties among the men in the Air Force. It is, of course, a very dangerous occupation, although we are told that it is safer to fly than to travel on some of our railways. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what improvement there has been in the matter of safety. He might, for in-

    2107
    stance, compare the number of our aircraft with that of France. He might also say bow aviation has developed in the countries surrounding us in Europe, not only in regard to Government aircraft but also civil aviation.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet used certain phrases which might have led one to think he was a Socialist. At any rate, he was very bitter against private enterprise.
    Captain BALFOUR: Subsidised private enterprise.
    Mr. DAVIES: Most private enterprise is subsidised in some form or other. Therefore, the hon. Member must be opposed to private enterprise and he ought to join our party on that issue. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that there is a genuine feeling that there is something radically wrong when the State is subsidising civil aviation and giving money to companies which are doing very well financially. I have had some figures presented to me which show that one company, subsidised heavily by the Air Ministry, is doing remarkably well and paying a good dividend. The principle on which subsidies have been given in the past has been in order to help infant struggling industries. When they have secured their feet, at it were, the subsidies have been withdrawn. That has been the common practice in regard to subsidies. If 25 per cent. of what the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet said about Imperial Airways is true, the Government ought to inquire into the matter forthwith.
    If civil aviation cannot be carried on in this country without subsidies from the State, would it not be very much better if the whole of civil aviation was carried on under the control of the State? One would never think in regard to the Army of asking a private company to establish a battalion and making a profit thereby. And I could never imagine any Government, however capitalistically minded it might be—and this is about the most capitalistically-minded Government that I have seen—handing over part of the Navy of this country to private enterprise, subsidising it, and allowing that company to make a profit out of the transaction. But that is exactly
    2108
    what we are doing in relation to civil aviation, and I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us more about the question of subsidies.
    One hon. Member said that what we need to do is to spend more money, to establish a very much stronger Air Force, and to build more aircraft in preparation for the next war. What a delightful spectacle! I have some reason to speak on this subject. I represent a Division in Lancashire, and it may interest hon. Members to know that German aircraft came as far as Lancashire in the last war. They destroyed a great deal of property and some lives were lost. I want therefore to combat the argument that we must build up an Air Force so strong that, whether there is fog or rain or whatever the atmosphere may be, we shall be able to prevent any aircraft coming from any other part of the world to our shores. Even if it costs another £17,000,000 or £20,000,000 we are told that we must do that. Every militarist, every anti-League of Nations advocate talks like that. To-morrow in France, Belgium and Germany they will probably say: "There was a Debate in the House of Commons yesterday, and they were talking of flooding the United Kingdom with aircraft to such an extent that the time may come when British aircraft will drop bombs on Paris, Berlin and Brussels." Statesmen and leaders of thought in all the countries of Europe ought to keep away from that line of thought. They ought not to be always thinking of attack or defence. If they do so, the cost of armaments will become so heavy that the peoples will get so sick of armaments that they will cry out to Geneva to settle the problem for good.
    I believe that the time is fast arriving when aviation, when all the craft that flies through the air, must ultimately come under the control of an international authority. After speaking with men of knowledge and repute on this matter I find that those who favour this new instrument of destruction—in the end that is what it will mean—and who favour its development, are themselves terribly afraid lest they may see the day -when it will be actually used in warfare. I hesitate to think what might happen in what is called the next war. Hitherto, we have engaged men for wars by the thousand and have sent them

    2109
    abroad and paid them a shilling or so a day to do the fighting for us. But the last war gave the north-east coast of England a taste of war in the air and, as I have said, enemy aircraft came up as far as Lancashire. Moreover, a great deal of property was destroyed and lives were lost within the City of London itself. If war comes upon Europe and aircraft is fighting aircraft, the civilian population of the countries engaged will suffer on a very terrible scale indeed.
    The argument now used by some hon. Members is that what we all have to do, if a war takes place, is to drop bombs on centres of population in order to induce foreign peoples to bring influence upon their Government and to prevent the war being carried on. But I can see something else. Some hon. Members have said that aircraft can drop bombs within a quarter of a mile of an objective when blind-flying. I am not sure that in case of war bombs will be dropped only on the poorer quarters in England and should imagine that the so-called enemy will aim bombs at the mansions, the palaces, and the houses where our statesmen live, and so bring the issue of the war much nearer to the seat of trouble than by dropping them on poor industrial districts. There would be hardly any sense in dropping bombs in Whitechapel or Bow for instance, I am not sure about Bewdley or those districts, but I will leave that point there.
    This is really a very serious issue indeed. I am completely uninformed as to the technique of the Air Farce; I know very little about it; but it does seem to me that the Government of this country will be faced soon with the problem of the co-ordination of our transport services. Aircraft is used now for the carrying of goods and mails and so forth, and the time will arrive when the Government will have to consider the relationship of railways, road transport, and aircraft transport, and probably will have to combine them all under State control. For my part, I am quite convinced that, in the development of civil aviation in this country, and the fact that these heavy subsidies are granted to companies which pay enormous profits, the work could be done very much better by the State itself. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to be good enough to
    2110
    let us have answers to the few points I have raised. Once again I say as a layman that I have been very much delighted with to-day's Debate.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think that the Debate has been made remarkable by the great number of extremely eloquent and well-informed maiden speeches to which we have had the pleasure of listening. It has been proof of the contention in my earlier speech that this essentially young service attracts youth. I feel that it is a very comforting thought indeed, with regard to the future of Debates on the Estimates, that so many young, skilful and eloquent Members of the House take such a keen and instructed interest in aviation and in all air matters. During the Debate I have been asked a great number of questions and I shall do my best to answer some of them. If I do not answer all, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. I will communicate with them or write to them, and I would also remind them that there is a Report stage of these Estimates next week, when I can again be subject to cross-examination.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), in the course of an extremely interesting speech developed an Argument for internationalising the air forces of the world. I think that in a way he really answered his own speech, because ho placed before the House so clearly the great difficulties associated with the whole of his idea. It is, of course, closely linked up with the general question of disarmament. We in this country can certainly say that we have given an example to the world in the matter of air disarmament. Although at Geneva we are as anxious as, if not more anxious than, anyone, to see these disarmament proposals bear good fruit, however anxious we may be for disarmament and the cause of peace, we cannot act entirely alone. But, if I may, I will reserve any further remarks I have to make on that extremely intricate subject for the Report stage, when I believe my hon. Friend intends to give his views on the subject at further length and more closely connected with disarmament. I will reply then to him and to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).
    10.0 p.m.
    One of the most interesting maiden speeches that we have had was made by

    2111
    my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ashford (Captain Knatchbull). His speech showed that he has devoted a great deal of attention to aeronautical matters and has made himself familiar with all questions relating to the air. In common with other Members 10.0 p.m. he made a very eloquent appeal to me on behalf of the Light Aeroplane Clubs. I am, therefore, very happy to be able to announce that my Noble Friend has decided that the grants to these clubs, which under present arrangements terminate on 31st July of this year, shall continue after that date. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I do not give any more details. The matter is only just more or less in the process of being concluded, but I was very anxious to make that statement to the House now. I hope he will accept that statement, and allow me at a later date to give him further details. But I might broadly say that a revised scheme will be introduced under which payments for new licences will be on a more generous scale than at present. Our object, naturally, is to enable as many clubs as possible to earn larger sums than they are doing now, but as a condition of these more generous terms, it will be necessary to effect a considerable reduction in the permissible annual maximum, which up to the present has been £2,000 for any one club. Otherwise, the scheme could not be financed. As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, this annual maximum has never been earned by any particular club. The average earned is only a fraction of the maximum.
    We hope to arrange for a far wider and more beneficial distribution of the amount available. It is hoped that that result will be attained, and that the whole scheme will benefit by it very substantially. In order to give the club greater security of tenure we contemplate that the new scheme shall be of five years' duration. That is subject always to hon. Members in this House voting for it year by year in the annual Estimates. I need only add that these clubs are performing a very real service in the development of aviation, and I. am pleased to think that I was at the Ministry when the scheme was first initiated. They are doing a tremendous amount to develop
    2112
    that air-mindedness in this country which those who are interested in this science are so anxious to see spreading far and wide. I am pleased to think that in this connection the hon. and gallant Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), whom I welcome as one of the latest recruits to aviation, will not have to carry out the dire threat he made, at which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council winced, that unless he got some satisfaction he would have to demand that his salary, which up to now he has forgone, should be paid and handed over to the light aeroplane club in his constituency. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) put a question with regard to the Schneider Trophy, and asked whether the rules under which it had been carried on ought not to be changed. I am happy to think that that contest is completely over; we have won the trophy and are going to keep it. The contest had certainly outlived its usefulness, and it had become altogether too dangerous. We have for the moment benefited by all the lessons it was possible to get out of that particular contest. Another very interesting maiden speech, doubly interesting because it was made by one who has been a pilot, was that of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside).
    I do not care to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) when he spoke of "this chaplain business." I decline to interfere in any way with the spiritual comfort of the Air Force, but if he remembers that the Air Force is scattered over wide areas, then the number of the chaplains is not too great, and I am convinced that they do their work extremely well and give a great deal of comfort to the troops to whom they minister. In his excellent speech the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) touched upon a point which is a very tender one with me—the question of meteorology, which is absolutely vital to the Air Force. No one realises more than the Air Ministry how extremely important it is that all possible progress should be made in this direction. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that it is somewhat peculiar that we are able to estimate an eclipse 500 years

    2113
    ahead and yet cannot know definitely whether to take an umbrella or not if we go out in the afternoon. We still have nature with which to cope. This question is being studied as fully as possible by some of the greatest scientists in the country and considerable progress has been made in recent years.
    The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) raised the question of noise. I would advise him to fly to Paris at the first opportunity on the latest Handley Page machine, when he will have an opportunity of realising what a very agreeable and almost intimate conversation can be carried on now in these latest machines. I should also be willing to take him up in my own little Puss Moth so that he might see the great strides that have been made towards mitigating what has hitherto been a most unpleasant feature of air travel—the great noise.
    I hope the time will never come when the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) has no grievance against Farnborough because I should feel that there was something missing in his enjoyment of the Debate. This afternoon he did his level best to pretend that he was not pleased with what has been done at Farnborough, but I could see that really he was pleased that the new seaplane tank had been completed and also that the new large wind tunnel will soon be ready for experiments. It will be the largest in the world and will be of extreme utility and assistance for aircraft research.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: There was the point of the external noise of the aircraft not the internal noise. With a machine in the air you get noise from the exhaust and the engine and the propeller and I have had letters from some of my constituents complaining of the noise of the machines flying over houses. I suggest that the research department should go into this and try to keep the noise of the machine down externally as well as internally.
    Sir P. SASSOON: We are going into that matter. I agree that a great deal of noise does arise externally but the matter is being taken up and I think the result will be just as satisfactory in mitigating external noise as in mitigating internal noise. We have mitigated
    2114
    noise internally and hope to do a great deal to minimise noise outside. Now I come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour). I heard a great deal from him about Imperial Airways. A certain amount of criticism has been directed against this company for the reason that it enjoys the monopoly of a subsidy on certain Empire routes. I would remind the House that the decision to grant a monopoly was taken very deliberately and after full consideration; it was taken after the policy of independent competing companies had been tried and had failed. Commercial air transport has not yet reached a stage when it can be carried on without State aid. That being so, and the money available being limited, it was thought better to concentrate rather than to disperse the assistance which the State could afford to offer, and so avoid the waste of public money which must inevitably occur when competing companies are subsidised and seek to outbid each other for a limited amount of custom. As soon as the regular air transport services can carry on without assistance, these subsidies will naturally come to an end, but as I said this afternoon in my speech those results for which we hoped are taking rather longer to arrive than was, perhaps, at first expected. I submit that the facts show that we are doing our best to encourage civil air transport in the best possible way and that we are using State funds to the best advantage. I should like to say, also, that other countries are spending far more than we are on subsidies. The United States which was quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend spend ten times the amount that we spend. During the last 7½ years we have spent something over £2,000,000 in subsidies on air transport. The United States, I believe, lost about double that sum during the latest complete year, so that I do not see in what way we should benefit by copying the example of the United States in this direction.
    Captain BALFOUR: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he would be so good as to answer this question? Are the Government entirely satisfied with the way in which the monopoly subsidy agreements made some years ago are working out in the light of experience? That is one of the questions which I put to him and I may also remind him

    2115
    of the other question which I put to him bearing on this matter. It is this: Can we have a report from the Government Director of Imperial Airways as to whether, in his opinion, these subsidy agreements are working out in accordance with the desires and hopes of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first question perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would not mind allowing me to finish the statement which I was making. With regard to the second question about a report, I think from the Government Director, I may say that the Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation has, himself, gone out on the first journey to the Cape and back. I expect him home shortly—I should think within the next fortnight —and, as soon as he returns, I will certainly call upon him to give a report verbally on the whole of his journey, which is obviously the best way.
    Captain BALFOUR Captain BALFOUR rose— —
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member himself made a very long speech, and he must allow the Under-Secretary to reply.
    Captain BALFOUR: On a point of Order. I only wish to ask the Under-Secretary to answer my question as to whether any report has been received or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am perfectly willing to answer that question. To my knowledge no official report has been received by the Air Ministry. My hon. and gallant Friend, however, really made my speech for me. He asked me a number of questions and then he said that he knew exactly what I was going to say in reply to them. That makes it almost not worth while for me to offer those replies. However, being kindhearted, I will give him a few of those statistics which be feared so much I might give. Imperial Airways are now operating 12,000 miles of routes, a sixfold increase within the space of four years. That seems to be quite satisfactory and it is equal to about a quarter of the United States mileage at one-tenth of the United States subsidy. That is
    2116
    not, a bad testimony to the efficiency of Imperial Airways and the soundness of our methods.
    I have a lot of figures here about traffic receipts which I should be only too delighted to send to my hon. and gallant Friend but I do not think it is worth while giving them now. I do not think that any other company can show a greater average pay-load per machine or a greater average horse-power per machine. I do not for a moment suggest that the organisation of Imperial Airways is absolutely perfect. Of course it is not. Neither Imperial Airways nor the Air Ministry object to legitimate criticism but under the circumstances I think the Exchequer and the taxpayer are getting very good value for their money from that particular company.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman towards the end of his speech said that if I did not give him satisfaction now or at some future date, he would be closing in on me with back benchers and would bring his troops against me in full force. In this connection, and with regard to his remarks about the directors and shareholders of Imperial Airways sitting down and raking in their dividends at the cost of the taxpayer and the State, I should like to tell him that for the first four years of this subsidy arrangement no dividends of any sort or kind were paid to any of the shareholders, and, taking the average over the seven years, they have been paid three per cent. All that I can say is that when the hon. and gallant Member brings his troops against me I hope he will have some more accurate ammunition than that or he will find that his followers will soon be breaking away from him.
    There is only one more point that I need mention and that is the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). There again I think I am extremely fortunate because I cannot help thinking that his speech was answered beforehand by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey, who, I really think, put the matter in the right light. It is surely not a really contentious matter, not a revolution in itself, that operating in Palestine and Transjordan, the Air Force should have their own armoured cars. It is, as I say, a policy

    2117
    which has been in operation for the last 10 years, and it has been extremely successful. It has been very efficient and economical, and there are several reasons why the Air Force should have their own armoured cars in those countries. Cooperation between the aircraft and armoured cars is extremely useful, and it is of the first importance that there should be the possibility of an interchange of personnel between the armoured cars and the Air Force units. Therefore, it is obviously important that the personnel of the armoured cars should also be Air Force personnel. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not take this matter too seriously. It is, after all, a thing which is working very well, and I think he might perhaps leave it at that. I have dealt to the best of my ability with most of the questions which have been raised in the Debate, and I hope the House will now allow us to bring the Debate to a close and give us the Votes.
    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

    AIRSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

      NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
      Resolved,
      "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000, all ranks., be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."

      PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,930,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."

      WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs and Lands, 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, 1933."

      TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £7,350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."

      CIVIL AVIATION.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £473,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1931, the sum of £22,982 4s. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £490,865 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £201,608,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Captain Margesson.]
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    WAYS AND MEANS.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
      Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  JOCKEYS.
  JOCKEYS.
  CARPET INDUSTRY.
  CARPET INDUSTRY.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  JUGOSLAVIA.
  JUGOSLAVIA.
  SMALL-POX (STATISTICS).
  SMALL-POX (STATISTICS).
  DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).
  DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR BEET (RESIDUALS).
  SUGAR BEET (RESIDUALS).
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS.
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS.
  BEE DISEASES (RESEARCH).
  BEE DISEASES (RESEARCH).
  MALTING BARLEY (CUSTOMS DUTY).
  MALTING BARLEY (CUSTOMS DUTY).
  BRADLEY GREEN COMMON (WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE).
  BRADLEY GREEN COMMON (WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE).
  DEATH SENTENCES.
  DEATH SENTENCES.
  MURDERS.
  MURDERS.
  BODIES, RIVER THAMES.
  BODIES, RIVER THAMES.
  JURORS, ASSIZE COURTS.
  JURORS, ASSIZE COURTS.
  SEXUAL OFFENCES.
  SEXUAL OFFENCES.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EXPERTS, FEES).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EXPERTS, FEES).
  FILM CENSORSHIP.
  FILM CENSORSHIP.
  ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT (LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS).
  ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT (LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS).
SCOTLAND.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
  TUBERCULOSIS, GLASGOW.
  TUBERCULOSIS, GLASGOW.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  OLD AGE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CADET UNITS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  CADET UNITS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
  CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
  ROYAL NAVY (PERSONNEL AND ADMIRALTY STAFF).
  ROYAL NAVY (PERSONNEL AND ADMIRALTY STAFF).
  MOTOR COACHES (TAXATION).
  MOTOR COACHES (TAXATION).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Bridge-man, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to gas undertakings, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DONCASTER EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Loan AMULREE Loan AMULREE had given Notice of the Motion, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Doncaster Extension Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg now to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is one promoted by she Corporation of the County Borough of Doncaster. The Borough of Doncaster is adjoined by the administrative County of the West Riding. The main object of the Bill is to extend the boundaries of the Borough so as to include land available for housing and industrial purposes. The extension is required on account of the great growth and development of the Borough, the population of which has overflowed from the Borough into the adjoining district. During the last twenty years the percentage of increase of population of Doncaster has
834
been greater than that of any other county borough in the West Riding. The proposals in this Bill are quite moderate and modest. The existing area of the Borough is 4,831 acres and it is proposed by the Bill to add 3,675 acres. The rateable value is £456,602 and the Bill will add £9,828. The population is 63,308 and if the Bill goes through it will add 3,038 to that population. According to the last census there was an increase in the population of the Borough of about 10,000 on the previous figure.
As I mentioned, the result of the growth of the Borough is that land available for housing and industrial purposes is being rapidly diminished. This matter has given the Corporation of Doncaster a considerable amount of anxiety, because they can see, looking to the past and looking to the future, that the Borough is bound to go on increasing at a similar ratio as in the past, and that if there is no extension of the boundaries the result will be that there will be no available land for housing the working-classes, the development of factories, and so on. The proposals in the Bill are quite simple. First of all the Bill proposes to take in a small part of the urban district of Bentley, and small parts of five other adjoining parishes. The boundary between the Borough and the urban district was formerly the mid-stream of the River Don. The river has been diverted at various places on this stretch and the boundary is now ill-defined. The proposal of the Bill is to provide a well-defined boundary and for this purpose the centre of a flood drain has been selected. This will mean a transfer of about 173 acres with a population of six persons. The land adjoins a rapidly developing part of the Borough, and can only be developed from the direction of the Borough, as it is not accessible by any highway except from the Borough.
The remaining parts of the scheme deals with small parts of five parishes within the rural district of Doncaster. Parts of the parishes of Barnby and Armthorpe are proposed to be included. All those parts belong to the Corporation with the exception of a small area of fifty acres of woodland. This hit of land adjoins a rapidly developing industrial part of Doncaster, and is needed for

835
industrial extension. The next part that I wish to deal with is the parish of Cantley. A small part of that parish is also being taken, purely in respect of the overflow of a residential part. The population of this part of Cantley is about 1,100. Most of the inhabitants of this part of Cantley earn their living in Doncaster, and the inhabitants have appointed a committee to confer with the Corporation with reference to the Bill. The other part of the parish of Cantley consists of a portion of the well-known race-course. The other portion is within the Borough. It is also proposed to use a portion for an aerodrome, and a further part of the area would be available for development purposes. The next parish is the parish of Loversall, which is largely undeveloped and would be available for housing.
The fifth parish is the parish of Warms-worth, which adjoins a completely built-up area of the Borough, and contains sites available and suitable for housing development. The Corporation supply this district with water and gas. The population numbers about a thousand, and there has been a meeting of the residents to consider the propriety of approving or disapproving of the Bill. Through certain misunderstandings as to the representation of the district upon the Council, and also through certain unfounded fears as to the assessments being affected, they came to a conclusion against the Bill, but since that meeting there have been further talks and the misunderstandings have been cleared, and now the matter is in the way of a full settlement in support of the Bill. The Corporation supply gas and water to all those parts, and with the exception of the last-mentioned part of the parish of Warmsworth they receive and treat the sewage from those various parts which are sewered. The Corporation thus exercises a large amount of public duties in respect of those districts. I may also say further that the Earl Fitzwilliam, a large landowner, and other large landowners are in favour of the Bill.
With regard to the people affected by the Bill, I see that it is stated in a memorandum by the County Councils Association that there is marked hostility to the Bill. That is rather a figure of speech, because certainly so far as it relates to Doncaster there is no marked
836
hostility. With regard to Warmsworth the total population affected is only 1,062, and in one of the parts to be taken in there is no population at all. With regard to another, the district of Bentley, the population to be taken in is only six, while with regard to Barnby it is only 131, and so on. As to the more populous parts of Cantley and Warmsworth I have mentioned what has occurred with regard to the latter, and with regard to Cantley there is a committee of residents in negotiation with the Corporation at the present time, with a view of supporting the Bill.
I have dealt with the provisions of the Bill somewhat in detail, because I was anxious to bring before your Lordships the fact that the proposal in the Bill is a modest and moderate one, and I must say that I fail to see why the county councils should take the step of opposing a modest and inoffensive Bill like this on Second Reading. The Law and Parliamentary Committee of the West Biding County Council reported to the County Council in January last that the proposed extension is of quite moderate dimensions, and cannot be regarded as open to the same objections as the ambitious and recent encroachments attempted from time to time by corporations. Therefore an important committee of the County Council did regard the proposed extension as one of quite moderate dimensions.
The procedure with regard to the alteration of boundaries of county boroughs is twofold. Firstly, a county borough may proceed by Bill, and secondly, in certain events, by agreement with the county council, which may be submitted to the Minister of Health for approval. That arises under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929. That section gives instructions to the county council of every county throughout England and Wales to review the circumstances of all the districts within their area after conferences with the representatives of the councils of the several districts with a view to effecting, if necessary, changes and alterations in the boundaries of the district, or the union of one parish with another, or creating a rural parish into an urban district, and various matters of that kind. It instructs the county councils to do that, and to effect

837
the review before April 1, 1932, or such later date as the Minister may in any case allow. In the present case, in regard to the West Riding County Council, I understand the Minister has allowed an extension of time till next October. Then, after the review of the various districts, in consultation with the decal authorities, the county council are required to consult the county borough councils in regard to the proposals they may put forward to the Minister.
I do not wish to go into these matters, because they are not very relevant to the present inquiry, but I am now coming to the important part of the section. It provides, among other things, that if the council of a county borough and a county council agree for an alteration of the boundaries between the county borough and the county in any district therein, they may send that agreement for approval to the Minister of Health If that is done, there is no further matter required by way of legislation. The agreement is carried through, and becomes effective. Under this section the procedure has been found to be most beneficial. A number of consultations have already taken place between county borough councils and county councils, and numerous agreement s have been reached whereby boundaries have been altered. One important agreement that I might mention is the case of Birmingham. In the case of Birmingham there was an agreement between the Warwickshire County Council and the Corporation of the City of Birmingham, which is a county borough. A large addition was made to the Borough, and that agreement was approved by the Minister, and took effect, and there was no occasion therefore to incur the expense of promoting a Bill in Parliament. I mention that to show the very beneficial and useful effect of the procedure under this section in a matter of this kind.
With the object of taking action under this section and coming to an agreement with the County Council, the Corporation of Doncaster wrote to the County Council asking them to appoint representatives who might meet representatives of the Corporation in conference to consider the propriety of proposals to alter the boundary of the
838
County Borough of Doncaster. They asked that an early date might be fixed for such a conference, and the hope was expressed that an agreed extension might be concluded with the County Council, in order to avoid any further proceedings, by Bill or otherwise. They also at the same time sent a plan showing the proposals to which I have referred. That was as far back as the month of May of last year. That invitation was not accepted, in fact, it was refused, but the Corporation, with infinite patience, in June, July, August, September and October endeavoured to get a conference with the County Council on this matter. On every occasion they were either put off or refused absolutely, so that the respectful request of the Corporation was of no avail.
The Corporation were thus driven to the conclusion that the County Council were not disposed in any way to facilitate a conference with a view to an agreement, being reached under Section 46. The Corporation therefore has to fall back on the other alternative—namely, promoting this Bill. The Bill was duly lodged in November. Now at last, about three weeks ago, on February 18, a conference did take place between the representatives of the County Council and of the Corporation. The Corporation were hope-ful that, although late in the day, the conference might be of benefit, having regard more particularly to the report of the Law and Parliamentary Committee of the County Council, which described the proposals of the Corporation as moderate. However, nothing resulted from this conference. The representative of the County Council took exception to the Bill, and suggested it should be withdrawn. The County Council were asked to state what their proposals were with regard to the area surrounding the County Borough, but they declined to give any information. The Corporation are thus entirely in the dark as to what the attitude of the County Council is. They do not know—it certainly has not been made clear to them during any of the negotiations between the officials of the County Council and of the Corporation, or at the conference which took place—what the attitude of the County Council is towards the Second Reading of this Bill. The reason for this silence I do not know.

839
It is a great misfortune that two local authorities, side by side in this way, cannot explain themselves to each other, and it was certainly the intention of the Act of 1929 that local authorities should meet from time to time to consider this important matter of county boundaries. If the County Council should say that the Corporation of Doncaster should have waited and submitted their proposals to the Minister, obviously that course would be quite ineffective because unless there is an agreement come to between the County Council and the County Borough Council the Minister has no rights in the matter whatever. Therefore, if it is suggested that the Borough Council ought to wait until the proposals of the County are before the Minister and then. they will make their representations with regard to the alteration of the boundaries of the County Borough, I say that that is quite idle inasmuch as the Minister has no power to interfere. If, on the other hand, the County Council should say that it is inconvenient that this Bill should be promoted now, seeing that it may affect other areas. I would say that this Bill, instead of being an inconvenience, ought to be of assistance. If the Second Reading is carried, the matter will go before a Committee. The Corporation may or may not be able to satisfy the Committee that the proposed extension is one that ought to be sanctioned. If the Committee should refuse to sanction the proposed extension, then the County Council proposals can be proceeded with without further difficulty. If, on the other hand, the Committee, or Parliament, should say that the County Borough is to be extended, then the County Council know precisely where they are, and what areas they have to deal with.
It may be said that the County Borough Council ought to have waited till next year, and, if the matter was urgent, have brought the Bill then; it may be said that they have come too soon. The changes and alterations which ought to be made by county councils under the Act of 1929 will have been completed by that time, and a settlement having been reached in 1932 which was to come into operation in April, 1933, it would be most undesirable to start a further Bill in Parliament to rip up that settlement and
840
endeavour to create new areas. Reference may be made to what this House did last year in the matter of the Stoke-on-Trent Bill. It will be remembered that was a Bill promoted by a County Borough Council with a view to extending the Borough and taking in certain adjoining areas including the old Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I was present during the debate on that Bill and the impression left upon my mind certainly was that the Bill was rejected on three grounds. First, that the matter had been already disposed of in the previous Session by the Bill having been rejected and that the facts at that time were all fully known, the matter having been investigated by a Committee in another place. Secondly, that the population of the areas proposed to be taken in was strongly, almost unanimously, opposed to the Bill; and, thirdly—a ground more of sentiment than otherwise—that the Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent was a comparatively new one and was proposing to include within its area the old Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme which had existed for many centuries. I submit that is no guide and no assistance in the determination we have to make regarding this Bill.
Only last week, I think, this House agreed to the Second Reading of another County Borough Extension Bill, a Bill promoted by the Borough of Warrington. Warrington adjoins the administrative Counties of Lancaster and Chester. The Lancashire County Council and the Cheshire County Council are members of the County Councils Association. The proposals put forward in the Warrington Bill are identical in many respects with those put forward in the Doncaster Bill. The Lancashire County Council and the Cheshire County Council refused to be parties to taking exception to the Second Reading of the Warrington Bill, because they were satisfied that there was a bona fide difference between the Borough and the County Councils and that that was a matter which should be determined by Parliament. It is the same in this case. The Corporation here has endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the County Council and has failed. The County Council refuses to negotiate. There is thus a bone fide difference between the County Council and the County Borough Council, and that is a

841
matter which should be referred to an independent body such as a Committee upstairs. During the whole of these negotiations the County Council has kept the Corporation at arm's length and it certainly does not lie in the mouth of the County Council to object to the Second Reading of this Bill.
It may be said that this is not a fortunate moment to promote or to incur the expense of promoting a Bill in Parliament. Certainly Corporations throughout the country have taken that as a guiding principle and as a consequence very Jew local authorities are to be found applying for Private Bill legislation this Session. But in respect to this Bill this is a matter of urgency. If, for example, the Bill is rejected the Corporation, if they like to come next year, will be met with the argument that that is an inopportune time and that all these matters were settled in 1932. Accordingly, if the Corporation are of opinion, having regard to all the facts, that the time is now Sipe when the Borough ought to be extended, then I submit that they ought to have an opportunity of placing their case before an independent Committee upstairs.
There is one further point to which I should like to refer. Up to the year 1926 a county borough could be extended by Provisional Order. But, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Local Government, the Minister of Health, the Minister who provided the Provisional Order, was deprived of this power. The Royal Commission recommended that this power should be taken from the Minister, and that recommendation was made at the urgent request of the county councils before that Royal Commission. Accordingly, it was provided that the alteration of a county borough should be clone by a Bill in Parliament. I would suggest, therefore, that it would appear strange if Parliament, having deprived the Government Department of power to deal with these matters on the ground that they should be dealt with by Parliament itself, were now to decline to hear this ease. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, who had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move, That the
842
Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, in rising to make the Motion which stands in my name I ask your Lordships' kind attention and generous indulgence in adopting a course which to many of your Lordships may possibly seem unnecessary and somewhat out of the usual order. But when you have heard the arguments which I shall offer as briefly as possible I hope you may somewhat modify your views. I do not propose to deal with any of the details of either the Doncaster Corporation Bill or the Rotherham Corporation Bill. That is not my aim. I do not propose to dwell upon their merits or demerits, which have nothing whatever to do with the case I have to put. I consider that the merits or demerits of those Bills would be far better argued before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House by counsel and the calling of witnesses in the usual manner than in a debate on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I rise to move the rejection of these two Bills purely and simply upon a matter of very high and very important principle, and I shall try to show in as short a time as possible why these Bills should not be allowed to proceed at the present time.
I am sure that noble Lords on the Front Bench will acquit me entirely of any discourtesy, but may I at the outset say that a few days ago I received the Government Whip to come here and vote on behalf of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree? I am afraid than although I always endeavour to accommodate my movements and even my conscience to Whips which I receive from that Bench, I must on this occasion pursue the course which I have laid down for myself and vote against them if it comes to a Division. I trust, however, in the meanwhile that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have changed their opinion. I do not know why His Majesty's Government should have thought fit to send out a Whip at all on behalf of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. After all it is only a question of one private set of people against another private set of people, and the ratepayers of the West Riding of Yorkshire have just as much right to Government consideration as the people of Doncaster and Rotherham. I am not a Yorkshireman. I am not in that proud

843
position, and I always bow low when I am speaking to Yorkshiremen. But, speaking as an extreme southerner, I feel that I must. stand up for the view taken by the West Riding of Yorkshire.
I do not want to say anything bitter. We never want to make discussions bitter, but I suspect, nay I almost detect departmental interference. I was honestly shocked at this statement. But we have got accustomed so much to departmental interference with the local authorities that the public in general is fast becoming alarmed because of this action en the part of those who are or ought to be our public servants. That is the only motive which I can see for this Whip being issued on behalf of the Government. The Ministry of Health very possibly thinks, for reasons best known to itself, that there is some merit in this Corporation's Bill which, I regret to say, the County Councils Association do not agree.
May I briefly deal with the question of principle. I promise that I shall not make another speech this afternoon. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, intends to do, but if he takes the next Bill separately I shall merely content myself with formally moving its rejection, and I shall say all I have to say on this Bill. As to the question of principle, at the present moment the whole atmosphere of local government and local administration is changing. We have not yet seen the full effects of that famous Statute, the Local Government Act of 1929, nor have we even reached what is commonly known as the appointed day, the 1st April, 1932, by which time the county councils are supposed to have completed the review of their county districts. In the case of West Yorkshire, I believe I am right in saying—I think it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—that owing to the complicated state of affairs in that County, its large population, its big towns and so forth, the Ministry has wisely thought fit to extend that date until the 1st of October.
Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the whole condition of local government is for the time being in suspense. It was not intended that any of these Bills should be promoted during the course of that re-arranging period, so that the county councils, who
844
are engaged in a very long and a very difficult task, might have an opportunity of concluding it. I am glad to see many members of county councils here this afternoon, and those of us who know what county councils have to do in the review of their county districts must realise the enormous difficulties that exist, whether because of a small parish which is going to disappear, or whether because of a large district which wants to swallow up a little more than it is perhaps right for it to have. All these difficulties and readjustments between rural and other areas have given the county councils and officials a considerable amount of anxiety and trouble.
May I ask your Lordships to carry your minds back to the origin of these things? When the Royal Commission on Local Government met in 1923, it did so under the able Chairmanship of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, and we are indebted very much to our present Lord Chairman and to his colleagues for the excellent and clear Report which they gave, and upon which so much of Statute Law is founded to-day. In 1923 it was found that the. position between the county councils and the big county boroughs had become so difficult that it was decided to appoint a Commission, which was done. Their reference was to enquire as to the existing law and procedure relating to the extension of county boroughs and the creation of new county boroughs in England and Wales and the effect of such extensions. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading further from the terms of reference. I will merely say that in 1925 the Commission issued their First Report, which was based on those terms of reference, and as a result an Act of Parliament was passed which is known as the Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) Act. The Commission having been appointed in 1923, they issued their First Report in 1925, and that Act, to which I have referred, the Act of 1926, was a result of their early labours. Then matters went on and they reported again in 1928. If I am wrong the noble Earl will no doubt correct me.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): I think it was in 1929.
THE EARL OF MALMESBUBY: I think in 1928 they reported again, and it was in 1929 that the Local Government Act was passed as a result of their labours.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: In that Second Report paragraph 164 says:
"With a view to securing efficient units of administration, it is desirable that the law and procedure under which a reorganisation of areas may be effected should be modified.…"
They go on—I do not want to trouble your Lordship with reading it all—
"Provision should be made for a general review of the existing county districts and parishes within a specified period after the passing of the necessary legislation.…"
That adumbrated the general review, and that general review of county districts found its place as the nucleus and the essence of Section 46 of the Local Government Act of 1929. That is the exact position. What happened? The Commission proposed to entrust the county councils with the supremely important task of re-organising the county districts. That was the first point. The second anoint was that the Commission contemplated the alteration of borough boundaries as a matter appropriate for inclusion in the county review. That can be done now. The third thing was that the Commission intended that the county boroughs should be specifically consulted by the county councils and should also have the opportunity of submitting their views on the counties' proposals to the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health comes in when the scheme is prepared and goes before the Ministry for final approval.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said, county boroughs have three means of procedure when they want to extend their boundaries. First of all they can proceed by means of a Private Bill, which is the ordinary way to which your Lordships have been accustomed for so long. Secondly, where there is an agreement between a county council and a county borough, they can proceed by way of a Provisional Order, which is given by the Ministry of Health. That saves the expense and trouble of promoting a Bill in Parliament. Finally, there is the means given under Section 46 of the Local Government Act whereby readjustment of boundaries shall be
846
made by agreement. That can form part of a general county scheme and come under the general county review. In any case, if they do not go to Parliament with their appeal, the Ministry is called in to adjudicate. I should like to say this in passing. So far as my own county is concerned we have had the most happy relations with the Ministry of Health. Our county review has been approved with practically no alterations by the Ministry of Health, and I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the outcome, so far as we locally are concerned. But we are only one of many county councils.
May I call your Lordships' attention to a question which was asked in another place on the 19th November? On that day the hon. Member for Dudley asked the Minister of Health what was the present policy of the Government with regard to all borough extensions. The Minister, Sir Hilton Young, replied:
"I cannot prohibit a council from applying to Parliament, but I hope that no council will promote a Bill or a Provisional Order at the present time unless there are very special reasons for doing so."
I do not think there are any very special reasons in this particular case. On the contrary, it seems to me that as West Yorkshire is one of the County Councils which is having most difficulties in readjusting areas and has been given an extension of time, it would have been only fair that none of the many county boroughs in its area should promote Bills for extensions. The Minister of Health said:
"I hope that no council will promote a Bill or a Provisional Order at the present time."
The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility is slightly on the wane just now, but upon such a commonplace subject as local government, involving no particular dispute in the larger area of politics, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for saying that I think a stabilised line of action might be laid down for those who have to administer it.
Why on earth should these two County Boroughs promote these Bills at the present time? They are taking advantage of a harassed and over-worked County Council when the time is really absolutely inopportune. It is not April 1 yet, and October 1 is the date up to which, in the opinion of the Ministry of Health,

847
the West Riding County Council should have to carry out its review. I am told that Doncaster is anxious about the districts lying close to it. I know less about Rotherham. In regard to that I would ask your Lordships to think of this point. Not only is it very unfair to the County Council of West Yorkshire to have this interference with districts lying near these County Boroughs, but the result may in the end seriously affect districts of the County lying further away. If the county review when it is completed seriously alters the map of districts near urban areas the whole of those areas will have to be readjusted if this Bill passes.
And if this Bill passes to-day there is a further point which it is really very important to mention. If this Bill passes having the support of the Government or at all events of the Ministry, what chance will the opponents of the Bill have in opposing it when it goes before the Select Committee? It will go before the Select Committee with the imprimé or cachet of Government or Departmental support. I have said that the present time is entirely inopportune. It would be very much better that these Bills should be postponed and brought up by the Corporations at a future date Postponement will do no harm whatever. There is another thing to be considered. We are living in very hard financial times. There is a great possibility that these Corporations may get their extensions by cheaper means than promoting Private Bills in Parliament at the expense of the ratepayers. I should have thought that these Corporations might well have waited before putting their ratepayers to the expense of paying for a Bill in Parliament.
What, I ask, is the need for haste? I know we shall be told that if these Bills are rejected neither Doncaster nor Rotherham will be able to promote a Bill in Parliament this Session and that they will have to wait till next year. That is true, but what is the harm if they' do have to wait till next year? After all, in the West Riding of Yorkshire there are a large number of boroughs. I think there are nine other boroughs and there are a large number of urban and rural districts. I dare say some of these other boroughs may be thirsting for extensions, but none of them have promoted Bills in
848
Parliament. The only two are Doncaster and Rotherham. The case of Stoke-on-Trent has been mentioned. I had the pleasure of voting against the Bill for the extension of Stoke-on-Trent. On the first occasion it was thrown out by an enormous majority. As far as my recollection goes that had nothing to do with any particular principle. It was rejected for other reasons. On the second occasion, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, moved the rejection of the Bill. I am sorry that he is not in his place to-day, but I think I am right in saying that he expressed the view that. the Stoke-on-Trent Bill was calculated to over-ride the provision made by Parliament in the Act of 1929.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, quoted the case of Warrington. I am very glad that he quoted the Warrington Corporation Bill because in reference to that I can give an answer at once. The County Councils Association did not oppose the Warrington Bill and that is a proof that it is possible for a Corporation to extend the borough boundaries in entire agreement with the county council concerned. Warrington was quite within its right to proceed with its Extension Bill at that time because it met with no opposition as far as I know from the Cheshire County Council. The County Councils Association were not asked to oppose it and we should have been guilty of a gross interference with other people's affairs if we had intervened when we were not asked to do so. If we had been invited to oppose it by the County Council them. selves that would have been all very well, but we cannot interfere in other people's affairs if they do not ask for our help.
I have nearly come to the end of my remarks, but there is one other thing I should like to say. I do not know whether it applies to all county boroughs but there is no doubt a growing feeling —largely encouraged, shall I say, by Ministries—that a county borough is a better thing than a county council. I read a book recently in which I was very much interested, although I disagreed with nearly everything in it. It was written by Mr. W. A. Robson, and was called "The Development of Local Government'. In it he practically said that

849
he would like to see every area an urban area. As far as I could make out county councils were everywhere to be dismembered and their mangled remains joined up right and left to form one of the reduced county councils, while all other areas were to be made urban areas. I do not know whether your Lordships would like to see that conic about. One thing which I observe about county boroughs is that they are very fond of taking in additional areas where they see that conditions are fair and that a promising field of financial gain is open to them. They are not, however, always so keen on taking over poor areas where the provision of lighting and sewerage and other things is much needed. I can think of instances of that kind. There is no eagerness on the part of county boroughs to spread out in the direction of poor areas which would be more likely to be a burden to them than a gain.
Of course there are areas which county councils must recognise must pass into borough areas. There are cases—cases where transport by omnibus and train make it easy to bring the working population from the scene of their daily work to areas outside—where incorporation within county borough boundaries might be well imagined. But in this case two important Boroughs have promoted Bills at the most difficult time and the Ministry must know it was a most difficult, time because they themselves had already given to the County Council of the West Riding an extension until October. I will not take up more time. I am much obliged to your Lordships for your kind indulgence this afternoon and if I have kept away from the details of the Bill I have done so on purpose. I hope your Lordships will refuse to give a Second Reading to the Bill this afternoon.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word (" now ") and at end insert ("this day six months ").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I approach the Motion for rejection standing in my name from rather a different angle from that of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. He speaks with authority on behalf of the County Councils Association and has put the case very fairly and forcibly. I simply intervene in this debate because I happen to be a member of Lord Malmesbury's County
850
Council and also because I think, in the present circumstances, if these Bills simply pass the Second Reading and go through Committee the West Riding County Council will be placed in a very difficult, if not an impossible, position. It is unusual, I think, in either House for a Private Bill to be rejected on Second Reading unless there are overwhelming reasons why it should be rejected, and though I have put down a Motion for rejection, yet, after having listened to my noble friend who moved the rejection, I confess candidly I do not see any matter of principle which should induce your Lordships to reject these Bills. The noble Earl did not mention a single provision of the Bills to which he took exception. I take it, therefore, that his suggestion for the rejection is not on the merits of the Bills themselves, but because, if the Bills were passed he considers—and in present circumstances I consider—that the West Riding of Yorkshire would not have what is called a square deal.
The position shortly is this. Most county councils have finished their revision of local boundaries, have made voluntary arrangements with their county boroughs and are looking forward with a clear conscience to April 1, the appointed day when all these arrangements should have finished. In the case of the West Riding things are very different from what they are in the case of the ordinary county council. The West Riding is highly populous, with eleven county boroughs and many urban and district councils. In fact their task is three or four times more onerous than that of any other county council and in consequence the Minister of Health has already given them six months extension from April 1 to complete their arrangements. I do not quite join with my noble friend in his implied censure of these boroughs for bringing in a Bill. If Parliament allows them to bring in a Bill I do not see why you should blame them for taking advantage of what the law allows; but I think the point we must really consider is how, if these Bills are sound, we can give them a Second Reading without hurting the West Riding County Council.
There are two ways in which we can deal with these Bills. We can reject them altogether and then allow the West Riding County Council to pursue its

851
negotiations without any further trouble from these Bills, but I do not favour that course as there are other ways of meeting a difficult situation. Surely the best course would be to give the two Bills a Second Reading to-day, but before doing so to extract from the representative of the Ministry of Health in your Lordships' House a promise that, should the West Riding County Council find it impossible to carry on negotiations with these Boroughs and redistribute territories at the same time, the Ministry of Health will give the County Council a further six months in which to carry on the work of revising the areas inside the county. That is to say, the West Riding County Council should be promised that if they want it—they may not want it—they may be given till the 1st April next year to revise internal boundaries, and we should then give the Bill a Second Reading. I venture to put that forward as a suggestion meeting the legitimate objections of my noble friend to the impossible situation in which the West Riding will be placed unless something of the sort is done. If that proposal could be favourably received by the noble Lord who speaks for the Ministry of Health I would withdraw all my objections to the Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think the opposition raised to these two Bills is similar in character as Lord Malmesbury has said, and therefore the discussion of this particular Motion will, I imagine, cover the other. My noble friend, in the very clear and able speech in which he defended his proposal, did not lay any stress on the merits or demerits of the Bills. He said he was not going to discuss them and I think he said if I recollect aright, that in due course they would come before a Committee of your Lordships' House and the details would be thrashed out there. That is to say, all he asks your Lordships to do to-day is really to postpone these Bills and wait until what in his opinion would be a more convenient season when their details may be thrashed out. His argument was connected with the interpretation of Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929. That section imposes on the Council of every county the duty of reviewing all its district boundaries and making proposals for such alterations as may seem necessary.
852
The whole thing has been explained to your Lordships. The county boroughs and all other local government authorities within the area have to be consulted and eventually the scheme submitted to the Ministry of Health. It is urged that pending this review, and until this review of the district boundaries is settled, the proposed extension of these two boroughs should not be considered by Parliament. I in common with the noble Lord who has just sat down, Lord Mount Temple, find it a little difficult to agree with my noble friend that when Parliament passed Section 46 of the Act of 1929 they desired to hold up disputed county borough extensions until the counties had entirely completed their review of district boundaries, for both in 1930 and 1931 Bills for the extension of county boroughs were agreed to both in this House and in another place. I think altogether five Bills were brought forward, of which two were rejected it is true. One was for Stoke-on-Trent and the other for Oldham. The Stoke-on-Trent Bill was rejected in this House on the Second Reading, and the Oldham Bill was referred to a Committee and rejected there.
I personally supported the majority vote when the Stoke-on-Trent Bill was rejected. We all have to consider our point of view very carefully, because I think it has always been the practice of the House to leave these matters to the decision of the House as a whole, and when my noble friend referred to the Government Whip I thought that the Government desired to call our attention to the great importance of this matter, so that there should be the greatest number of Lords present, rather than that we should vote in any particular way. That at any rate is how I interpreted that summons. I voted against the Stoke-on-Trent Bill for a totally different reason from that which is urged upon us by Lord Malmesbury. I felt that there was no object in incurring the expense of a Committee, because the wishes of the inhabitants, as has been pointed out by Lord Amulree, with regard to the future fate of the area in question, had already been definitely ascertained and expressed. They wanted to constitute themselves into a new municipal borough and did not wish to join Stoke-on-Trent.
The Royal Commission over which I had the honour to preside laid it down that

853
the desirability of extensions was a matter entirely for Parliament to decide, but that in coming to a decision the most important consideration—not the over-riding consideration—should be in their opinion the expressed wishes of the inhabitants, and it seemed to me on that occasion that the wishes of the inhabitants had been absolutely and definitely obtained, and that therefore it would be a waste of money to refer the matter to a Committee. Here we have a different situation. I do not think there is any suggestion that the wishes of the inhabitants have been ascertained, one way or another, and I think there is good reason for these Bills to be submitted to a Committee of your Lordships' House, where the whole question can be discussed and considered and decided upon and reported to this House. I do not mean in any way to prejudge the merits of the case, or to say whether it is desirable or not that this extension should take place. There may be community of interests between the areas, and the wishes of the inhabitants may or may not be in favour. There may be various considerations which will induce your Lordships to grant these extensions, but these matters are all matters which are for a Committee to decide upon. There for I venture to suggest that it would be on the whole desirable that your Lordships should act in these cases as you did in regard last year to other Bills, and allow them to go forward to a Select Committee.
I have seen the Petitions, and I notice that all the points raised by my noble friend are mentioned in them. Therefore they will not be out of the con federation of the Committee. I think that is a point which might induce your Lordships to consider the desirability of referring the Bills to a Committee. Of coarse whatever the Committee may decide, the matter does not finally rest with them, because you will have an opportunity on the Third Reading of reconsidering the whole matter, and if you think proper you can reject the Bills just as well then as now. But I would like to draw your attention to the most useful suggestion of Lord Mount Temple. He said, if I am quoting him correctly, that in his opinion the objection to allowing these Bills to go forward was that the West Hiding of Yorkshire would, in carrying out the Act of 1929, be placed in a
854
position of considerable difficulty. He said there were two ways of getting out of that difficulty. There was the one proposed by Lord Malmesbury, of rejecting the Bills now or postponing them until next year. The other was to give the County Council more time, if it wanted it, in which to finish the consideration of the redistribution of its boundaries and put its proposals before the Ministry. I venture, with very great respect, to suggest that the second alternative as proposed by Lord Mount Temple will be ample to meet the case, and would not then stand in the way of the Bills going forward in the ordinary way.
It seems to me, on the whole, that it-is more helpful to County Councils to know exactly what their counties are before they settle the boundaries. Therefore, if a borough proposes to extend its area let the proposal go forward and be thrashed out. If the extension is agreed to then the geography of a county will be altered and the district boundaries can be altered to suit. If the Bill is thrown out then the county knows the areas are not to be extended.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Presuming that Lord Mount Temple's proposal is carried and the Committee passes the Bill, and it comes down for a Third Reading, what will happen then? The thing will have been passed and there will be no opportunity then to alter it, and more money will have been wasted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If Lord Banbury moves the rejection there will be plenty of opportunity of throwing the Bills out on Third Reading.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But money will have been wasted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That may happen in many cases. Lord Malmesbury never suggested that these Bills should be wasted, but only postponed, and at some time they must go to a committee. Therefore it does not matter whether they go to a Committee now or later on. We are not considering the merits of the Bills but merely the desirability of introducing them this year or next year and of giving time with regard to the distribution of county areas.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I want to save lawyers' fees.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know that the noble Lord will succeed in that. I am not at all sure if what he wishes would not have the reverse effect. Anyhow I venture, if I may say so, to suggest that Lord Mount Temple's proposal would be usefully followed, and if Lord Gage, who I think is going to reply for the Government, in this connection is able to say that the county shall have ample opportunity without being trammelled by the difficulties of extension to consider its boundaries in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and given more time if possible, then I venture to think your Lordships would be well advised to follow the usual course and to allow these Bills to go forward. It is my duty, as your Lordships have honoured me by inviting me to undertake the duties of Chairman of Committees, to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is very unusual to reject Bills on Second Reading. It is done, and frequently done, but it ought not to be done, in my very humble opinion, except with the very best possible reasons and if there is no other alternative to get out of the difficulty. Much trouble and time are spent in preparing these Bills, and it does seem to me that, except in the very rarest cases possible, the promoters should have the opportunity of going before a Committee of your Lordships' House and having their case decided there. Therefore, your Lordships should allow them to go forward to a Committee whenever you possibly can and only reject their Bills on the rarest occasions.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that we are now living in very unusual times. As I desire to assist the Government to carry out one of the pledges which they gave last October I propose to support my noble friend Lord Malmesbury if he goes to a Division. One of those pledges was that the Government would economise and reduce expenditure. What are we going to do now? We are going to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, and it will then go to a Select Committee. I hold in my hand a paper which I suppose is correct—"Reasons Against the Bill," issued by the County Council, and they say this:
"By taking the course now complained of the two Corporations have incurred the
856
marked hostility of the great majority of the inhabitants of the area included in their Bills and of all the local authorities save one."
Then they go on to say that the promotion of the Rotherham and Doncaster Bills is open to strong objection on the ground of waste of public money at a time when the exercise of national and local economy is called for.
We know perfectly well what will happen if this Bill is read a second time. There will be a large number of different authorities who will object to the Bill. They will appear by counsel before the Select Committee, and their fees will run into a very large sum of money—just exactly the thing which we want to stop now. If we reject the Second Reading there is nothing to prevent the Doncaster Corporation next year coming to an arrangement with the County Council and bringing in an agreed Bill, which will not result in expenditure before the Select Committee upstairs. I cannot see that it can hurt the Doncaster Corporation to wait for another year and endeavour to come to an agreement with the County Council. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury will go to a Division. Like him, I should be very sorry to do anything against the Government; but this is not a Government Bill, it is a Private Bill, though, of course, the Government can support it if they wish. But a defeat on this would not affect the Government. If they do support it they will be doing exactly contrary to what they were returned to do—namely, to economise; and I am not at all sure that they have shown up to the present time that great desire to economise which I should like to see. I think therefore that if we reject the Bill on that ground it will be giving them a good opportunity to show that they intend to carry out their pledges.
I am sorry to differ from my noble friend Lord Mount Temple. I do not quite see what is going to happen if his solution is carried out, except that the lawyers will make a lot of money at the expense of the ratepayers. The Bill will go to a Select Committee and there it will be fought by the eight local authorities who are against it and by the great majority of the inhabitants, and large sums of money will be spent.
LORD AMULREE: There are only two local authorities interested in this matter, not eight.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg pardon. The cumber of local authorities is not given. This statement says "all the local authorities save one." In any case, that does not touch my argument that, if my noble friend's suggestion is carried out, money will be spent, and the Bill, as far as this House is concerned, will have become law; because it is a very rare occurrence—I never remember one—that a Private Bill which has been before a Committee of either House and is passed by that Committee is rejected on Third Reading. It is always said that it would be an insult to the Committee, and unless some very unforeseen circumstances arise you cannot reject it on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I might perhaps add a word on behalf of the Ministry of Health. The Government are not directly concerned, but the ordinary routine of departmental administration will be affected. I should like at the outset to reassure noble Lords in respect to the question of the Government Whip. It is not intended that the Government Whips should be put on. The Whip was simply issued with the idea of calling attention to this important question.
The noble Lords who have supported the rejection of this Bill have argued on two principal grounds: first, that in general these Extension Bills, which may lay heavy burdens on ratepayers, are undesirable at the present time; and, secondly, that the spirit of Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, is being contravened. In regard to the first question the Minister, I think, would entirely agree that expensive Bills should not be promoted at the present time, except on very good and defensible grounds. Lord Malmesbury, I think, quoted an answer which he gave to a Question in Parliament last November, and it was a very clear and definite expression of opinion and one which, one might suppose, was well known to the Corporations of Doncaster and Rotherham, who might also be well aware that it would be a view which would probably be shared by a Committee of your Lord-
858
ships' House. Your Lordships, of course, are entirely free to take any course on this matter, but the Minister's view would be that, if important and responsible corporations, such as Doncaster and Rotherham, like to run the risk of promoting their Bills in the face of those warnings, it is only fair to them that their reasons for doing so should be thoroughly investigated.
The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, dealt with the matter somewhat simply, I think, by saying that there were no special reasons. With all deference to him there may be other views on this subject and the Ministry feel that those special reasons ought to be investigated thoroughly. Of course, if the Bill is rejected by the Committee there is no doubt that their position would be somewhat prejudiced in regard to similar attempts in the immediate future. There is one point I want to make in that connection. I think the noble Earl said that if the Bill went to a Committee it would go there with the imprimatur of the Ministry. That, I think, is really not entirely correct because the Ministry are simply arguing this matter on a question of principle and are not in the least concerned with the merits of the Bill, which would be discussed by the Committee.
In regard to Section 46 it has been argued that the intention was to enable county councils to carry out their reviews peacefully and to consult with county boroughs and, if possible, agree with them in respect of mutual boundaries. It has also been said that it was not intended that Parliament should interfere before their final decisions were arrived at. The Ministry certainly hope, and always have hoped, that in as many cases as possible county councils would come to agreement with county boroughs, and that they would present reviews which would be acceptable to all parties. That has been done in several cases at a great saving of expense and time. If agreement is arrived at there is an obvious saving of money. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Banbury has any reason to suppose that any agreement will be arrived at here, otherwise the policy he suggests would merely be postponing the evil day. The question would be bound to arise sooner or later and there really would not be very much saving.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There might be.
VISCOUNT GAGE: There would not be a saving if there is no reason to suppose that an agreement will be reached. In cases of disagreement between county councils and county borough councils, where it has been laid down both in the Act of 1926 and the Act of 1929 that Parliament must be the sole arbiter, the Ministry cannot accept the argument that there is any limitation in any Act of Parliament as regards the time when Parliamentary intervention should come. Indeed, the experience of the Ministry is that if Parliamentary intervention is unavoidable, as it must be in contested cases, it may well be more convenient for that intervention to come before the completion of the county review rather than afterwards. To give your Lordships one or two examples, the Warwickshire County Council completed their review in 1930. Subsequently, the Borough of Coventry applied for an extension which was granted by Parliament and the Warwickshire county review had to be amended in consequence. At the present moment the reviews of the Lancashire County Council and the Staffordshire County Council are being deliberately held up pending the decisions of Parliament on the Bury Bill and the Wolver-hampton Bill respectively, which are at present being considered.
Another point which arises out of these Bills has been mentioned already. The Bury Bill, the Nottingham Bill, and the Warrington Bill, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, are all Extension Bills which are being promoted before the completion of the county review. Yet in none of those cases has it been alleged that any principle has been violated. I think the noble Earl quoted the case of Warrington as indicating that the argument need not apply. Actually it seems to me that if the Lancashire County Council and the Cheshire County Council did not see fit to raise this question in regard to the Warrington Bill, although they are affected by it, it is rather a point for the other side.
The Ministry are always anxious to meet the views of so important a body as the County Councils Association, but I think the Ministry must point out on the ground of Section 46 that the case
860
has not been put forward with any great consistency having regard to these other Bills. What the Ministry believe is that if your Lordships decide to reject these Bills on Second Reading on the ground of Section 46, you will be to some extent admitting a new principle and one which may lead to considerable administrative difficulty in view of the experiences the Ministry have had and which I have mentioned. The Ministry feel also that if county boroughs are to be required to wait until county reviews are completed it might be interpreted as a disturbance of the settlement which was embodied in the Act of 1926. It might be interpreted as a disturbance of that settlement if county boroughs are not allowed to have their Bills considered by Committees.
The question of the postponement of these county reviews has been raised and I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Mount Temple for giving me notice of that matter. Your Lordships have been reminded that it is possible for the Minister to grant a postponement of the date of the completion of these county reviews and that in fact such a postponement has been applied for and granted in. respect of the West Riding review. As a general principle the Minister desires to be absolutely reasonable in these matters, and should the time taken by the Committee stage of a Private Bill affect the county review and prevent a county council submitting their review by the authorised date the Minister would be perfectly prepared to grant an extension of time. I can give that specific assurance to my noble friend Lord Mount Temple. It is a smaller point, but if it is to be laid down that the completion of the county review must in all cases precede the promotion of Bills, the Minister—I am talking generally—would feel less freedom to grant these extensions of time.
I need not dwell on the possible inconvenience which might arise if the merits of these and similar Bills were discussed on the floor of your Lordships' House, because it is really not a matter which affects the Department. In conclusion, if your Lordships desire to make changes in the normal procedure, I think in the interest of efficient administration it is not unreasonable to ask that these changes should be debated in your Lordships' House in their relation to all Bills

861
and not merely in relation to one or two Bills. In regard to the Bills now before your Lordships the Ministry hope that you will not set up a new precedent, but will follow the normal course which has proved perfectly satisfactory in the majority of cases and has been accepted
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ROTHERHAM EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Rotherham Extension Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I now beg to move that the Rotherham Extension Bill be read a second time.
without question by a number of county councils.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Yarborough, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Greville, L.

Argyll, D.

Astor, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wellington, D.

Burnham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Irwin, L.

Ancaster, E.

Esher, V.

Jessel, L.

Effingham, E. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Marks, L.

Grey, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Snowden, V.

Rhayader, L.

Lucan, E.

Rochester, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Addington, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Midleton, E.

Alvingham, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Onslow, E.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Plymouth, E.

Askwith, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Trent, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Doverdale, L.

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Erskine, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Armstrong, L.

Forester, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Harewood, E.

Berwick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Malmosbury, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Danesfort, L.

Wavertree, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Derainore, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wynford, L.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): His Majesty's assent signified: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE: My Lords, I beg to move that it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Moved, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Lord Warrington of Clyffe).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the adjournment is moved, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he could tell us what the business will be next week, and if he could also tell us the date of the adjournment for Easter?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I understand that at the moment there is no business for next week other than the Motions that appear on the Paper, but there is a possibility that between now and Tuesday something may arise. I am not in a position definitely to say when the House will rise for the Easter recess, but it is very probable that it will be on the Thursday before Good Friday.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at six o'clock.