Sitting of 17 March 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Southern Railway Bill.

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill.

London and North Eastern Railway (London Transport) Bill.

Bills committed.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Caledonian Power Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY.

    FUNERAL OF KING GEORGE V.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether any of the troops on duty at the funeral of His late Majesty King George V were compelled
    200
    to purchase, at their own expense, new uniforms for the occasion or suffered any deductions of pay for that purpose?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no detailed information on the subject, but, if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I will look into it.
    Captain MACNAMARA: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Territorial officers were ordered on this occasion to wear greatcoats and swords, but that no funds are provided out of which Territorial officers can purchase either of these articles?

    TROPICAL KIT.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers ordered abroad have to purchase tropical kit or whether an allowance is made for the purpose?
    Mr. COOPER: Soldiers ordered abroad are provided with two suits of khaki drill as a free issue. A third suit and a helmet are purchased by the soldier out of the monthly allowance which is credited to him for the purpose of maintaining his clothing, and makes provision for these articles.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that helmets and other articles of tropical kit ought to be included in the kit of soldiers ordered to proceed on service overseas?
    Mr. COOPER: What is regarded as a sufficient outfit is given, and they also have a dress allowance with which to complete it.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a soldier sent abroad is definitely mulcted out of his pay for overseas kit, and that he is out of pocket thereby?
    Mr. COOPER: I do not think that that is the case. There is a special allowance for clothing.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of the dress allowance?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (LONDON DIVISIONS).
    Mr. HULBERTasked the Secretary of State for War the strength of the county of London Territorial divisions as at 31st December, 1934, and 31st

    201
    December, 1935; and whether any appreciable increase in recruitment has taken place since the latter date?
    Mr. COOPER: The strengths of Territorial Army units in the London district, and anti-aircraft units raised by London Territorial Army Associations forming part of the Eastern Command, on 31st December, 1934, and 1935, respectively, were: 940 officers and 13,799 other ranks; 977 officers and 13,371 other ranks. Since January of this year there has been a slight improvement in the rate of recruiting as compared with the corresponding period last year.

    CHURCH PARADES.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now had an opportunity of considering the suggestion that he should ascertain the opinion of the bishops on the question of compelling soldiers to attend church services; and what conclusions he has reached?
    Mr. COOPER: I find that this question was considered last November by the Interdenominational Advisory Committee on Army Chaplaincy Services, on which the various churches are represented, including the Church of England, whose representative is appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The committee were of the unanimous opinion that compulsory church parades should be retained.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND DRAINAGE, KELVIN VALLEY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland upon how many occasions during the present winter the arable lands in the valley of the River Kelvin have been inundated by flooding; whether he can give any estimate of the annual loss and damage inflicted by these floods; and whether he is now in a position to state when the provisions of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, will be operated in This area?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Comprehensive data are not available to enable me to answer the first part of the question, but no instances of damage by flooding to land which is
    202
    normally cultivated in the valley of the River Kelvin have been reported to me during the present winter. I regret that I am unable to give any estimate of the nature suggested in the second part. As regards the last part, I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is receiving active consideration at the present time, and that I shall be happy to let him know the earliest date when I can add to my previous answer on this subject, given on the 18th February.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that his predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), was in a position 10 years ago to give comprehensive data on this question, and what is wrong now that we cannot have the figures?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question as to whether I have any information as to the conditions during the present winter. If he has any information in his possession, I shall be very happy to receive it.

    PRISON SERVICE.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officers in the prisons and institutions are employed as tradesmen or instructors without practical knowledge of the appropriate trades; and whether the Department endeavour in all cases to utilise the knowledge of officers who passed their apprenticeship and qualified themselves before entering the Scottish prison service?
    Sir G. COLLINS: All officers employed as tradesmen or instructors have practical knowledge of the trade concerned, and are selected for this knowledge and for their ability to impart instruction. The knowledge of officers who have been apprenticed to a trade is utilised in all cases where this is of advantage to the Service.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether instead of receiving representations from the Scottish prisons in the form of petitions dealt with by the officials responsible for the conditions about which complaint is made, he will personally see a deputation from the staff representative board?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Under the usual Civil Service practice, any petition by a member or members of the staff is forwarded to me through the head of the Department concerned, and I see no reason for departing from that practice. Any petition so forwarded by the Prison Officers Representative Board will receive my careful consideration.
    Mr. MATHERS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on occasion it would be well, in the interests of the Service, to break through this rigid rule and himself to hear direct the views of those concerned?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a disciplined Service, and I think that, unless very exceptional circumstances arise, the course I have indicated in my answer is the right one in the interests of all concerned.

    CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, PERTH.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the new working hours of the staff at the criminal lunatic asylum at Perth were introduced when there was no permanent secretary in charge of the Prison Department; whether he is satisfied that the protest made by the staff against the extended daily working hours on alternate weeks and irregular meal times is adequately met by cancelling the day off duty per week and arranging an eight-hour day; and whether he will consider the welfare of the staff as well as the needs of the inmates?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The present working hours were initiated by the late Secretary of the Prisons Department, but came into operation after his death. Since the present arrangements became operative in January last no representation has been made by the staff, and no change in the arrangements has been made. As stated on the 27th February, in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), if any representations are made by the staff they will be carefully considered.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will invite the Herring Board and the Commissioners for the Special Areas to take counsel together, with a view to devising special machinery for the purchase and
    204
    distribution of herrings in the special areas?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the Herring Industry Board are willing to confer with the Commissioners for the Special Areas in regard to the practicability of the suggestion.

    EDUCATION (COOKERY SYLLABUS).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give instructions to the Education Department that the cooking of porridge, oat cakes and herrings shall be compulsory subjects of the cookery syllabus in all elementary schools?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No syllabus for cookery instruction is approved unless it contains provision for instruction in the cooking of the foodstuffs referred to.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the nutritive value of these various items of diet before he insists on the children of Scotland being instructed in methods of cooking them?
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nutritive value of herrings is higher than that of any other food product?
    Mr. MATHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with this matter, see that, where these articles are cooked in oil stoves, these are supplied with oil from the Scottish shale oilfields?
    Sir G. COLLINS: These matters must be left to the discretion of the education authorities.

    CONDEMNED HOUSES, GREENOCK.
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of condemned houses in Greenock still inhabited for which rent is being claimed?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The number of "condemned" houses in the burgh for which rent is being claimed is 71. There are, however, many unfit houses included in clearance areas which are the subject of compulsory purchase orders either not yet confirmed by the Department, or, if confirmed, not yet operative. The number of such houses is not known.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this area there is a very strong feeling with regard to the demanding of rent for houses which have been condemned as unfit for habitation; and will he put the full letter of the Housing Act, 1925, into operation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Corporation of Greenock are bending all their energies to coping with this problem in their own area.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that there is the strongest co-operation from his Department with the corporation in their efforts?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Any assistance that we can give will be very willingly given.

    ABLE-BODIED RELIEF (COST).
    Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost of able-bodied relief in Scotland for the years 1931 and 1935, respectively?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The amount of relief paid by local authorities in Scotland in the year ended 15th May, 1931, to destitute able-bodied unemployed persons, was £653,107, The amount for the year ended 15th May, 1935, was £2,599,275, of which £380,000 has been met out of the grant paid to local authorities under the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935.

    Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935.

    Summary of Overcrowding Reports received up to 16th March, 1936.

    Total number of Authorities.

    Total number of completed Surveys.

    Percentage of Total Population covered by completed Surveys.

    Numbers of houses surveyed.

    Number of houses overcrowded.

    Percentage of surveyed houses found to be overcrowded.

    Number of housed required.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    (a) Burghs

    …

    195

    181

    84·8

    697,581

    174,641

    25·0

    109,488

    (b) Counties

    …

    33

    16

    37·4

    130,029

    22,343

    17·2

    15,514

    (c) All Scotland

    228

    197

    70·3

    827,610

    196,984

    23·8

    125,002

    Note.—The figures given in the above summary are all subject to adjustment after negotiations which are now proceeding with the local authorities.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a result of recent surveys under the Scottish Housing Act, 1935, or otherwise, he is in
    Mr. THORNE: When are the Government going to make up their minds to take over all the obligations with regard to the able-bodied unemployed?
    Sir G. COLLINS: That is not a matter for me.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reports on the state of overcrowding in Scotland he has now received; what percentage of the total number is still to come; and whether he will publish the facts in his hands?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Reports have been received from 16 county councils and 181 town councils. The percentage of the total number of reports still outstanding is 13.6. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the information furnished in the reports so far received.
    Mr. MAXTON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get all the reports in?
    Sir G. COLLINS: We are receiving them daily and the Department is in constant touch with all local authorities from whom we have not yet received reports. I am unable to give any specific date at the moment.
    Following is the summary:
    a position to form any estimate of the need in Scotland for the provision of houses for young persons desirous of becoming married and for other people

    207
    who require homes, but who cannot be provided for either under the slum clearance clauses in the Act of 1930 or the overcrowding clauses in the Act of 1935; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The reports which I have already received show that the operations of local authorities in dealing with overcrowding will release a considerable number of smaller houses suitable for occupation by the persons referred to. On the information at present available, special action on my part would not appear to be necessary to deal with the matter.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received from any number of local authorities very strong protests that they are unable, with their present powers, to meet the very urgent circumstances that are indicated in the question?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have undoubtedly received complaints from many local authorities but, when they saw me recently in Edinburgh, I thought they had not appreciated sufficiently that, in building houses to cope with overcrowding, they would release smaller houses for the persons referred to in the question.

    UNEMPLOYED (PENSION RIGHTS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that unemployed people are being deprived of their pension rights through the action of approved societies in terminating their membership without giving adequate notice; and whether he will consider making it obligatory upon societies to send such notices by registered post and in such terms as will make plain to members the means by which their membership can be retained during their periods of unemployment?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am not aware that the position is as suggested by the hon. Member, but if he will send to me any cases of hardship, I will have them investigated and communicate the result to him. In most cases all that an unemployed person requires to do in order to maintain his pension rights is to have his health insurance cards franked at the Employment Exchange and to surrender them regularly to his approved society.
    208
    The contribution cards themselves contain instructions regarding their franking and surrender, and these instructions are generally observed. As a further step towards ensuring that the approved societies' notification is adequate, arrangements are being made to supply societies with a standard form of letter for the purpose. It is not considered necessary to recommend that the letters should be sent by registered post.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, with regard to the pension cases sent to him, the trouble arose from the fact that they had not got intimations from their approved societies, and that would be covered by registration?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have heard of such complaints. How numerous they are I do not know. If the hon. Member will draw my attention to specific cases, I will gladly make inquiries.

    JUVENILE COURTS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases dealt with in the respective juvenile courts in Glasgow, and the number of convictions for the year 1935?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the lion. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are tire figures:

    Court.

    Number of Cases Tried.

    Number of Cases in which Persons dealt with found Guilty of an Offence.

    Central Police Division.

    495

    424

    Marine Police Division.

    180

    175

    Eastern Police Division.

    171

    167

    Southern Police Division.

    258

    216

    Northern Police Division.

    244

    233

    Maryhill Police Division.

    318

    265

    Govan Police Division.

    251

    240

    Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire.

    379

    364

    Total

    2,296

    2,084

    HOSPITAL PATIE-NTS, GLASGOW (PENSIONS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the inquiry by the Glasgow Corporation into the question of the right of sick pensioners undergoing treatment in the city hospitals to retain their pension for the additional comforts necessitated by their illness, has now been completed; and whether, as a result, pensioners in future will be assured that their pensions will not be taken from them by the corporation for the period they are in hospital?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The question of the custody of pension books of persons admitted to the Glasgow Poor Law institutions for treatment has been considered by the corporation and a leaflet has been prepared explaining to the pensioner his rights respecting the receipt of pension and the custody of his pension book. I am sending to the hon. Member for his information a copy of the leaflet. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware that in the past pensions have been taken from pensioners by the corporation without the pensioners' consent.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the corporation refused public assistance to persons afterwards because they refused to hand in their books?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am not aware of that.

    NECESSITOUS PARENTS, GLASGOW (MILK ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is a different standard of malnutrition in the welfare clinics in the East End of Glasgow from that in the West End, so that necessitous parents are being refused milk allowance for their children in the former area which would be granted were they resident in the latter area; and what steps he intends to take to make the more generous standard applicable throughout the city?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. I am informed that in the granting of milk to necessitous parents the corporation apply a common standard throughout the whole city of Glasgow and I see no ground for any action on my part.

    PURCHASE OF LAND, DALEY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the decision of the police and law committee of the county council of Ayr, on 3rd February, to pay a higher price for land for a junior instruction centre at Dairy than the district valuer had reported to be justified; and under what statutory authority was an agent of the vendor present as a public representative and taking part in the meeting which came to the decision?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that the agent of the proprietor of one part of the ground (in respect of which the difference in feu was only 19s. 6d.) is a member of the county council and of the police and law committee. He was present at the meeting of the police and law committee which made the recommendation but took no part in the proceedings and refrained from voting. He was not present at the county council meeting at which the matter was decided.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Did the Department acquiesce in the payment of a larger sum for this land than is approved of by the district valuer?
    Sir G. COLLINS: In this case I do not think the Department for which I am responsible is called upon to express any opinion on the subject.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself on the point?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It is not a matter for my Department.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not under the right hon. Gentleman's control?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I will make further inquiries, but the information that I have is as I have stated.

    ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS (CANDIDATES, CHARGES).
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Lord Advocate what is the cost in fees, stamp duties, and other charges, of becoming an advocate in Scotland and also of becoming a solicitor in Scotland; whether he is aware that these expenses make it impossible for large numbers of educated

    211
    Scotsmen to become advocates or solicitors; and whether he will take steps by introducing legislation, or otherwise, to secure that persons desirous of becoming advocates or solicitors shall be able so to do without such expenses?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The sums payable in respect of admission to the Faculty of Advocates amount in all to some £400, exclusive of payments due in respect of the Widows' Fund. These sums are required partly for payment of stamp duties but mainly for the maintenance of the libraries and premises utilised by members of the Faculty. The cost of becoming a solicitor in Scotland is rather less than £100. This sum is required partly for payment of stamp duties and partly for examination and tuition fees. I am not aware that prospective candidates are deterred from becoming advocates or solicitors in Scotland by the amount of those charges, and, having regard to the purpose to which the money is put, I have no reason to think that it would be practicable to effect any substantial modification in them.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Lord Advocate not aware of the fact that many working-class families at very great sacrifice put their children through universities, but find it impossible to meet these charges, and will not something be done to put an end to them?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware of that fact. I would remind the hon. Member that those charges are only a small part of the expense and financial risk inseparable from entering any learned profession.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has the Lord Advocate further considered that, in view of the fact that under a Communist system nobody owns anything, we shall not want any lawyers?
    Mr. GALLACHER: You will be suppressed anyhow.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original answer, is the Lord Advocate aware that there are additional inhibitions to those mentioned in the question, for example, that solicitors who desire to practise as advocates in the Court of Session must walk about for a period
    212
    without taking any jobs at all, and must be financially able to do so?
    Mr. STEPHEN: If the Lord Advocate gets a. list of hundreds of people with university degrees who have been debarred from going to the Bar because of those expenses, will he alter his decision and take steps to free them from this burden?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I would like to see the hon. Member's question.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    AUTOMATIC GAS DETECTORS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received any reply from the Mining Association on the question of automatic gas detectors; and, if so, whether the reply was satisfactory or otherwise?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I have received an interim reply, but it does not satisfy me that sufficient progress is being made with trials of the working of the Firedamp Detector Regulations when the automatic detector is used, and I have taken the matter up again with the Mining Association.

    BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that both colliery officials and certain prominent officials of the Mine Workers' Federation of Great. Britain agree that it is undesirable for boys under 16 years of age to be employed below ground in mines, and that the employment of such boys underground should be discontinued; and whether he will institute an inquiry into this question, both from a social as well as an economic standpoint, with a view to action being taken in the case of such boys?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware that certain individuals hold views of the nature indicated, but I have received no official representations, from either side in the industry on the subject, which is obviously one of great importance to the industry as a whole. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    MINERS' WAGES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary for Mines to what extent there has been an

    213
    increase in the price of coal by the colliery companies during the previous six months; and whether the whole of the increase so charged is passed on to the mine workers?
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether all increases in the price of coal charged at the pit-head, other than seasonal increases, since January are credited to the special fund created for the voluntary increases agreed to by industrial undertakings?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No complete figures for increases in the price of coal are available, but the average proceeds per ton in the December quarter, 1935, were 9½d. higher than in the preceding quarter, and 5½. higher than in the corresponding quarter of 1934. The figures for the first months of this year are not yet ready. The colliery owners are implementing their assurance that the whole of the voluntary increases paid by consumers on coal supplied subsequent to 1st January, 1936, under existing contracts will be passed on to the mine workers. Any increases obtained before or after 1st January other than the voluntary increases referred to will be brought into the ascertainments in accordance with the normal machinery of the district wages agreements.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many retailers are now charging 4s. a ton in addition for their coal, of which only 25 per cent. is passed on for the mine workers?
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that this increase has not gone entirely to the miners, and that up to the end of December the proportion is 85 to 15 and 87 to 13 in the districts?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. Member studies my reply, it will be quite clear.
    Miss WARD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the specific point as to whether the increases are being credited to a special fund? That would be a very important point.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: There is not any special fund that covers all the money as far as I know. The position is quite clearly stated in my answer. Perhaps the hon. Lady will study it.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in homes where there is any member on the means test, whatever advance comes in is deducted?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: That has nothing to do with me or with the question.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the publication of a White Paper in the near future showing the effect of this increase on miners' wages?
    Mr. LYONS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the assurances that have been given that the whole of the increase has been passed on?

    MANAGING OFFICIALS.
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider taking steps to place all managing officials associated with coal mining, such as examiners, shot-firers, underground managers, and general managers, under the Mines Department, who shall take full responsibility for their employment with a view to assisting materially in reducing the accident rate and promoting a greater measure of safety for all persons engaged in the industry?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir.

    CLAY CROSS COMPANY'S PIT (AIRWAYS).
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the Secretary for Mines whether the report submitted by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines after his last visit to the Clay Cross Company's pit known as No. 7, Park House, expressed satisfaction with the condition of the airways; and, if no submissions were made respecting this matter, will he cause an immediate examination of these airways to be made?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: In November, 1934, an inspection of the airways at this pit revealed that parts of them were not in a satisfactory condition. Follow-up inspections have been made at suitable intervals since then to see that the necessary improvements were being effected. The most recent of these inspections was on 5th February last when the main return airway in the Tupton seam was under examination. The inspector reported that this airway was a fairly good travelling road throughout, and that improvements were still in progress. The position now is generally satisfactory.

    PLEASLEY, DERBYSHIRE (OVERTIME).
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that exceptional overtime is being worked in the pits owned by the Stanton Colliery Company at Pleasley, Derbyshire, especially in the district known as 51, and that in this district there is a large number of unemployed miners who cannot obtain work; and whether he will arrange that, in fairness to these unemployed men, overtime should only be worked in cases of extreme necessity?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: During the five weeks ended the 7th March overtime in these pits, which has been worked mainly in the district to which the hon. Member refers, amounted to the equivalent of 262 shifts, or 4.37 per cent. of the total time worked. I understand that this district was started in September last with conveyors, to which the men were not accustomed, and that conditions have been unusually disturbed on account of the working of another seam passing under the main road; further that there have been exceptionally bad roof conditions and a number of mechanical breakdowns. The management have promised to do everything possible to reduce the overtime, and I will continue to watch the situation.
    Mr. HO LLAND: Is the Minister aware that in this district of Derbyshire men are frequently working eight, nine and 10 shifts a week, and yet there are men unemployed who are quite capable of doing the work; and will he make definite representations to these coal-owners to adjust the position?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have said, in regard to the specific cases brought to my notice, that it will be done, and that the management have promised to do everything possible to reduce overtime. I cannot answer a general question of that kind, but if the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind and will let me know, I will look into them.

    OIL PRODUCTION (SURVEY).
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will recommend a survey of the coal producing areas being undertaken with a view to the establishment of oil-producing plants in the most suitable areas?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The following surveys are already in progress A physical and chemical survey of the principal coalfields by the Fuel Research Board, a special survey in Scotland by the Scottish National Development Council, and a similar survey in South Wales by the South Wales Joint Industrial Development Council. In view of the number of local considerations which arise and the different processes for producing oil from coal which may have to be taken into account, I am of opinion that it is preferable to continue to work on these lines.
    Miss WARD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend arrange for the survey to be made in Northumberland and Durham very soon?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not know how far that particular coalfield is covered by the first survey to which I referred.
    Mr. MAXTON: To whom is the Scottish National Development Council responsible?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I suppose to the people who are developing Scotland nationally.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can he say who they are?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Not without notice.
    Mr. R. TAYLOR: Will this survey only take place in the Special Areas, or will it be extended beyond the Special Areas?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I think that the first of these schemes in progress is a physical and chemical survey of the principal coalfields.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Scottish National Development Council are spending public money and are not responsible to anybody but themselves?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir. I do not know that they are responsible to me, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question he will receive a proper answer.

    RESEARCH SERVICES (EMPIRE GOVERNMENTS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which Depart-

    217
    ments or committees are performing the functions which were carried out by the Empire Marketing Board previous to 31st December, 1933; and what is the annual cost of same?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Many of the research services previously financed from the Empire Marketing Fund are being carried on by individual Governments in the Empire. A few agricultural research activities are being financed on a co-operative basis by the several Governments of the Empire through the Executive Council of the Imperial Agricultural Bureaux. Certain of the economic and statistical services which used to be provided from the Empire Marketing Fund are now being carried on by the Imperial Economic Committee on the same financial principle. The board's film library was taken over by the General Post Office. The United Kingdom contribution in respect of services co-operatively financed appears on the Vote for Dominion Services. It amounts to £15,675 for the current financial year and £15,423 for the coming financial year.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that includes hospitality and entertaining expenses?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I do not think that it does. If the hon. Member will put down a specific question I will answer it.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are all defrayed by the British Government?
    Mr. MacDONALD: A good deal of the expense is defrayed by the Dominion and Empire Governments oversea as well as by the Government of this country.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it was a good thing, in fact, to abolish the Empire Marketing Board?
    Mr. MacDONALD: In the circumstances, and taking into account that, at any rate, some of the Dominion Governments did not want to carry it on, the only thing that could be done was to bring it to an end.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE REGISTRATION BILL).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether
    218
    he will recommend His Majesty to disallow the Southern Rhodesia Native Registration Bill, 1936, on the ground, inter alia, that it unduly restricts the freedom of movement of the native population and, in consequence, the possibility of improving their economic position?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I understand that this Bill has not yet been introduced into the Southern Rhodesia Parliament. It was, however, referred in draft form last year by the Government of Southern Rhodesia to my predecessor, who replied that, since the Bill was to a great extent a consolidation of existing enactments and since the main new principle which it is desired to introduce, namely the establishment of hostels for natives, appeared to be likely to be of advantage both to natives and to Europeans, he had no special observations to offer on the Bill as a whole.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the fact that in addition, this Bill restricts the powers of natives almost to move about or to seek work, unless they have a special permit?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The whole of that part of the Bill, except for some alteration in detail is a mere re-enactment of legislation which has been in effect for some years.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that it proposes new things for instance, to adopt compulsory vaccination and also provides that natives must have their finger prints taken?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I said that there is nothing new, except a few matters of detail, but I shall have to look into these matters before giving an answer.
    Mr. PALING: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the right hon. Gentleman himself are in favour of these things being done?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    GERMAN-BUILT VESSELS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any record of the number of orders that have been placed for ships, tankers, or trawlers built in Germany and/or supplied to

    219
    British firms during the last three years; and can he give particulars of tonnage and the approximate cost of same?
    Mr. MOREING: Before the President of the Board of Trade answers the question, may we have some explanation of what the question actually means, as it is entirely unintelligible.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a reflection upon the Chair to say that a question which is unintelligible has been accepted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: An unintelligible question is a reflection on everybody.

    Steam and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over shown in the returns of the Registrar General of Shipping as having been built in Germany during the years 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936 (to date) and subsequently registered in the United Kingdom.

    When registered.

    Vessel.

    Year of Build.

    Gross Tonnage.

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    Nil.

    1934:

    September

    …

    …

    "Nimet Allah" (motor pleasure yacht).

    1933

    1,704

    1935:

    September

    …

    …

    "Alexia" (motor vessel)

    …

    …

    1935

    8,016

    July

    …

    …

    …

    "Else Rykens" (fishing vessel)

    …

    1935

    266

    "

    …

    …

    …

    "Paul Rykens" (fishing vessel)

    …

    1935

    266

    August

    …

    …

    …

    "Neil Mackay" (fishing vessel)

    …

    1935

    266

    "

    …

    …

    …

    "Peter Hendriks" (fishing vessel)

    1935

    266

    "

    …

    …

    …

    "Eketian" (motor vessel)

    …

    1935

    1,005

    September

    …

    …

    Steamship "Andino"

    …

    …

    1935

    4,569

    1936:

    February

    …

    …

    …

    Steamship "Ethiopian"

    …

    …

    1936

    5,424

    "

    …

    …

    …

    Steamship "Nigerian"

    …

    …

    1936

    5,423

    March

    …

    …

    …

    Steamship "Guinean"

    …

    …

    1936

    5,205

    SHIPS (SALES TO FOREIGNERS).
    Sir ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of mercantile ships and their total tonnage which were sold to foreign countries for use during the past four years; how many were sold to be broken up as scrapping; and how many of those for use and scrapping, respectively, were over 10,000 tons?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of mercantile ships of 100 tons gross and upwards registered at ports in the United Kingdom, the registers of which were reported to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been closed on account of sale to foreigners during the four years ended 31st December, 1935, was 709 of 2,732,000 tons gross. According to information obtained by the
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have no record of the number of orders for vessels placed in Germany by British firms during the last three years, but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing the steam and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over given in the returns of the Registrar-General of Shipping as having been built in Germany since the beginning of 1933 and subsequently registered in the United Kingdom. The returns of the Registrar-General contain no information regarding the cost of these vessels.
    Following is the table:
    Registrar-General, 185 of these vessels, with a total gross tonnage of 1,072,000 tons, were sold for breaking up. Included in this total are 12 vessels of over 10,000 tons gross. The remaining 524 vessels of 1,660,000 tons gross, including nine vessels of over 10,000 tons gross, were sold presumably for trading.
    Sir R. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these ships are not broken up in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A certain number are broken up here, but the reason why they have been sold abroad is because of the higher prices obtainable.

    AUSTRALIAN—NORTH AMERICAN SHIPPING.
    Mr. DE LA BEREasked the President of the Board of Trade the entries

    221
    into Australian and New Zealand ports of ships trading between the North American ports and Australia and New Zealand which fly the British and American flags, respectively, for the latest year for which the figures are available and, for comparison, 10 years ago?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to supply the precise information for which my hon. Friend asks, but I will, with his permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL RE-

    Statement showing the number and net tonnage of vessels (including their repeated voyages) recorded as entered at ports in Australia and New Zealand from ports in North America during the latest year for which the particulars are available, together with corresponding particulars for ten years earlier.

    —

    Australia.

    New Zealand.

    Years ended 30th June.

    Years ended 31st December

    1924.

    1934.

    1924.

    1934.

    With cargoes:

    Number

    …

    …

    …

    …

    Not available.

    218

    136

    129

    Net tonnage

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,019,308

    530,619

    687,339

    In ballast:

    Number

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    2

    Net tonnage

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    12,458

    With cargoes and in ballast:

    Number

    …

    …

    …

    …

    291

    218

    136

    131

    Net tonnage

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,061,549

    1,019,308

    530,619

    699,797

    Note.—Particulars of the nationality of these vessels are not available.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    OUTER MONGOLIA.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade under what country of consignment exports of British goods to Outer Mongolia are included?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: China.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs convey a copy of this answer to the Soviet Government, as apparently they regard Outer Mongolia as one of their colonies?

    SOYA-BEANS (DUTY).
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade, respecting Cmd, 5115, why the duty on soya-bean cake and other feeding stuffs is to be increased, in view of the Government's declared intention to
    Port a statement showing the available information.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it indicates a displacement of British shipping by subsidising American ships?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member had better put that question upon the Paper if he wants an answer.
    Following is the information:
    aid agriculture; and whether he has noted the admission of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that duties have an adverse effect on costs and the power to compete with foreign products?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A Motion for the confirmation of the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order is on the Order Paper and will provide an opportunity for discussing the matter.
    Mr. LEACH: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that the incautious and casual admission of this small committee completely blows the whole gaff on the Tariff policy?

    TYPEWRITERS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers of new and rebuilt typewriters and parts, respectively, included in the 88 tons shown as imported into this country for

    223
    the month of January, 1936; and what is the approximate employment that would have been provided in this country by the manufacture here of the new foreign machines then imported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statistics relating to the imports of typewriters into this country are not subdivided so as to distinguish between new and rebuilt typewriters. I fear, therefore, that I cannot answer the second part of the question.
    Mr. LYONS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reverting to the former practice of indicating the number of machines imported, so that the industry will realise the position and how far the trade of this country is being adversely affected?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will look into the matter again.

    DENMARK.
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade between this country and Denmark for the year ended at the latest convenient date; and whether he can now state the position of any negotiations with regard to a new trade treaty?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the year 1935 the declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and consigned from Denmark exceeded the value of the. exports from the United Kingdom to that country by £17,496,000. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) on 11th March.
    Mr. LYONS: In view of the great adverse balance of trade, will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no further restriction of import licences which has been hampering so many British industries for so long in the past, and that in any further negotiations will he see that the proper amount of import licence is made a condition of the agreement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of licensing is a matter which is now the subject of conversations between the various Governments and ourselves, and with regard to the adverse balance of
    224
    trade it was as high as £43,000,000 in 1930, but has been going down gradually until last year it was the lowest adverse balance of trade during the last seven years.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the policy of the Government to strike an even balance between imports and exports?

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature and the result of any negotiations between Bulgaria and ourselves for the improvement of our mutual trade relations on a reciprocal basis during the last two years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such negotiations have taken place.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFE: When the time is opportune, will the right hon. Gentleman start negotiations in order to see that the figures of trade between the two countries are improved?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as we see an opportunity for profitable negotiations we shall embark upon them.

    PERU.
    Mr. ECKERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that in negotiating a trade agreement with Peru the duties on United Kingdom cotton goods shall not be increased?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend may rest assured that, in negotiating a trade agreement with Peru, His Majesty's Government are giving the fullest attention to the Peruvian customs duties on cotton manufactures.
    Mr. ECKERSLEY: If these duties are increased, can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will bring economic pressure to bear in order that they are reduced to the present level?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are trying to get an agreement which will be satisfactory to both sides.

    PALESTINE.
    Mr. MORGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any consideration has recently been given to the increase in reciprocal trade between this country and Palestine which would result if the existing duties imposed on

    225
    Palestine goods imported into this country were removed; and, if not, whether he will arrange for an early examination of this matter with a view to making an announcement of future policy during the forthcoming trade fair in Tel Aviv, when special attention will be focussed on the question of increasing trade with Palestine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 10th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) whether, in view of the fact that arrangements have now been made for the official representation at the forthcoming Levant Fair at Tel Aviv of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Holland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Switzerland, and Turkey, he will consider taking additional steps to improve the scope of official representation by Great Britain and to add to the restricted arrangements for British participation made up to date;
    (2) in view of the large number of foreign countries officially participating in the Levant Fair, to be held at Tel Aviv in Palestine during May, and of the desirability of increasing the trade between this country and the mandated territory of Palestine, what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that British participation in this Fair will be as effective as possible?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have been asked to reply. It is not proposed to take any further steps than those mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) on 17th February last.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Has the Department considered the advisability of sending a trade delegation representing this country to the Levant Fair?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I could not say.

    MUNITIONS (EXPORTS TO GERMANY).
    Mr. ELLIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been granted in each of the years 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936, to the end of February, for the export of munitions to Germany, stating the total
    226
    quanties and varieties involved in each year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: None, Sir.

    RUSSIA (TINPLATE).
    Mr. SORENSENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an order by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for 700 tons of tinplate from South Wales has been refused owing to the restrictive policy of an Anglo-American cartel; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter to obtain this order for this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that negotiations in regard to an order from Russia for tinplate from South Wales are now in progress.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this order was prevented from reaching its destination owing to the operations of this international cartel, which consists of Germany, Great Britain, America and France; and will he take steps to break down this cartel which is preventing our workers receiving employment?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that that is a correct description of the situation.

    ARGENTINA (RAILWAYS).
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to prevent further losses by British subjects investing in Argentine undertakings, he will, whether the restrictions upon foreign lending be eventually lifted or not, discourage the flotation here of additional capital for the Argentine railways until the Argentine public has ceased its hostility to non-Argentine capital?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 17th December last, to which I have nothing to add.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the annual inroads in the national

    227
    capital made by Death Duties, often involving the breaking up of estates and businesses, and of the repeated refusal of the Treasury to allow taxpayers to provide for these payments during their lifetime by insurance, he will create a special Death Duty stock bearing a low rate of interest which could be purchased by taxpayers to meet the Death Duties on their estate, any such Death Duty stock not to be included in the testator's estate for assessment for Death Duty, save any balance of such stock not required for this purpose which would be aggregated with the rest of the estate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Treasury place any impediment in the way of taxpayers providing for Estate Duty liabilities by life insurance. The particular proposal which he makes is open to objections in principle and would involve cost to the Exchequer which I could not contemplate.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past year four large estates were valued for death duties at approximately £14,000,000, of which the Treasury took £7,000,000, and that this involves a loss of revenue of £170,000 a year which will have to be made good by taxation? Is it not desirable that some such proposal as that indicated in the question should be adopted by the Treasury in order to save these heavy revenue losses?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Is not the Treasury getting after death what they should have got during life?

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing some form of Excess Profits Duty on all firms benefiting from the expansion of the defence forces of this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12th March to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander).
    Mr. PERKINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a strong feeling in the country on this
    228
    matter as to what specific steps the Government have taken to prevent any form of profiteering?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had better refer the hon. Member to the question I have already mentioned.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Before considering any restoration of the Excess Profits Duty will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the gross extravagance which resulted from the Duty in the past?

    BEER DUTY.
    Mr. McGHEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequor whether, having received deputations in past years from persons interested in profit from the sale of intoxicants, he will state why he persists in his refusal to hear representations from any of the national movements which have acquired special experience of the social wastage which attended his reduction of Beer Duty in 1933; and in what way he proposes to obtain recent evidence about the causal relationships between his last remission of taxation and the increase of drunkenness which followed it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a practice of very long standing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should receive deputations from trades which are directly affected by taxation, but that practice does not extend to bodies not so affected, and in view of the demands upon my time I am afraid that I cannot extend it; with regard to the second part of the question, it must not be supposed that I fail to pay due attention to all the effects of alterations in taxation, and I am Always prepared to receive written representations from any quarter.

  FIGHTING SERVICES (BEEF SUPPLY).
  Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to increasing beef production in the United Kingdom, he will consider the desirability of issuing home-grown beef to the armed forces of the Crown?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The desirability of issuing home-grown beef to the armed forces of the Crown has been considered by successive Governments. I regret that

  229
  financial and administrative difficulties make it impossible to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  SPECIAL AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).
  Mr. STOREYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to act upon the recommendations of the Commissioner for the Special Areas as to the provision of finance for new and developing industries in the Special Areas?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).
  Mr. STOREY: Does not the answer mean that the Government have been considering this matter since last July? Is it not time that they took a decision?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend may safely assume that the length of time that has been consumed in consideration is some measure of the difficulty of the matter.
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether any further steps are to be taken to provide employment in the distressed areas, in view of the fact that the policy of the Commissioner for the Special Areas has proved a failure?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The measures that are being taken by the Government to assist the Special Areas as discussed in the House on 2nd March, prove conclusively that the policy of the Commissioner for the Special Areas has not proved a failure. On the contrary, it is being pressed forward with increasing success.
  Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Government do not propose to take any further steps? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Commissioner was appointed the index figure of unemployment was 24 and that the figure for last month was 34? Is that a success?
  Mr. BROWN: That is another question.
  Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Government are not going to do anything more than they are doing at the present time, which is not enough?
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Bacon Development Board is still refusing to allow a bacon factory to be erected in Sunderland, with pig farms, in one of the most distressed districts in the county of Durham; and whether, in view of the urgent need for new industries in that district, he will inquire into the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): Applications for producers' licences under the Bacon Development Scheme in respect of 1936 have already been dealt with, and the application for a licence in this case has been refused. Applications in respect of 1937 will fall to be considered shortly. The scheme provides that any person desirous of producing bacon who is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Bacon Development Board may refer the matter to arbitration. The applicant in this case has not so far exercised his right to go to arbitration. My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts of this case and does not consider that any further inquiry on his part is needed. Neither the applicant nor anybody else is debarred from starting a pig farm in any district.
  Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a need for new industries in this distressed area and that here is a new industry which the Bacon Development Board is preventing from being started? Why cannot it be started?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In this particular case, the aggrieved party can go to arbitration, but he has not yet done so.
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Why should not anybody start a bacon factory wherever he likes?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  Mr. KEELINGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a notice accompanying the vouchers for railway tickets issued to Members requests them to ask for cheap day-tickets whenever possible, in order to save expense to the taxpayer, and that such tickets are endorsed with the condition that passengers using them are

  231
  carried at their own risk in the case of injury; and whether, in the interests of the dependants of any Member who may be killed while travelling to or from his constituency, he will arrange either for the request to be withdrawn or for Members to be freed from the condition?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend refers, but I fear that it would not be possible to ask the railway companies to treat Members of Parliament differently from other users of cheap tickets. I should point out that the use of such tickets by hon. Members is not obligatory, but at the same time I do not think it unreasonable that they should be asked to avail themselves of travelling facilities at reduced rates when the charge falls on public funds.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has now come when hon. Members of this House ought to be issued free passes over all railways?

  FISHING INDUSTRY (CASUALTIES).
  Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lives lost in, or overboard from, fishing vessels, in proportion to the number employed; together with the absolute number of lives so lost for the periods 1910 to 1914, 1922 to 1926, and 1930 to 1934?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the quinquennial periods ended 30th June, 1914, 31st December, 1926, and 31st December, 1934, the number of deaths due to casualties to vessels and other accidents among the crews of fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, was 1,198, 534 and 462. These casualties represent, on an average, 2.4, 1.6, and 1.6 per thousand of the estimated number of those employed each year during the periods in question.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any comparison of these figures with the lives lost in the Mercantile Marine and drawn any conclusions from that comparison?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will put down a question on that subject, and if I can get the statistics, I shall be glad to give him the information.

  BRITISH AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
  Mr. WOODSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the permission of the Board of Trade was obtained by the British Agricultural Co-Operative Society, of Craven House, Kingsway, London, for the use of the title co-operative, in accordance with Section 17 (2) (c) of the Companies Act, 1929?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. Sir; the concern in question is not a company registered under the Companies Act, 1929.

  NAVAL BASE, MALTA.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government are considering, or have considered, the transfer of the naval base at Malta to Cyprus; and whether the cost of such a change has been estimated?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No such transfer is under consideration.
  Mr. SANDYS: Has the Noble Lord not recognised that, in view of the development of the air arm, the vulnerability of Malta has been greatly increased?

  RUSSIA (CO-OPERATIVE STORES).
  Mr. MARCUS SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the recent Soviet decree under which the co-operative societies in the large Russian towns have been abolished; and whether any compensation has been, or is to be, paid to shareholders or any other interested persons?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): I presume my hon. Friend refers either to the Decree of 26th September last, abolishing the system by which food was distributed in return for ration cards at special shops attached to factories, etc., or to the subsequent Decree of 29th

  233
  September last, by which the remaining co-operative stores in the towns were transferred from the control of the Central Co-operative Organisation to that of the Commissariat of Internal Trade. In either case, as I understand the position, there could have been no question of paying compensation to shareholders, all the organisations concerned being State institutions in one form or another.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Has the Noble Lord any information as to whether these cooperatives were stopped owing to profiteering, or bribery and corruption?
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that they have now ceased distributing margarine?

  HOUSING.

    GAS AND ELECTRICITY.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he has any statistics to show the number of local authorities owning electricity undertakings who refuse to give their tenants a choice between gas and electricity; and what is the attitude of his Department on the subject in respect of all houses for which any subsidy is granted by the State?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provisions of Section 27 of the Gas Undertakings Act, 1934, which makes it unlawful for a local authority to insert in any instrument in connection with the sale or letting of houses owned by them a provision restricting the right of the owner or occupier to take a supply of gas.

    RURAL WORKERS (BRIGG).
    Mr. QUIBELLasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider further applications from local authorities in the Brigg division who desire to provide houses under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931, as it has been found impossible to provide houses at low rents without the grants provided for in the above-mentioned Act?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the provisions of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, which provides that contributions
    234
    under that Act might only be made to such rural district councils as made application to the committee before 30th November, 1931.
    Mr. QUIBELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this particular area has forwarded a resolution to his Department informing it that there is no solution to the housing problem for the rural districts that the rural council can provide except within the provisions of this Act?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That would be an exaggeration, because the particular district in question has a very big slum clearance programme, and it will take all its time to carry that out.
    Mr. QUIBELL: Not one agricultural labourer has been housed under that Act.

    OVERCROWDING (SURVEYS).
    Miss WARDasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have not yet commenced a survey of overcrowding in their areas?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Local authorities were required to complete the survey of their areas by 1st April, and all the information which my right hon. Friend has suggests that the work will be done by that date. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that there is any authority who has not yet started the work.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health the percentage costs of administration in respect of national health insurance and old age, widows' and orphans' pensions?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In 1934, the latest year of account available, the cost of administering the national health insurance scheme, including the cost of central administration, represented 21.1 per cent. of the contribution income. In the case of contributory pensions the percentage was 5.4.

  ASSISTANT SANITARY INSPECTOR, MALDON.
  Major MILNERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rural district council of Maldon have

  235
  recently appointed an assistant sanitary inspector at a salary of £160 per annum; that, according to the terms of the advertisement inviting applications, the appointment would be made subject to the provisions of the Sanitary Officers (Outside London) Regulations, 1935; that, in addition to possessing one of the certificates set out in the before-mentioned regulations, candidates were required to have had experience in the administration of the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, and the possession of the meat and food inspector's certificate would be considered an advantage; whether he has approved the appointment; how many applications were received; and whether he is satisfied that the salary paid is adequate remuneration for the services of a properly qualified sanitary inspector, especially having regard to the fact that the senior sanitary inspector also acts as surveyor?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has no information as to this appointment. His approval is not required to the appointment of an assistant sanitary inspector.
  Major MILNER: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into it with a view to keeping up the standard of these appointments and ensuring reasonable remuneration being paid?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If our approval is not required, I do not see the point of inquiring.
  Major MILNER: If the hon. Gentle-man's Department desires to see proper remuneration paid to officers taking on these responsible duties, will he not inquire into it?

  TANGANYIKA.

    FLOGGING (REPORT).
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when reading the report of the Governor of Tanganyika upon the flogging of a native by Wulff Maximilian Heinrich, Baron von Bultzingslowen, he will consider the advisability of forwarding it to the Permanent Mandates Commission?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.
    Mr. E. SMITH: W.11 the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter and issue a report for the information of the House in view of the deep anxiety that exists in regard to the position?
    Mr. THOMAS: I did not see any evidence of that anxiety.

    RELIC.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 30 years ago certain German officers cut off the head of an African chief named Mkwawa and sent the skull to Europe, and that the Treaty of Versailles provided for the handing over of the skull to His Majesty's Government, within six months, for restoration to Tanganyika; whether this part of the Treaty of Versailles has been carried out; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take to secure the restoration of the skull to Tanganyika?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In spite of repeated investigations on the part of the German Government, the present whereabouts of this relic has not been traced. I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

  KENYA.

    HIGHLANDS.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the draft Order in Council for the Kenya Highlands provides for the lease and sale of land in Kenya Highlands exclusively to white persons, whether of British or foreign nationality, to the exclusion of native-British subjects and British-Indian subjects; and whether he will seek powers to lay a copy of this Order before Parliament so that this House, in accordance with its right to watch over the application of policy in territories under the control of His Majesty's Government, may be in a position to judge whether the proposals are consistent with British Colonial or Indian tradition.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the replies which I returned on

    237
    4th March to the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. F. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling). With regard to the second part of the question, I see no reason to seek any special powers in relation to this Order.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman approves the policy of removing these natives from the best land and reserving it exclusively for white people?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend must understand that there was a Commission appointed and that it made certain recommendations which the Government accepted.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman approves the policy laid down in the Order in Council and with the Commission's recommendations?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have already indicated that the Government approve the policy and the recommendations. I have no reason to believe that the party opposite disapprove of that policy.
    Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: When the right hon. Gentleman says he will not seek special powers to lay this Order, will he avail himself of any power he now possesses to enable the House to have a Debate?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. I propose that, before a final decision is arrived at, the House will have an opportunity of knowing exactly what the proposals are.

    DEFENCE FORCE.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many white settlers have refused to accept conscript military service since its enactment in Kenya, and how many have accepted?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not in possession of the information, but I have already asked the Governor to furnish it.
    Major MILNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me have it?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any particulars with regard to the alteration which has been made in the military organisation of Kenya; of what does it consist; and from what sources will the man-power be drawn?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask how far it is intended to go if the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are hoping to get the essential Air Votes which are down, and then the purely formal Committee of Ways and Means; also the remainder of the Votes of 27th February, six of which were taken last night. We hope to get the Report stage of those Votes.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that in the near future the House will rise at 11 o'clock?
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)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 110.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Baxter, A. Beverley

Boyce, H. Leslie

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Brass, Sir W.

Albery, I. J.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bernays, R. H.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Assheton, R.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Astor. Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Blair, Sir R.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Blindell, Sir J.

Bull, B. B.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Boulton, W. W.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Burghley, Lord

Hanbury, Sir C.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Burgin, Or. E. L.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Pllklngton, R.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Harbord, A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Porritt, R. W.

Carver, Major W. H.

Harvey, G.

Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

Cary, R. A.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Radford, E. A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Cayzer, sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Hepworth, J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Ramsden, Sir E.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Rankin, R.

Channon, H.

Hills, Malor Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Holdsworth, H.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Holmes, J. s.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Christie, J. A.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hopkinson, A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

Remer, J. R.

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rickards. G W. (Skipton)

Colfox, Major W. P.

Hulbert, N. J.

Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Hunter, T.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Colman, N. C. D.

Jackson, Sir H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Keeling, E. H.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Kimball, L.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Salmon, Sir I.

Critchley, A.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Salt, E. W.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Crossley, A. C.

Latham. Sir P.

Samuel, M R. A. (Putney)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Leckie, J. A.

Sandys, E. D.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Lees-Jones, J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Savery, Servington

Dawson, Sir P.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Scott, Lord William

De Chair, S. S.

Levy, T.

Scely, Sir H. M.

De la Bère, R

Lewis, O.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Liddall, W. S.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Dodd, J. S.

Lindsay, K. M.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Donner, P. W.

Llewellln, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Simmonds, O. E.

Dorman-Smlth, Major R. H.

Lloyd, G. W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Drewe, C.

Loftus, P. C.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smithers, Sir W.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Lyons, A. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Duggan. H. J.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Duncan, J. A. L.

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Dunne, P. R. R.

MacDonatd, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Eckersley, P. T.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Storey, S.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle ol Wight)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Emery, J. F.

McKle, J. H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Sueler, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton on-Tees)

Sutcliffe, H.

Entwistle, C. F.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Tate, Mavis C.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Maitland, A.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Mander, G. le M.

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

Everard, W. L.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Findlay, Sir E.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Foot, D. M.

Markham, S. F.

Touche, G. C.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Maxwell, S. A.

Train, J.

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chlswick)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Turton, R. H.

Gledhill, G.

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

Wakefield, W. W.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Moreing, A. C.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Morgan, R. H.

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Goldie, N. B.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Wells, S. R.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Munro, P. M.

White, H. Graham

Granville, E. L.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Owen, Major G.

Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Grimston, R. V.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Wise, A. R.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Patrick, C. M.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

Peat, C. U.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel

Guy, J. C. M.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Sir A. Lambert

240

241

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hardie, G. D.

Riley, B.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ritson, J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Holland, A.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hollins, A.

Rowson, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hopkin, D.

Salter, Dr. A.

Banfield, J. W.

Jagger, J.

Sanders, W. S.

Barnes, A. J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sexton, T. M.

Barr, J.

John, W.

Short, A.

Batey, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Brooke, W.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cape, T.

Lathan, G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Chater, D.

Leach, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Lee, F.

Stephen, C.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Leonard, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Compton, J.

Leslie, J. R.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Cove, W. G.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Thorne, W.

Daggar, G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Thurtle, E.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

McGhee, H. G.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

MacLaren, A.

Vlant, S. P.

Day, H.

Maclean, N.

Walkden, A. G.

Dobbie, W.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Walker, J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Marklew, E.

Watkins, F. C.

Ede, J. C.

Marshall, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Mathers, G.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty)

Maxton, J.

Welsh, J. C.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Milner. Major J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gardner, B. W.

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

Wilton. C. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Muff, G.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Paling, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Parker, H. J. H.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grenfell, D. R.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Potts, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Qulbeli, J. D.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Resolution agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.
  FIRE INSURANCE BILL,
  "to codify the law relating to fire insurance," presented by Mr. Foot; supported by Mr. Grenfell, Sir Robert Aske, and Mr. Petherick; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee.
"That, in the case of the Coventry Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill thinks fit."

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill.
Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to confer further powers upon

243
the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Huddersfield in regard to their trolley vehicles undertaking; and for other purposes." Huddersfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Adamson, Mr. Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Channon, Mr. Chapman, Major Despencer-Robertson, Captain Ramsay, Captain Cunningham-Reid, Lord William Scott, Sir Hugh Seely, and Lord Willoughby de Eresby; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Francis Acland, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Bevan, Sir John Birchall, Mr. Crowder, Captain Dower, Mr. William Duckworth, Sir Patrick Hannon, Major Herbert, Mr. Minto Russell, and Colonel Sir John Shute.
  Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Education Bill): Major-General Sir Alfred Knox; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Petherick.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1936.

      SIR PHILIP SASSOON'S STATEMENT.
      Order for Committee read.
      3.58 p.m.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      This is the fifth successive year in which I have had the honour of introducing Air Estimates to this House, and bon. Members may well have become tired of hearing me so often upon the same subject. Fortunately, from that point of view at any rate, the subject has presented itself each year in very different aspects. The Estimates that I have the honour of introducing to the House this afternoon, at a gross total of approximately £43,500,000 and a net total of £39,000,000, are by far the largest that Parliament has been asked to vote to the Air Ministry since the War. This is, indeed, a melancholy reaction from the high aspirations with which the Disarmament Conference opened at Geneva four years ago. As the House well knows, the inexorable logic of events has left His Majesty's Government no option in the matter. We were compelled to set in hand last year an urgent programme for the rapid and extensive development of the Royal Air Force. The events of the past few months must have brought the facts of the situation home even to the most sceptical. The foreign policy of His Majesty's Government remains firmly based upon the system of collective defence against aggression. Unless this country is in a position to make a solid and effective contribution to that system, the course of Europe and the world is set once more for a regime of international anarchy. The whole fabric of civilisation may well be imperilled.
      My Noble Friend's Memorandum issued with these Estimates sets forth the scale and nature of a programme undertaken, not in our national interests alone, but in the interests of the whole community of nations. It provides for the formation by the end of the present year of the Home Defence Force announced last May. Completion of the May programme
      260
      was designed to give the Royal Air Force a metropolitan strength—that is a strength in these islands—of 123 squadrons with some 1,500 first-line aircraft. The term "first-line" is often misunderstood. Let me explain that by it I mean the fighting strength of Service squadrons. That is to say, the term excludes all aircraft in training, experimental and similar establishments, as well as aircraft in reserve, whether actually held in units or in depots. These aircraft, of course largely outnumber the first-line figure. They will be greatly increased with provision of war reserves. I will return to that later.
      In the light of developments abroad and the successful emergence in this country of a number of new types, certain modifications of the May programme have recently been decided on. As a result, the metropolitan squadrons will ultimately be increased to 129, with a first-line strength of approximately 1,750. The actual defensive and offensive power of the Home Defence Force will, however, have been augmented far in excess of this numerical increase. In addition, a further 12 squadrons are to be formed by 1939 for duties overseas. That will make a total of 37 squadrons outside these islands. All these figures exclude the Fleet Air Arm which is to be increased by 27 first-line machines in 1936 and on a much larger scale in 1937 and 1938. By the end of the financial year 1936 the first-line strength of the Force will have been doubled in the short space of two years. I do not think any Fighting Service has ever been set a comparable task in time of peace.
      That is the programme upon which we are at present engaged. No programme, however, can be intelligently considered apart from what I may call the war potential. If we are to be secure here at home and throughout the Empire, and if we are to possess an Air Force effective as a deterrent to aggression, we must have three things: First, we must possess an Air Force of adequate strength, equipped with the best machines, flown by highly trained pilots-and maintained by a skilled and efficient ground personnel. Secondly, we must have adequate resolves both in men and in machines. Thirdly, there must be behind our Fighting Force and our Reserves an industry fully able to turn over at short notice to war production

      261
      on the largest possible scale, and to do so rapidly and efficiently.
      The House will want to know how the country stands in regard to those three points. As regards our fighting strength. The Air Force now in formation is designed after careful review of character, quality and numbers. We have every reason to believe that it will be a most efficient instrument for our purpose. On present calculations we also believe it to be adequate. As to the second point, reserves of up-to-date machines are being created in what—again on present calculations—we are advised are adequate numbers. The Short Service Commission Scheme has given us a fine Reserve of pilots, which we have supplemented for some years past by direct entry into the Reserve from civil life. We intend to modify and expand the direct entry scheme in the early future with a view to a largely increased intake.
      Thirdly, as to the industry behind our Fighting Force and Reserves. Plans are being laid for large units of civil industry to turn over to airframes and engines and to parts and equipment. In order to cope with possible war demands, that would be necessary in any event, even if the existing professional industry could fulfil the requirements of our present programme. But, in point of fact, the professional industry will need reinforcement to enable it to cope with that programme. Therefore, arrangements are being made under which those firms upon which we should have to rely in the event of war will to-day create large extensions to build aircraft for the programme now in being. When this is done, those firms will form a very valuable part of a War Potential, which will be ready at all times for instant service. I think the House will be interested to know that two great motor firms—Messrs. Austin and Messrs. Rootes, who control the Humber-Hillman combine—have already most public spiritedly agreed to give us the benefit of their great production experience.
      As to the adequacy of the expansion programme, I can only say this: Judged by all the information which we have obtained from many different sources, the numbers I have just given to the House are sufficient as things now stand and as far as they can at present be foreseen. The situation may change, either for the
      262
      better or the worse. The situation from day to clay will have to be most carefully and constantly watched. But the most vital thing of all is to be sure that the War Potential is adequate and able to function rapidly. In this, least of all, is it possible to work to precise figures. A war effort is the maximum effort of any country. Industrially we have very great resources. Our object must be to see that, in case of need, we are able to exert and use them all without delay.
      To return to our present progress. Under every head—personnel, material works—new problems have emerged from day to day and from month to month. Yet so far I think we may claim that they have all been, or are in a fair way to being, successfully surmounted. Let me take first the field of personnel. Here the problem is particularly complicated for the Royal Air Force—firstly, because of the very large number of new pilots required; secondly, because of the very specialised functions which have to be performed by mechanics on the ground. These functions call for the highest technical skill of a kind which cannot in general be obtained from direct civilian experience. Our original requirements in 1935 and 1936 amounted, as stated in the House last July, to 2,500 pilots and 20,000 other personnel—a total of 22,500. The modifications and extensions to which I have already referred have increased the total to approximately 25,000. The public response already made to our appeal has been magnificent; but I should like to emphasise that our requirements in the coming months will still be extensive. Generally speaking the standard of applicants has been good. Obviously, a flying service needs the best it can get. Inevitably, there have been disappointments amongst those we have had to reject as a result of the keen competition. That was only to be expected. I trust that the effect of the high standard set will be to encourage rather than deter future applicants.
      Of the 2,500 pilots we require, we have taken 500 from airmen already serving. This gives our ground personnel increased opportunities to fly, which have been much appreciated. Of the balance of 2,000 pilots to be obtained from civil life, we have already secured nearly 1,200. Of ground personnel, we have to date obtained 14,500. Of these 1,100 are reenlisted airmen and 13,400 are new re-

      263
      cruits. We have thus got to date 15,700 of the 25,000 personnel we require over the two years.
      Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: What is the minimum age?
      Sir P. SASSOON: I think it is 16. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking all those Members of the House, as well as the Press and the general public, who have given us their aid during the past year. Without it, we could not have hoped to have done so well. Our further requirements can only be met by a continuance of the same public support. The flow of applicants must be maintained or we cannot fulfil the programme in time. I hope all who hear or read this speech will interest themselves actively in assisting us in this formidable undertaking.
      The training of so large a new personnel has presented many problems. On the flying side, as the House is aware, we have organised 13 civil training schools, whilst the six previously existing service flying schools have been increased to 11. Despite the short space of time in which the civil schools in particular have been organised, they are functioning with marked efficiency and success. I should like to compliment all those concerned with them on their achievement. The training of mechanics and other ground personnel is hardly less important. On their skill depends the safety of pilots and aircraft. It is being catered for at the existing schools at Halton and Manston, both of which have been largely extended, and at a new school at Henlow. Here, again, good progress can be reported though naturally our instructional resources have been strained to the utmost. Increase of personnel on the active establishment must of course be accompanied by a corresponding increase in reserves, especially on the side of the flying personnel. We shall shortly be inviting applications for a large number of reserve pilots. We aim in the next three years at enrolling 800 of these pilots each year.
      I would like in this connection to make an appeal to all employers of labour to give active encouragement to their staffs to join the Reserve and to afford them all the facilities they can for training. These men are giving up their time and
      264
      leisure to a public service and deserve consideration on that ground alone. As far as the Ministry is concerned, there are alterations being made to the conditions of service so as to make the performance of these duties as easy as possible. I appeal to all employers to help as much as they can and, in particular, to give their men the necessary training leave without encroaching on their annual holiday.
      As far as the works programme is concerned, although this is very formidable and we have had difficulty in finding suitable sites for our new aerodromes, I need only say that out of some 50 new stations that we require, sites for 29 have already been acquired or are in process of acquisition. Good progress is being made also with those stations which are needed for occupation this year.
      Now I will turn to the field of technical equipment and say a few words about some of the new types of aircraft that we are introducing into the Service. This is a subject in which I know the House is keenly interested, and upon which many hon. Members can speak with expert knowledge. We have every reason to be satisfied with the new types which have emerged or are emerging from the shops. The House will not expect me to give full details of the latest developments in design and technique. In fact there are only a very few of these developments which I can mention at this juncture without prejudicing the public interest. We have a. new single seater fighter which has already achieved a speed of well over 300 miles an hour. We have another one which has just begun its flying trials and from which we expect at least the same speed. The first of these will go into immediate production. From information that we have in our possession it will be the fastest aircraft of its category in service in the world.
      Another key type in the programme is the medium bomber. In this category we have two or three types of outstanding promise about to go into large-scale production. One of these is a development from the machine presented to the Royal Air Force by Lord Rothermere. This aircraft affords an interesting illustration of the different characteristics that are increasingly being called for between the purely civil and military types. To adapt it to a military

      265
      purpose the designer has had to recast drastically the whole lay-out of the machine. From being a low-wing monoplane it has become a mid-wing monoplane, and all the indications are that in speed, range, and load-carrying capacity it will be quite outstanding. Machines which promise excellently are also in course of development in other important categories. The House can rest assured that, over the Force as a whole, our equipment will be second to none.
      I should like to emphasise that in the air, as in so many other spheres, there is something more important even than numerical strength, and that is quality. We have always known that British designers and British craftsmen could, given the opportunity, produce the best articles in the world. They are proving it yet again. It is no wonder that British aircraft are in use in 26 different countries and British engines in 25. It is not to be wondered at that requests from foreign countries for the purchase of British machines and engines are being continuously received.
      I have so much ground to cover that I cannot delay hon. Members too long in this technical field, fascinating though I find it. They will like, perhaps, to hear of a new and very interesting form of metal construction which is called the geodetic system. In this system there are no internal struts or bracings, either in the wings or in the fuselage. The loads are taken by the surface structure, which is built rather like a somewhat open basket, of a series of metal strips. These strips are always placed correctly with relation to the amount and the direction of the stresses which they have to bear, and the result is a light and strong system with unrestricted internal stowage space, and a substantial saving in weight as compared with our previous best systems of monoplane construction. Other interesting systems are also being developed; for instance, what is called the "stressed skin" construction. It is too early to say which of these systems will prove to be the most effective, but the vitality and the ingenuity of our designers are abundantly proved by the variety of methods which they have developed during recent months. Along another, but highly important, line of development good progress is being made in methods of preventing the forma-
      266
      tion of ice on wings. An effective device has been invented at Farnborough and has been put into commercial production. It makes use of a strip of leather kept moist by ethyline glycol and attached along the leading edge of the wing. Of course ice can form elsewhere than on the wings, and another method which has also been developed is that of bringing forward the exhaust pipe to within a short distance of the propeller blades.
      My Noble Friend explained last July the steps we were taking to get new developments and improvements more quickly into production. By giving the manufacturers greater responsibility and freedom, we took certain risks. We felt that we were justified in doing so in order to speed up production when new design and developments held good promise. The manufacturers' response has been all that we could have desired. I think I can say with confidence that the risks we took have been fully justified.
      I have already said something about the part that industry is playing in our programme. The very largely increased output which we are demanding and shall continue to require raises naturally a good many problems of shop capacity, plant and labour. The decision to build up adequate reserves of aircraft, engines and spares has added to that problem. The House will not expect me for obvious reasons to give the exact figures of our requirements; but I can say that we anticipate taking delivery during the next three years of a substantially larger number of aircraft than during the whole of the 17 years since the War. The problems which confront us cannot be solved in a moment by a wave of a magician's wand. We can say that they are at least in process of solution, although there is a great deal of hard work and planning still to be done. In this matter we have the benefit of the help and advice of Lord Weir, to whom our thanks are gratefully and sincerely due.
      As a measure of the progress which we have achieved, I would say that the total output of the British aircraft industry for 1935 was approximately equal to that of the United States of America. The House may perhaps be interested to hear that the number of employés in the aircraft industry proper, that is, in the manufacture of machines and engines, rose during the

      267
      last three months of 1935 by 6,500, and is steadily increasing. I am glad that our demands have already absorbed so substantial an amount of labour, and will continue to do so.
      I should like to turn for a moment to the question of prices in which I know all sides of the House are interested. My Noble Friend explained last year some of the steps that we were taking. The House may wish me to recapitulate briefly some of the steps that we have already taken or are about to take. The departmental machine for price control has been greatly strengthened. This particularly applies to the technical costings staff who investigate manufacturers' costs, as well as the costs accountants who deal primarily with the firms' overheads. Work is proceeding almost entirely upon a basis of what are called. I.T.P's., that is, Instructions to Proceed. This form of contract incorporates a clause whereby, if a fair and reasonable price cannot be agreed, the final price will not be determined until after a full examination of the contractor's books by Air Ministry accountants on completion of the contracts. Meanwhile, the contractor is receiving what are called progress payments, which are made as the work proceeds and are based on a percentage of a "provisional" price. This price of course is a lower price than the one which the Department may ultimately expect to pay.
      I would like to say, in passing, that the fixing of contract prices has absolutely nothing to do with market value. The Government deprecate as strongly as any Member the tendency that there has been to an excessive advance in quotations on the Stock Exchange.
      Mr. GARRO-JONES: Before the Minister leaves the question of contracts, will he be good enough to tell the House whether the aircraft manufacturers have accepted the system of provisional instructions to proceed?
      Sir P. SASSOON: Obviously if work is proceeding the people who are doing that work must have accepted the system.
      Mr. GARR0-JONES: I want—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am entitled to ask these questions. We have found
      268
      that if we leave them until afterwards we do not get an answer at all. I want to ascertain, as I have heard on creditable authority that there is a considerable amount of delay, whether aircraft manufacturers have refused in some cases to proceed on these lines. Is there any foundation for that statement?
      Sir P. SASSOON: All I was saying was that the contracts which are now proceeding are proceeding on those lines, and that there has been absolutely no delay. I was also saying how much the Government deprecated the recent tendency on the Stock Exchange to excessive advances. I was pointing out that contract prices have nothing to do with that movement, but that such prices are fixed by the procedure and on the principles which I have just outlined. We have not been content to rely merely upon our departmental resources and experience in this matter. From the very outset, we called in an advisory committee consisting of Sir Hardman Lever, Mr. Ashley Cooper, and Mr. Judd. The outstanding qualifications of these gentlemen for the work which they are so ably performing will be within the knowledge of all hon. Members. The work which Sir Hardman Lever did in this field at the Ministry of Munitions during the War and the vast economies which he effected are matters of history.
      That committee exists to give advice on questions of general principle as well as on individual prices. They can also be called in as arbitrators in disputed cases. We have also secured the assistance of other gentlemen of eminence in the industrial world who are giving us ungrudgingly of their time and experience. To date, few prices have finally been settled but the work is proceeding and the contracts are well under way. Under the system of I.T.Ps. and progress payments based on a percentage of the provisional price we are going full steam ahead, or perhaps it would be more appropriate in this connection to say that we are "revving up to the maximum." Our aim in all this new procedure is a dual one. First, to ensure that there shall be no opening for any form of profiteering; second, to see that private enterprise receives its fair reward and to encourage the efficient producer. It is there, I submit, that true economy lies. Hon. Members will forgive me for having gone at some length info this question of

      269
      price control, but I feel it is necessary to give some indication of our practice and intentions in this matter.
      Let me turn now to the equally vital field of civil aviation. Hon. Members will have noticed, I am sure with satisfaction, that whereas subsidies, primarily to Imperial Airways, are down by about 15 per cent. the total Civil Aviation Vote—Vote 8—is up by £164,500, or approximately 28 per cent. The bulk of the increase is for technical equipment required for the improvement of ground organisation both at home and overseas. In the latter case, we wish, in particular, to facilitate night flying and to pave the way for services of greatly increased speed and frequency. These we hope to bring in with the new Empire Air Transport scheme which I was privileged to announce to the House some 15 months ago.
      Captain F. E. GUEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 28 per cent. increase to which he refers includes grants-in-aid and contributions from Dominion and Colonial Governments?
      Sir P. SASSOON: I am not sure but that is a point which will be dealt with later. A scheme of this magnitude entails a great deal of preparatory work. Long negotiations are obviously necessary with the score or more of Governments and administrations concerned. I am glad to say that, as far as the African route is concerned, complete agreement has been reached with the Union of South Africa and, subject to a few points of detail, with the Governments of most of the other African territories concerned. As regards the Eastern route, negotiations are still proceeding with Australia which has experienced certain difficulties about our proposals. Our aim and our wish is to have the full co-operation of that great Dominion. All I can say at the present moment is that we still hope to arrive at a mutually satisfactory basis of agreement. One of the principal objectives of the Empire scheme is to give the public an "all-up" mail service, that is to say the carriage of all first-class mail matter by air without surcharge. I feel that in this particular the whole community will endorse that policy.
      The House will wish to have some figures illustrating the progress of British civil aviation generally during the past
      270
      year. I think I can claim that these figures paint a generally satisfactory and encouraging picture. Not that we are, by any means, satisfied. Indeed, we hope in the coming year to move a great deal faster and a great deal further and we are laying our plans accordingly. One of the most far-seeing of our aeronautical prophets was Bishop Wilkins who lived 300 years ago and who was so versatile that he exchanged his episcopal duties for those of the first secretary of the Royal Society. He prophesied that the time would come when gentlemen going on a journey would call for their wings as regularly as they called for their boots. That should be our aim to-day.
      Let me first deal with the progress of Imperial Airways, because that must continue to be our main, though not our sole, instrument for the development of British air transport. I suppose it is common ground that the objective of air transport is to convey by air, on the most economic basis possible, the maximum amount of mails, passengers, and freight. If that be so, ton mileage carried in relation to subsidy, must be the soundest criterion of progress. On that basis, the achievement of Imperial Airways is very satisfactory. Their subsidy last year was little more than one-third of that enjoyed by their French, and about two-thirds of that paid to their Italian competitors. I do not mention the comparative figures for the Dutch, because, in addition to their direct subsidy, they pay an indirect postal subsidy. The ton mileage carried by Imperial Airways in the last 12 months for which we have accurate figures was approximately 25 per cent greater than the corresponding French figure, 50 per cent. greater than the Dutch, and more than 150 per cent greater than the Italian.
      I think that would have been a satisfactory achievement even if Imperial Airways had been receiving the same subsidy as the National air transport undertakings of France and Italy. But, as they received a far lower subsidy, I think it reflects considerable credit upon the firm's organisation and management. It is not surprising, therefore, that the prestige of Imperial Airways abroad—and with it the prestige of British air transport—stands very high, a fact of which I shall give one further example. In 1935, Imperial Airways' share of the cross-channel passenger traffic between

      271
      Croydon and the Continent was once more substantially greater than that of all foreign companies—French, Belgian, German, Dutch and Swiss—combined.
      I know that some hon. Members feel some doubt about the wisdom of our so-called "monopoly" policy, and if the House will bear with me I should like to make just four propositions in that connection. First, I would remind the House that Imperial Airways was created 12 years ago to salve the wreckage of the four previously existing companies which had been operating in competition. In effect the Government at that time was subsidising competition against itself, and the result was breakdown and bankruptcy all round. Secondly, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," and we have proof in the comparative figures which I have just quoted. Third, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" and the great Continental nations have all studied carefully the success of our Imperial air transport organisation. One after another—Germany, France and Italy, for example—have merged or are merging previously competitive organisations into strong centralised undertakings. There are now no fewer than 12 Continental countries each with a single national air transport organisation. In the only comparable field of operation, namely external air communications, the United States have directed all their resources to backing one single organisation—Pan-American Airways and its affiliates.
      My fourth point is one which is hardly open to argument, and that is the undesirability of dissipating public and private money and effort over a number of competing undertakings 'instead of concentrating them to the best advantage. Surely the lessons learned by such painful and costly experience in almost every other field of transport and communications must apply also to the air. But, though we are convinced that our policy is basically sound, we do not want the House to think that we are not fully alive to the dangers of monopoly nor yet that we overlook the possibility that, with units of organisation too great and a sphere of operations too vast, efficiency may begin to suffer. Imperial Airways will remain our instrument for the development of Empire air routes including the North Atlantic. In other spheres, where no wasteful competition
      272
      will ensue, we are prepared, within the limits of our available resources, to assist any other organisations which may seem to us to merit support. It is in accordance with that policy that we have lately entrusted to British Airways, Limited, the operation of Scandinavian services. We may follow the same course elsewhere at a later date.
      I do not think it would be right to leave this subject without paying a tribute to the public-spirited action of Sir Eric Geddes and his board who, without any compensation whatever, have waived their contractual rights in respect of Continental services north of the line London to Berlin, and have also undertaken to co-operate fully with any new organisation which the Government may select to operate in this field. We have, for a long time past, been engaged on plans for a Trans-Atlantic service. Certain long range machines are already on order for this purpose, and others are about to be ordered. We aim at making an experimental begin ling this year, if possible, or at any rate early in 1937. There are other new services overseas which have already been, or will shortly be, brought into operation. These are a new link service from the Sudan to West Africa, a similar service between Penang and Hong Kong, both of which are already operating, and a service between Bermuda and New York.
      Four years ago the route mileage of our Imperial air lines was 8,320; to-day it is 21,243. When all our projected services are in operation, it will reach a total of 41,405. I may add that those figures exclude throughout the very extensive internal services operated by our great Dominions—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa—and by India.
      Let me now pass briefly under review certain other fields of civil air development on which I should have much to say, did time permit. Internal services have continued to make satisfactory progress. There are now 12 companies operating regular services in these islands, with a route-mileage of over 5,000 miles. As compared with two years ago the increase in the number of civil registered aircraft engaged in regular service in this country is no less than 100 per cent. There has also been a satisfactory growth in the volume of flying carried out by private owners and

      273
      the light aeroplane clubs. At the end of December last there were 589 privately owned machines on the Register, as compared with 478 twelve months previously—that is, an increase of over 23 per cent. There were a total of 1,535 civil aircraft registered in this country at the end of 1935, which shows an over-all increase of 30 per cent, above the figure for 1934.
      There are now 41 light aeroplane clubs receiving subsidy. In addition, there are some 26 unsubsidised clubs. At the end of last year the total flying membership of the subsidised clubs alone was 5,968—a figure from which I think we may derive some satisfaction. Of course, not all these members had taken out their "A" licences. The number of such licences current at the end of the year was in fact 3,353. On a basis of comparative populations, there are again this year proportionately more private pilots in this country than the United States of America.
      I apologise for this long recital of figures. They paint a more accurate picture of our rapidly growing civil activities than a long dissertation would do. This quick and healthy growth in every aspect of civil flying has brought in its train many novel problems of administration and policy. One result is the Bill now in the hands of hon. Members, of which I need say nothing to-day. I hope at an early date to have an opportunity to explain fully its scope and purpose. We have had to provide, also, more effective machinery for the co-ordination of the various State Departments concerned with civil aviation. After the Air Ministry, the Post Office is most closely concerned with air advancement, and I should here like to acknowledge the invaluable help which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and his advisers have given, and are continuing to give us.
      But other Departments too are frequently affected, and accordingly two important Committees have been set up in the course of the year to ensure more effective co-ordination. The first of these is a Standing Committee under the presidency of the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. Its primary function is to deal with questions of international air communications. The second is an ad hoc committee, of which Sir Henry Maybury is Chairman. This has been
      274
      set up to consider and report upon measures for the development of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. I hope that this latter Committee will be in a position to submit a report at an early date.
      Civil aviation is a subject of such outstanding importance and absorbing interest that I should like to give it a speech to itself. All that I have been able to do in the time at my disposal is to select a few of the more salient developments of the year. I have been able to give but very little time to them, and of the results of our stewardship during the past 12 months. Indeed, I fear that I have already taken up too much of the time of the House and must draw to a close. Let me then pass back from the particular to the general, and in a few closing sentences pick up again a thread with which I opened.
      Hon. Members in all quarters of the House may well ask me, "Where are we heading?" "You have told us," they may say, "the scale and nature of the expansion scheme; you have explained its difficulties and the rapid progress you are making notwithstanding. But what of the future? Is there no alternative to a rapidly accelerating race in air armaments?" Let me say with all the emphasis at my command that His Majesty's Government have not given up, and have no intention of giving up, hope of securing an Air Pact in Western Europe—and perhaps in due course a Pact of wider scope. We still hope to see a Convention for the limitation of air armaments at whatever figure other countries may be willing to accept. Whether our hopes will be realised may depend a great deal upon events already exercising the minds of the peoples and statesmen of Europe. We must hope that wise counsels will prevail, but the House may rest assured that the influence of this country will be exerted to the very utmost in the cause of understanding and appeasement. Meantime we cannot remain un-armed in a world that is rapidly arming, above all, in the air.
      There are two all-compelling reasons for the course of expansion upon which we have embarked. In the first place, we must be in a position to make an attack upon these islands too dangerous to contemplate; and, secondly, we must be

      275
      strong enough to make an effective contribution to the system of collective security to which we are pledged, and to turn to more temperate views all who may be tempted to set force above conciliation. Those are the reasons and the justifications for the strengthening of our air defences.
      "To her hurt the ant got wings,"
      says Cervantes. We must see to it that this does not prove true also of mankind. Surely the great gift of flight was meant for something better than death and destruction. That, at any rate, is my personal belief. It is still my hope and my belief that the aeroplane will eventually become the most effective of all instruments for promoting and maintaining the peace of the world.
      Meanwhile, the experience of the past few years has proved that unbalanced air armaments are a standing threat. Let us try the other road. Air Forces balanced by international agreement may well constitute themselves the most powerful guardians of law and order. They may approach most nearly to that International Air Police Force which I know some hon. Members would like to see, but which I do not myself believe to be practicable to-day, or for many a long year to come. When I speak of the influence of the aeroplane for peace, I am far from thinking of it as a deterrent only. Of equal, indeed of even greater importance, is its increasing power to break down the barriers of time and space, and to promote a better understanding among the peoples of the world.
      Perhaps some hon. Members have seen a very striking film which has recently been shown under the title, "The Shape of Things to Come." Its later scenes depict a new and mechanised world which might not be particularly attractive to all of us. None the less, I think Mr. Wells with his vivid, penetrative insight, has seized on and illustrated two things which I believe to be profoundly true. In the first place, that there is a growing community of spirit among airmen of whatever nationality, which may ultimately exercise a profound influence upon world relations; secondly, that "Wings over the World," in the sense which I indicated a few sentences previously, may one day prove to be the greatest force for peace mankind has yet seen. Let us all hope
      276
      that it may be so. Let us hope, too that it may be achieved without the preliminary horrors and suffering of another great war, which it is the primary purpose of these Estimates to avert.
      4.57 p.m.
      Mr. MONTAGUE: I congratulate the right hon. Baronet upon the interesting speech which he has just given to the House, and also upon the characteristically concise manner in which he has presented these Estimate s. They are important Estimates, particularly because, together with the Supplementary Estimate that the House has recently passed, they constitute a new and reasoned change in the air policy of this country. Because of that, I want to begin by assuring the Under-Secretary of State and the House that what has happened during the last few days and during a period a little more remote has not altered or modified the policy of His Majesty's Opposition. On the contrary, in our opinion it has strengthened the case for that policy.
      First, I would like to examine the figures presented in the Estimates from the standpoint of the Estimates as a whole and with special regard to the increase that is contemplated in the air defences or offences of this country. As the right hon. Baronet has already pointed out, the gross figure is £43,500,000, an increase of £19,500,000 over the original Estimates for 1935. That increase of £19,500,00 is more than the total Estimates that I had last the honour of presenting at that Box to this House, and if we compare the figure of the gross Estimates with the Estimates of 1931, the year in question, there is an increase of 140 per cent. The home defence force, the Metropolitan force, is to be increased to 129 squadrons, totalling 1,715 aeroplanes, which compares with 53 squadrons last year and a total of 580 aeroplanes. That is a three-fold increase in one year. The overseas strength is to be increased by the end of 1939 by 12 squadrons and there are to be very considerable increases afterwards. The Fleet air arm is to be extended to a total of 217, from 27 aeroplanes last year.
      Gathering these figures together, we find that the home defence force will amount to 1,750 aeroplanes, the overseas force to 403 and the Fleet air arm 217, which makes a total of 2,370 aeroplanes

      277
      constituting the Royal Air Force when this particular programme in the Estimates has been carried out. As the right hon. Member knows, and as I imagine every hon. Member knows, that figure of 2,370 will not represent the strength of the Air Force when the scheme has been carried out. It is only the beginning. People are talking about 5,000 and 10,000 aeroplanes for the first-line strength of this country. The actual number of aeroplanes that constitute the Royal Air Force is something of a mystery. I do not understand why it should be a mystery. I do not imagine that other nations are not well aware of the reserves we have, what training machines we have and what machines are being used for experiments or are in the experimental stages. The idea of secrecy is absurd, because if the policy of the Government is the policy that I shall show it to be, or what we believe it to be, that is, counter-offensive, with nothing whatever to do with the League of Nations or pooled security, but reprisals and threats, then the more we can let other nations know what our strength is the greater the deterrent ought to be.
      We are told in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates that:
      "The changes now contemplated in the composition of certain squadrons will provide a substantial accession of first-line strength, and will, in other directions, greatly enhance alike the defensive and offensive power of the home defence force."
      An interesting speech was made yesterday by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) in which he made some very startling and remarkable statements. One was to the effect that we were perfectly justified in entering into the agreement with Germany as regards parity in submarines and in gaining advantages from Germany in other directions, because we possess fool-proof methods of preventing the successful attack of submarines upon warships. That was a very remarkable statement to be made, among others equally remarkable, and it suggests that this idea of secrecy, this childishness, this nursery politics, this puss-in-the-corner sort of diplomacy does not serve any purpose of value either for this country or for international peace. According to the hon. Member's statement—and it has not been contradicted—we went with our tongue
      278
      in our cheeks gaining this advantage from Germany, leading them to believe that really they had an advantage in parity so far as submarine strength was concerned.
      The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk also said that we possessed antiaircraft guns, for use on warships, which made it quite safe for portions of the British Fleet to go to Alexandria, the presumption being that it was safe for battleships to be in harbour. If we possess such a weapon why should there be secrecy about it? Why should not other nations know? Why should not Germany be placed in possession of the fact that we have these methods of preventing attack, if what we want to do is to secure peace? Surely, there is no advantage in keeping from Germany or any other nation the fact that we have foolproof methods of preventing submarine attack. Let Germany or any other nation have foolproof methods. If they all had foolproof methods, whether against submarines or against aircraft, we should be bound to get peace in consequence. This nonsense about secrecy is beside the mark and is characteristic of the old-fashioned cocked hat sort of idea that used to be associated with our policy and diplomacy in Victorian times.
      In the quotation that I have made from the Memorandum published with the Estimate the words "defensive and offensive" are used, and I noticed that the Under-Secretary used that phrase in his speech He began by saying that the policy embodied in these Estimates is in the interests of the whole community of nations. It is a remarkable thing that his Noble Friend does not make the slightest reference to the question of pooled security or League of Nations policy. It is all a question of the supposed defence of this country. The defence of this country is not defence in the proper sense of the word, but the questionable defence of counter-offensive. The question of distance and the question of speed have a great deal to do with this matter of defence. I do not know whether the rumours that we hear about anti-aircraft methods are correct, but something is being said in the newspapers and by people of some authority about the existence of an apron round London and about wonderful anti-aircraft guns. If those methods of defence exist we ought to know about them, but if they

      279
      do not exist, then in the circumstances there is no such thing as the defence of this country from the standpoint of possible air attack. The policy of the Government is not a policy in the interests of the whole community of nations, but the Government have definitely given up all hope in pooled security and in the League of Nations.
      Let us consider the question of distance. A statement was made by the Under-Secretary about fighting aeroplanes with speeds of over 300 miles, but he did not tell us the speed of the latest bombing aeroplane. I imagine it is something a little less. I do not think that there can be very much margin between the two. If Germany occupied as much of Belgium as she did during the War it would require an aeroplane with a range of 260 miles to get to London and back, but if we wanted to get to Berlin and back we should need to have aircraft with a range of 1,040 miles. It is true that there are objectives other than Berlin. Imagine the effect of a bombing raid on London and the panic that it would cause, even leaving gas out of account. During the Belgian manoeuvres one single aeroplane loaded with small thermite bombs started 300 fires. I do not imagine that the panic that would be created in London as a result of even a small number of hostile aircraft getting through would be set off by blowing up one or two munition dumps near the capital city of Germany, if Germany happened to be the enemy. In regard to this question of distance it means that German bombers would need to carry much less fuel to get to London than we should need to get to Berlin, and therefore they could carry a very much greater number of bombs.
      Take the matter from another point of view. At the speeds to which reference has been made it is possible for a hostile body of aircraft to get to London from the coast in less than 15 minutes. Within half an hour of the first intimation of a surprise attack it would be possible, if they were not prevented, for a hostile body of aircraft to reach London. Imagine the situation. They would be flying, say, in cloudy weather with a ceiling of 20,000 feet. Although we might have fighting planes with a speed capacity if over 300 miles an hour, they
      280
      would have to get warmed up, get off the ground and climb 20,000 feet and get sufficiently far away from London towards the coast for practical purposes in order to meet the oncoming enemy. Of what use, therefore, is it to talk about the defence of London from the standpoint of aircraft? There is no defence, only the defence which is definitely stated in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates and has been stated even more definitely by leading Members of the Government. We learn that full-scale manoeuvres took place over London last year, followed by other test exercises in air defence over the Plymouth and Portsmouth areas. More secrecy. We do not know the results of those manoeuvres or what lessons they taught. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech at Birmingham on the 6th March, and I suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman said at Birmingham is the real policy of this country and it is not in the interests of the whole community of nations. He said:
      "We are determined to build up an Air Force possessed of such terrific striking power, power to inflict such terrific damage on an enemy, that anyone will think very long before they start hostilities which might bring that Air Force upon their heads. Therefore, we desire to get on with the arms production prograinne as fast as ever it is possible."
      I am not here on behalf of the Labour party to put the extreme pacifist case, which is represented, and rightly represented, within the Labour party, but we do not believe that the policy of reprisals is a sound one. I should like to put to the Under-Secretary one argument which I think is a logical one in order to justify the Amendment which is going to be moved at a later stage in the proceedings to-day. The policy of threats and reprisals is based on the fallacy that you h Lye only one motive or sentiment to consider, namely, the motive of fear. I suggest that you have two—the motive of fear and the motive of respect, the motive of integrity, or belief in integrity.
      Perhaps I might put the matter in a very homely way. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I were truculent and foolish enough to threaten the right hon. Gentleman with physical chastisement, and suppose that he threatened with reprisals in consequence. If I said to him, "I am going to punch you on the

      281
      nose"—I said I would be homely—and if he replied to me, "If you do that I will punch you on the nose, only harder," that threat might prevent me from taking the action I contemplated, not because of fear alone, but because of my faith in the right hon. Gentleman's integrity, because I think that he would be gentleman enough to refrain from punishing me if I refrained from attacking him. Suppose, on the other hand, that I had not that faith in his integrity, suppose that I imagined that I was going to get it, to use a vulgarism, where King Charles got the hatchet, that is to say, in the neck, whatever I did, whether I attacked him or not—suppose that I had seen him engaged in exercise in a gymnasium, and he had said a great deal about going for me at some time or other—of what value would his threat be against my threat that I was ready to punish him, or to attempt it? Obviously, unless I was satisfied that I should be safe if I refrained from action, the threat of reprisals would have no weight at all. The danger would be that I should take the other course and rely upon the element of surprise in the hope that I might get in a lucky blow first, and at any rate counter some attack that I anticipated against me.
      I think it is a logical argument that the whole value of threats and reprisals is based upon the common integrity and the common faith which, by presumption, will be absent in the circumstances that are envisaged. We on this side do not believe that a policy of reprisals is of the slightest use, and for that reason we oppose that kind of re-armament which has no justification in the needs of world security. We do not know what is required in the form of aeroplanes or any other methods of warfare to carry out our obligations to the League of Nations, and, so long as we are asked to sanction the expenditure of money to build up this and other forces in order to carry out a unilateral policy of defence, it will be valueless without the security of international agreement. The Labour party is bound to do its best to put the position, and, by a token vote at any rate, as will be the case presently, to put down the reasons for our opposition.
      Turning to the question of civil aviation, Vote 8 shows a substantial increase of nearly 28 per cent. as compared with the corresponding figure for 1935, the gross total being £908,000, and the
      282
      net £760,000. This increase, we are told in the Memorandum, is due to a series of far-reaching developments in British air transport throughout the world which are already in progress or in prospect. I agree with the Under-Secretary that the policy of monopoly, which was begun by the Report of the Hamlyn Committee, has justified itself by results, and I would like to point out, to those Members who are opposed to the monopoly principle in regard to civil aviation, that you do not do away with monopoly merely by dividing monopoly up, and that the idea of any kind of control or development of civil aviation that is not going to lead to chaos involves monopoly of some kind, especially so far as long routes are concerned. But the Labour party look upon this question from a different standpoint from the right hon. Gentleman. We say that, where public money is being given to monopolies, there should be an equality of public participation.
      The Air Navigation Bill, which will come before the House before very long, proposes to sanction a maximum of £1,500,000 for civil aviation subsidies, which is an increase of 50 per cent. over the present figure. Among the questions that have to be considered in relation to these subsidies and the series of far-reaching developments referred to, is the question of the North Atlantic route. We are told that, as the result of a provisional agreement reached at Ottawa last December between representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, and of subsequent discussions with the United States authorities—I notice that Pan-American Airways is not mentioned—arrangements are being made for the undertaking of experimental flights by Imperial Airways, Limited. We have no objection to the idea of monopoly, but we say that if there is to be monopoly, as there must be for the reason I have given, there ought to be an organisation of a different character from that which at present exists.
      I admit the value of Imperial Airways to civil aviation so far as its progress is concerned, but a number of people whom I have met in civil aviation circles agree that you cannot stop development. With the advance of civil aviation, and the huge number of aeroplanes that people are going to have when, for instance,

      283
      they can take off from their back gardens, the whole question of the organisation of civil aviation will have to be looked at on a bigger scale. We have just had the Ullswater Report in connection with broadcasting, which recommends the tightening up of Government authority over the use, not of the air, but of the ether, if the ether be the medium through which wireless waves go. I am not scientist enough to judge as to this, but we hear about etheric waves. If public participation and control is good enough for the ether, it ought to be good enough for the air.
      I can understand the objections that many, if not all, people interested in air matters have to some aspects of present Ministry control. We shall be able to discuss that question when the Air Navigation Bill comes before the House. But surely an organisation on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation would be an effective, practical and efficient method of dealing with the problems with which we are going to be faced during the next few years in connection with aircraft development. That does not mean that certain interests are going to be taken over and confiscated; I need not go into issues of that kind; but, as I have said, many people are prepared for an enlargement of the structure of civil aviation, on the transport side at any rate, so that it can be brought under a control which shall be effective from a public point of view, in return for the subsidies given by the public towards the development of aviation in general. Finally, I should like to come back to the question of policy, because I am seriously concerned about the statement made by the right hon. Baronet with regard to the Western Air Pact. The statement is made in the Memorandum that:
      "The difficulties of the international situation have unfortunately precluded further progress in the negotiations which were initiated in February, 1935, for an Air Pact "—
      Sir P. SASSOON: Internationally.
      Mr. MONTAGU E: The Memorandum goes on to say:
      "It remains, however, the firm purpose of His Majesty's Government to continue to work for such a Pact and for an agreement for the limitation of air forces."
      284
      I am very interested to hear the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, because it is not very clearly indicated in the Memorandum that the idea is an international air pact. If there is to be an international air pact, by not the internationalisation of civil aviation, and why not an international air pact inside the League of Nations? Why talk about something outside the League of Nations and its machinery as regards the air? Everyone knows that that is the justification for the assumption that the proposed Western Air Pact, which was the air pact considered in 1935, was coming to the front again as a matter of practical possibility. What is the danger of it? The danger is that that Western Air Pact is not, as it is frequently Said to be, an Air Locarno. It is outside the machinery of the League of Nations, and not inside. The Locarno Treaty of Mutual Assistance is inside the League of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the limitation of aircraft, and I can understand that if it is to be an international air pact; but you cannot have limitation of aircraft if it is to be a regional pact. There is Russia to be considered, and Russia is not coming into a Western Air Pact in any case. The danger is that you are creating, outside the League of Nations, a form of pact which is bound to lead to misapprehension and misjudgment on the part of the nations.
      It is outside the League of Nations and its machinery, on the specious plea that the air arm is so rapid in its effects that we have to be ready at once, and the other signatories will have to be ready at once, to rush, in answer to an S 0 S, to the protection of any Nation which suffers aggression. That is all very well, but as a justification for something outside the machinery of international discussion and judgment it simply will riot hold water? Why? You could not answer an S O S in that way. No one, surely, imagines that you are going to send an air force from this country to another without coming to a judgment as to what the aggression is and what justification there is for the statement that there is aggression. Suppose it is said by each side that the other has acted aggressively. What are we to do? I can imagine the British Air Force going up in the air and deciding there, by wireless, I suppose, which frontier they should make their objective.

      285
      It would be something like the classical donkey, which was so uncertain which was the choicer bundle of hay that it starved to death.
      The danger of an air pact of that kind is the one I have referred to, because if there is justification for judgment and consideration it can just as well be done at Geneva as in London and the obvious reason for these ideas is, if not to encircle any European nation, to encircle, or the equivalent to encircling, a more Eastern nation. I hope, when the question of an air pact of whatever type comes before the House, we shall be very critical of it and examine its proposals very thoroughly. There will be a Motion in due course from these benches. It will not embody what is called the purely pacifist position. Frankly, that position is represented inside the Labour party, as it is inside religious and other organisations outside. If I could be sure that a policy of pacifism was one that could be put to the nation with any great hope of support, I feel that it would be much more worth while than anything that is being presented by the Government—much more than any race of armaments. If we could be Christian enough to say that we would disarm unilaterally, I believe we should get through, because I have faith in spiritual power over material power. But you must have the whole nation behind you for any kind of method for dealing with the situation in that way. I am not asking for moral or sentimental consideration of the question. I should like the question of the effectiveness of reprisals and threats to be examined from a practical point of view, if you like from the point of view of military considerations, but there is no guarantee in increased armaments of the peace of the world or the defence of the country.
      I have said more than once from that box that disarmament by a process of progressive inefficiency is out of the question. It is perfectly true that there is no halfway house between full efficiency and complete unilateral disarmament. A great deal depends upon what you mean by efficiency. We demand that the pledges that were given by the party opposite during the General Election shall be the basis of our conception of efficiency, and that it shall be based upon an understanding between nations, which
      286
      we have not got and have not asked for, in which what is required to carry out our obligations is collective security rather than a panic-stricken reliance upon an impossible unilateral defence and an equally impossible reprisals theory. Our obligations are the same whether it is to the League of Nations or to any pact, whether we take into consideration the events that are troubling men's minds to-day or whether we are considering the question from an academic and abstract point of view. There can be no reliance placed upon a. mere race for armaments, and the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing to disabuse our minds that the policy of the Government is a race in armaments.
      We oppose the Vote, not because we want to reduce the Air Force necessarily, not because we want to stand in the way of any increase of the Air Force which will make for adequate efficiency, but because we want that conception of efficiency to be based upon the real needs of the nation in relation to the whole conception of international security which I have said, and I think have gone a long way to proving, has been given up by the Government. Therefore, I hope that we shall have some closer statement during the discussion as to what there is behind the new idea of an expanded Air Force which is necessary for the purpose of defence outside the perfectly futile, panic-stricken notion that by threatening anyone else you are going to achieve the defence and security of this country.
      6.37 p.m.
      Mr. MANDER: In congratulating the tight hon. Gentleman on the admirable manner in which he has introduced these Estimates, I should like to say that it would have sounded all the better if the statement had come from the lips of the Secretary of State. When we have this enormous programme before us, of vital importance to the country and with a vast expenditure, we feel that it is only right that the Secretary of State should be here to answer personally for his Department. While we on these benches voted against the White Paper the other night because we distrusted the policy associated with it, we are going to vote for these Estimates to-day because we do not feel that we are in a position to say that the proposals of the Government are improper in the present grave

      287
      crisis, though there are certain points in connection with them about which we shall have to press them very strongly. We deplore the situation that has arisen, in my judgment very largely through the past faults of the Government, and we must see that in taking our part in collective security it is worthy of our great influence in the world and that we take an adequate share in that task. I do not feel that the Government have up to the present, in any statement that they have made, or in the statement made to-day, shown that keen desire to work the collective system which is absolutely essential, and I am very much afraid that, unless they take more active steps, we may drift back into purely national arming once again. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were just as keen on a disarmament policy and on getting the Western air pact as they ever were. That is not very encouraging. They will have to do very much better than that. I hope they intend to be very much more active in this work of disarmament and an air pact in the future than they have been in the past.
      The hon. Member who has just spoken made reference to certain dangers in connection with a Western air pact. I quite agree that if that is going to be a means of giving freedom to certain States, say Germany, to do what she likes in the East, it would be most undesirable, but I feel that at this moment it is a little difficult to discuss particular air pacts and whether they should be under the League of Nations or not. When the Government come to deal with the problem, as they will be bound to do, it will probably be under entirely new conditions. For example, if Germany came back to the League, it would create a new situation. I do not, therefore, feel that it would be useful to follow the hon. Gentleman in the points that he has mentioned in connection with the Western air pact, but I feel that to rely on our own defences is perfectly futile. We cannot defend ourselves by a one-Power standard. It is only by relying on the. support of others in an emergency that we can protect ourselves, and this is where I want to press home certain points in connection with an air pact in whatever form it may arise in the
      288
      future. We must really get down to technical discussions with the various Powers concerned—discussions between staffs. I know there are great and unprecedented difficulties, but they will have to be faced, or the consequences will he extremely unpleasant. I do not put forward what I am going to say without having discussed it with service experts, who are quite n agreement that something on these lines should be attempted at any rate.
      Conversations should take place in due course not only between the British and French technical staffs, envisaging an attack by Germany, but between British and German staffs, envisaging a possible attack by France. The questions to be asked and answered are few. First of all there would be the question, "How many machines, and of what type, are you prepared to supply in the event of an aggressive attack?" Secondly, "What area are you prepared to deal with? How ate you going to divide up the various towns and cities where munition works and docks are? How are you going to allocate them between the various parties?" Thirdly, "What aerodromes in the country concerned are going to be made available to the various States participating?" If you are going at any time to make a reality of collective security in the air you will have to get down to questions of this kind. You may find that there are inherent difficulties so great that no progress can be made. If that is so, I come back to the question that the right hon. Gentleman referred to. You may be driven to adopting the scheme put forward by the French for an international aerial police force, and the internationalisation of civil aviation. In the long run I believe we shall come to that as part of the policy of the abolition of military aviation. We have had some experience recently in dealing with the arrangements made in the Mediterranean in the event of attack. I presume the Air Staffs have been in contact and have made certain arrangements what to do and have asked each other the questions that I have been putting. It is on record, I believe, that as the result of the Czechoslovakia-Soviet Air Pact discussions have been taking place in Czechoslovakia as to exactly what aerodromes and other works should be used in the event of the pact

      289
      coming into operation. That is obviously common sense. I urge on the Government that they should not hesitate to go resolutely into all these problems as and when they arise, as they are certainly bound to do.
      Will the Under-Secretary be able to give any information about the work carried on by the Defence Committee which is considering various possible ways of defence in England against hostile air attack? I have an impression that it has not produced any very great results up to the present time, but if any information of a general kind can be given, it will be of great interest. The Under-Secretary in his speech referred to the supply position, and in his statement of the Estimates he says that much greater progress than it was safe to forecast in July has actually been made. I am very glad to know that fact, but such information as has come to me causes me to think that there has been very considerable delay in the carrying out of a number of Air Ministry contracts, and that we are a very long way behind Germany in many respects. I should like, if possible, to have some reassurance on this point. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter which deserves the attention of the Air Ministry in dealing with contractors, that they should take steps to satisfy themselves that the personal staff of some of the manufacturers producing aeroplanes and other parts is really effective for the purpose. I believe that there are cases where the people in charge, not in all cases but in some, have not had the experience that is necessary, and it might be very useful to strengthen staffs on the engineering and business side.
      There is also room for improvement in the organisation and production of small parts, which is not in as effective a condition at the present time as it ought to be. It has been suggested that we ought to go in for the development of national factories, and some steps in that direction ought to be taken. The Air Ministry might usefully give consideration to Hen-low, and ask whether there are not facilities there for starting a Government factory. The Under-Secretary made reference to the system of costing and cutting down of the profit on Air Ministry contracts. I believe that that does good, and is working remarkably well in many respects. But I wonder whether they have provided for economies in the sense that
      290
      it is to the advantage of the manufacturer to produce articles at as low a price as possible. If you allow a small fixed profit the manufacturer has no great incentive to economise, and I hope that that point is not being overlooked. The Under-Secretary did not make any reference to the matter to which the Secretary of State for War referred the other day. It is a very interesting point, and affects the air also. The Under-Secretary referred to many interesting new developments, but he did not tell us whether it is proposed to do what films have shown that the Soviet Air Force is doing. Not only can they carry, and drop 6,000 armed men by means of parachutes over a certain territory, but they cart follow it up by great aeroplanes containing many more men and landing them, with tanks carried between the wheels of the undercarriages. It is a very startling proposition. I hope that he has seen the film, and has the possibilities fully in mind.
      Corning to the question of civil aviation, I wish to raise the question of the position of Imperial Airways. It may well be that the right thing is to make Imperial Airways your one and only way of dealing with civil aviation—I have no very fixed views about it—but it is essential that the country and the various people interested in these lines should know exactly where they stand, as they do not know at the present time. In their interesting annual report, Imperial Airways say that they are "virtually a national undertaking" and it might be worth while making them entirely a national undertaking. I believe that it is commonly said that the civil aviation section of the Air Ministry is situated at the office of Imperial Airways. There may be a good deal in that. In the annual report of the Imperial Airways, and dealing with the safety of flight, this statement is made:
      "The insurance rates for passengers travelling by our services were (and, of course, still are) the same per day of travel as those quoted for land and sea transport; owing to our greater speed the rates for the voyage are therefore lower than by rail or sea."
      It should be appreciated that it is less dangerous to travel by air than it is by sea or on land. The question with reference to the position of Imperial Airways and others not associated with them, is whether other firms, who are prepared to run services without subsidy

      291
      of any kind, are to be permitted to do so. Will they be obstructed and discouraged in any way by the Air Ministry if they start to operate services? There are certain firms in existence. There is the Jersey Airways carrying 20,000 people in a year without any accident or any subsidy at all or any mail contract. It is doing quite well. There is another firm willing without subsidy to organise a service to South America and to South Africa, going by the West Coast and doing the journey in 2½ days, as against the seven days which are now taken, and also prepared to undertake a service across the Atlantic via the Azores in 36 hours. It is vitally important to shock Americans out of their isolation and bring them as close to us as possible. We are entitled to be told specifically whether, if such a company desired to start a service of that kind to any of these places, they would be allowed to do so? Is there any legal objection or any objection on the part of the Air Ministry I Would they be allowed to compete for mail contracts on equal terms with Imperial Airways? I am not concerned as to what the answer may be, but it should be a very clear and definite answer for the benefit of the firms concerned.
      There is the case of a company well known to the right hon. Gentleman—the Irish Trans-Atlantic Corporation Limited. They have, for some time past, been in touch with the Air Ministry, and for a number of years have been engaged—contact has been kept with them and information has been given—in various schemes for flying the Atlantic via the Irish Free State and Londonderry. Suddenly in October last this contact was cut off and they were told that there was nothing doing and that Imperial Airways held the rights. That may be in order, but it was most unfair to encourage this company all these years in believing that they had any chance at all. I feel that the Air Ministry has not at all happily handled these particular questions.
      I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a question following what I put to him a week or two ago—whether it is proposed in due course to publish in any form the Air Survey Report? It would be of great interest if that could be done. What steps is he taking to secure that
      292
      the system of directional and blind landing is put into operation at the aerodromes in this country? One is being tested at Heston at the present time, but the system is universal and compulsory in America. It enables landing in thick fog, and obviously should be encouraged and supported in every way. We seem to be a long way behind in regard to that matter. Can the Under-Secretary state the position with regard to the use of the Sperry automatic pilot which is very largely used in flying in America, but only to a very small extent here. In the long flights of imperial Airways, when there is only one pilot carried, it would greatly relieve the strain if the automatic pilot were available for use. I hope that steps are being taken to encourage the use of this device.
      The question of fuel reserve arises in connection with the accident at Alexandra, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could say what increase in reserve has been authorised or made compulsory. He said that there had been some increase, but I should like to know how much. In America the fuel reserve is 45 minutes more than the longest journey ever logged, which seems to be a very satisfactory arrangement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these various points and to give replies wherever he can. I am most anxious, as I am sure are all hon. Members, to see this country leading the way in the air, as we have led the way on the seas all down the centuries. I am sure that in the skill of our engineers and in the courage and daring of our pilots we have the material to enable us to do so.
      5.57 p.m.
      Mr. J. RATHBONE: I rise on this the first occasion I have had the honour to address this House to deal with one point, and one point only, which I propose to pursue to its logical conclusion. I was deeply impressed by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) made recently, in which lie emphasised the essence of speed in a national emergency, speed in the mobilisation of our forces, military and industrial. I believe that our industries can be and will be mobilised in such a way that they will be prepared to meet a suddenly increased demand of material at the shortest possible notice. Aircraft and their component parts and

      293
      instruments can be replaced, but I am trying to make the point that, with every aircraft that is shot down or that crashes, there goes also a man, a skilled pilot, and perhaps with him an observer, a gunner or a wireless operator, who are not so easy to replace, and who have only been produced after long and careful training and careful physical selection. It is those men of whom I am thinking. Where is the source from which speedy expansion of personnel can be found?
      Family tradition sends young men into the Army and into the Navy. The Air Force has not been long enough in existence for the family tradition to have grown up, Boys go from public schools through Sandhurst to the Army. Why not through Cranwell to the Air Force? Hon. and right hon. Members whose blue stripes have temporarily disappeared from their black ties will remember the existence of the Army Class. Why not Air Force Class? Young pilots are wanted, and they are to be found in our public schools. Sufficient encouragement is not given to the boys in our schools to draw their attention seriously to the openings there are for them in a Force which is becoming equally as important to the safety of the nation as are the Navy and the Army. Not all of those who are willing to go into the Reserve force are able to do so on account of their occupations, and I welcome as much as anything in the Memorandum the statement which announces that the whole system of training for the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force is going to be arranged as far as possible to allow people going into the Reserve not to have to give long periods of their time at one stretch to their training. What really alarmed me was the passage in the Memorandum which says:
      "With so large an entry of new personnel, it has been essential to increase the number of skilled and experienced officers and airmen in the Service. This has been secured, as regards officers, by retaining selected permanent officers beyond the normal age of retirement, and by granting extensions of service and additional permanent commissions to short-service and medium-service officers."
      I respectfully submit that that is not finding new personnel; it is retaining the personnel you already have for a longer period, and it is a procedure which cannot go on for ever. That is why I am trying to find new sources whereby
      294
      we can find the personnel not only to meet the present increase in the Air Force, but to meet what is perhaps even more important, the necessity which will arise in the most unfortunate event of our finding ourselves not merely on the brink of a national emergency but actually at war. It is only the small proportion of the civil population which is air-minded to which we can turn in. such an eventuality, and, therefore, it is surely important to give this small proportion of the air-minded population every encouragement to increase in keenness, in numbers and in efficiency. There are, I think, three serious discouragements to the expansion of civil flying; and when I speak of civil flying I am referring more to the owner-pilots. It is the owner-pilot who will be wanted in the case of emergency. First and foremost is the lack of aerodromes. There is not one single official aerodrome in the whole of the county of Cornwall, and only one official landing-place, which is without any amenities for housing, has no petrol pump and no services of any kind. The centre of Cornwall is some 250 miles from London, and if proper flying facilities were provided Cornwall could be brought three hours nearer to London.
      The same principle applies to other outlying parts of the country. In the very fact that they are outlying is inherent the possibility of a great expansion in flying facilities; it is more worth while if you can save a lot of time than if you are only going to save a few minutes on a short journey. In these outlying districts civil flying is never thought of as being a practical and useful idea. It is looked upon as a sort of sport which a, limited number of people in the Midlands and Home Counties indulge in—people who can afford to drive out to an aerodrome and fly around for an hour or two without any particular destination in mind. Until you have aerodromea in these outlying districts and can show the people that flying is a practical proposition you will not get that increase in air-mindedness or an increase in the number of owner-pilots which we all desire. The Under-Secretary announced with some satisfaction an increase of 20 per cent. over last year. I am not suggesting that these aerodromes need be anything very splendid. The main essentials are an unobstructed piece of ground, a wind indicator, a

      295
      petrol pump and a hut for a telephone communicating with the nearest garage.
      These reserve civil aerodromes are desirable not only from the civil point of view but from the point of view of the Air Force as well. From my own limited experience of flying I know how awkward it can be to have a bomb crater on one side of the aerodrome, such as there was at Manston, and I cannot imagine any hostile bombers desisting from doing all they can to create such craters on every possible military aerodrome within reach. These aerodromes are well known to the enemy. You cannot hide an aerodrome, and, therefore, I think the Air Force might be very grateful for these alternative flying grounds from which to operate. Another of the discouragements which I have in mind is the weather, which in this country is not very reliable. To a great extent it could be overcome if we could be told what the weather was really going to be like during the next 24 hours. There is a Vote for the Meteorological Services, and I hope that through an expansion of these services more localised news might be given in the local papers. A pilot might defer making his journey by the weather locally, but by looking at the weather news he would know that half an hour's flying would bring him into perfect weather for his journey. It is easier to know the weather conditions with an east wind coming across the Continent. The weather can be watched the whole way, but it is not so easy when the weather conditions are coming from the west, with a "depression centred over Iceland."
      Another discouragement I want to mention are these great steel pylons carrying high tension wires across the countryside. They are not only a constant danger to aircraft but a blot on the countryside. They are going up in increasing numbers, and, therefore, it is even more difficult for the private owner to find landing grounds near his destination, because these high tension wires invariably converge near a town. I hope it will be considered possible, without any great increase in cost, to put these high tension wires underground wherever possible.
      I have tried to make my point; the importance of encouraging civil aviation to provide a source of skilled pilots who may he called upon to step into the breach between the commencement of hostilities and
      296
      the time when new ab initio pupils are ready for active service. There is bound to be delay. If I have made that point it only remains for me with the greatest sincerity to thank hon. Members for the patience and indulgence with which they have listened to me.
      6.13 p.m.
      Captain GUEST: I know that there are a large number of hon. Members who want to take part in the Debate and therefore I propose to occupy only a limited number of minutes of precious time, but I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) upon a speech full of charm, lucidity and value, and I hope that we shall hear him very soon again in these Debates. I also want to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Air Estimates on five occasions, and each time he has done it better than the time before. I have never heard it handled so well as to-day. It may be that those who are interested in Air matters are feeling that at last the Government have grasped the problem which has been confronting the country for the last three or four years. I and my Friends have been pressing this question in the best way we could during the whole of the last three Sessions. Events have turned out more or less in the way we predicted, and now the Government are grasping the problem with courage and determination. I have very little comment to pass upon the programme they have presented to the House. A Debate on the Air Estimates, however, is a chance of dealing with details, and I propose to do so this evening.
      I hope that any bon. Member who has already spoken in the Debate will not think me discourteous if I do not follow them into questions of foreign policy, League of Nations, Western Air Pact, all of which I admit are closely interwoven with the subject, but the Air Estimates contain a mass of hard facts and figures and this is our opportunity of taking a view of them and passing judgment upon them. Let me also say how much we on this side of the House welcome the speech which was delivered from the Liberal benches. Having once grasped the fact that air supremacy is of importance, we have to ask ourselves how are we to keep it. The hon. Member who spoke last rightly said that the only way to

      297
      keep air supremacy is to have a nation that is air-minded and an immense number of people who are able to use the air. It takes between one and two years satisfactorily to train a pilot, and it takes between one and two months to produce a machine. Therefore, I hope the Government will devote even greater concentration than they have so far upon increasing the number of pilots who would be available in case of difficulty or trouble.
      I listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman concerning the response in connection with pilot recruitment, and I think I quote him correctly when I say that he told the House that there are something like 1,700 extra pilots. Here again the hon. Member opposite very wisely and cleverly pointed out that they are not by any means all new pilots, but they are additional to the strength with which we started 18 months ago. Nevertheless, I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me that at the most this will bring the military pilot strength up to a figure slightly above 6,000. The figure which was given to me in 1935—I think rather conservatively—was 4,000 military pilots. Let us say that some of those are included in the figure of 1,700 given to-night. We were told that these 1,700 are additional, but they cannot be; they must be one or the other. Let us, however, take the figure of 6,000, and to that add the civil pilots of whom we know. The only way of finding out the number of civil pilots is to obtain the records of licences taken out. The sad thing about the licences taken out is that nearly 50 per cent. are allowed to lapse, which brings me to another point to which I will refer in a few minutes. But taking the whole pilot strength of the country, and being as generous as possible both to the military and to the civil side, I very much doubt whether there are to-day 10,000 people in England who can fly. Probably the figure is very much less.
      What do we carry in our mind as a means of comparison? Why have we increased the expenditure on the Air Force from £23,000,000 to £39,000,000? The reason is that we feel it to be the duty of the Government to insure the country and the population for whom they are responsible against risk. The risk must come from somewhere, and that is my only excuse for suggesting—not con-
      298
      troversially, but in a most uncontroversial spirit—that it must be in relation to the strength of some other Power which may be a potential menace. It was wisely said by the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches that this is the worst possible moment for anyone in this House to say anything which might be taken wrongly or which might interfere with the good feelings which at present exist, but one has to be on the safe side.
      Figures have been given in this House—and they have never been contradicted—which lead me to think that Germany has an air force and an air pilot resource far in excess of ours. The figures that stay in my memory are, first of all, that in 1934–35 she spent £25,000,000 on civil aviation. I stated that figure in the House last year, and I state it again; it is from the best source I can get it, and it has never been contradicted. A figure was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—which has not yet been contradicted—that Germany's total military expenditure during the last 12 or 14 months was £1,500,000,000. If those figures are anything like a fair estimate or a fair gauge of Germany's effort in military development, it is perfectly certain from the figure which I mention—I admit I took it from a newspaper, but one which has made an intensive study of the figures—that Germany has at least from 18,000 to 25,000 pilots capable of navigating an air machine. That being the case, I urge the Minister to devote more and more efforts to teaching young England to get into the air.
      I have a concrete suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will give it reasonable consideration. A branch of the Air Force which is known to everybody is the Territorial section, which is officially described as the Auxiliary Air Force, a development of the last seven to nine years, which in many ways has met with great success. As far as it has been able to go, it has achieved very considerable efficiency, but I think it is run on the wrong lines. One change which has been made during the last three years has been to convert some of the squadrons from bombing squadrons into fighting squadrons. I think the time has come to change it from the regimental unit basis on which it was built up into a reservoir of pilots.

      299
      I will explain to the House what I mean. In the City of London, with a certain number of aerodromes around it, it would be possible to train hundreds of pilots, the Air Force, of course, having to supply and to take care of the machines. The young men who are working most of the day have not much time to give to regimental life, but they would have time, if they loved flying, to go through their training, to become pilots, and, after a year or two, to pass into the Reserve. I am saying that against a unit which I had the honour to command for six years, a unit to which I was devoted as the unit in which I served when I was much younger; but, as the difficulty is the schooling of pilots, I am convinced that the Territorial movement should be a school for pilots and that there should be no attempt to keep it on a regimental unit basis. The Territorial section is not supported by reserves and its equipment is really of a skeleton nature. To call the units first line units for purposes of home defence is a mistake, and I think it would also prove to be somewhat of an illusion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this as a practical suggestion.
      The hon. Member who preceded me said that civil aviation is being neglected, and that it is only by civil aviation and its development that one can hope to make the country air-minded, and still further to increase the reservoir of pilots. Let us for a moment consider the figures. The right hon. Gentleman made the very welcome statement that the net figure of £595,000 devoted to civil aviation has been increased to £746,000, an increase of 28 per cent. I welcome that increase, as I welcome any increase, but the figure of £746,000 devoted to the encouragement of civil aviation must be compared with the total vote of £39,000,000. I believe that if the ratio were altered a little, and if more money were spent on civil aviation, less money would need to be spent on the military side. A large part of the increase of £17,000,000 is to go to works, buildings and premises in which to house our increased Force.
      One of the greatest statesmen in this House, the father of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), said to me: "I am perfectly certain you are
      300
      right in pressing upon the House every time you have the chance that civil aviation is the foundation and backbone of all military national defence." He may be wrong, but I doubt it. The only attack I have to make upon the Government is that they have persistently refused to accept that idea. I am certain they have made a grave mistake.
      Why is it necessary to spend money on civil aviation? It Las already been mentioned in this Debate that without ground organisation you can hardly fly, at any rate with any punctuality or safety. The comparison, between our expenditure and that which is made by other countries is lamentable. In spite of the fact that we are the richest country in the world, no attempt is made to give the equipment necessary to enable commercial aviation to function. I welcome the trans-Atlantic start and I welcome the flights of the West African section and the Penang and B or. g Kong flights; but civil aviation is starved, and I believe the best way in which to spend an additional million of money would he in the encouragement of civil aviation in every form.
      I do not say that there should be an increase in the subsidy to Imperial Airways, and at this moment I do not wish to raise the question as to whether it is good or bad to have a monopoly. I will simply mention the fact that out of the total contribution of £760,000 for civil aviation, the monopoly takes about fivesixths—nearly all of it, apart from a small contribution to the clubs and a small contribution to gliding. I will not dwell upon that at length, but I will point out that if men and women are enabled to learn to fly and to take the refresher course which is necessary to keep them on the A licence list, there is a potential reserve of pilots in case of need.
      I was greatly pleased with the grant of £5,000 to gliding. I do not know whether there is any hon. Member in this House who takes an interest in gliding, but anyone who has such an interest will agree with me that if a person is able to glide, if he is able to handle the machine in the air without an engine, to stay up, to land safely and to maneouvre the machine, as the Germans have shown it can be done, that is a big stepping-stone towards air control. I will give the House a figure to show

      301
      how little the Government have appreciated the necessity of studying the question. In Germany there were issued in the year 1935 13,000 A gliding licences, and in this country 927 were issued. The value of that figure is simply to show that that bright, up-to-date and advanced country has appreciated what the Government will not even look at, so obsessed are they with the disinclination to assist civil aviation. I know the reason for that disinclination. It is that the whole policy of the Government is based on a statement made 12 or 14 years ago by the then Secretary of State for Air, who said that civil aviation must learn to fly for itself. That would be all very well if the same were the case in every other country, but nowhere is that the case to-day.
      My concluding remarks are of a highly controversial nature. I do not wish to make an attack on anybody, but to make a controversial suggestion. When I first became interested in this subject, I started as a protagonist for the independence of the Air Ministry. I was trained in that school of thought, and I was convinced over 12 years ago that if that battle was not won, the country would be the sufferer. The battle was won, and the independence of the Air Ministry was established in the House of Commons once and for all. But time has passed since then, and public opinion now appreciates that the air is the connecting link between the other two Services and itself. Unless we think out a system of coordination between the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, we shall simply be suffering through prejudice and through obstinate jealousy.
      I submit that the Government should consider very carefully whether they can see some way to improve the relationship between the three Services. At this moment it gives me the greatest pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Defence Co-ordination on the Front Bench, because it enables me to address to him my two or three final remarks. For a long time the Air Ministry was disinclined to give way on anything, and the result was that there was endless strife, particularly with the Navy. It never seems to have been quite settled, but I feel now that we have a coordinator—it is as that that I want to address the right hon. Gentleman—of the three Services, a chance is given to him
      302
      to reconsider whether the link cannot be made better use of and whether the air cannot be much more impregnated with naval officers and vice versa. I should like to see men serve their flying life with the Air Force and afterwards return to their mother service, so that both the Army and the Navy would have men in their ranks who had had air experience and so that, unless a man had had that experience, he was not considered a first-class sailor or soldier.
      6.31 p.m.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now that the Co-ordinator has come in the Debate takes on a livelier aspect. I am not prepared to argue with my old colleague who has just sat down, but I am certain that the arguments he has put forward are sound. I am, however, prepared to argue with the Under-Secretary and the two other Under-Secretaries to whom we have listened this week each on their own particular section of defence. Each one of them has made exactly the same sort of speech that he might have made three or 10 years ago. Each has made a speech completely in vacuo. He has never thought of any other country in the world, and each has thought, "How can we spend this money which we have managed to screw out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The three Services skirmish together to see who shall get the most money, and, having got it, they make plans how to spend it. They produce their Estimates, in which they state exactly how the money is to be spent, but they never give us any of the arguments which have led to the allocation of the money. There is a complete vacuum round each Department. The Under-Secretary to-day made a clear statement of the way in which he was going to spend his money. I believe it would be bad form for a Service Minister to refer to another Department, and he never referred to any co-operation with the Navy or the Army. He regarded his own Department as the only one which need be considered at the present moment, a moment when we are considering the defence of our country in a considerable and dangerous crisis.
      We are to consider the allotment of some £300,000,000 under the new White Paper on defence. Whether the money is to be wasted or not depends, as I believe every Member in the House can agree very largely, upon an exhaustive

      303
      experiment into the actual power of air bombing against ships and land fortifications. It is obvious that £1,000,000 spent on an experiment carried out jointly by the two or three Departments, should really determine once and for all whether the air menace is a menace to ships, and would save us millions of pounds in the next few years. None of the three Under-Secretaries has mentioned it. None of the three Departments has thought of it. Yet here we are going on in the same old way, although this is the question which is exercising every head of every armed force in every country. That is what I call arguing in vacuo, and that is why I am glad we have the co-ordinator because, if he co-ordinates nothing else, he might set on foot an experiment which could be relied on. It is no use having an experiment carried on by each Department. If the Navy is in charge, you will find that bombs never drop near the ships, and that if they hit the ships they will not do any harm. If they are carried out by the Air Force, by themselves, every hit will be registered and not an aeroplane will be touched by anti-aircraft guns. It must be a joint experiment over which will preside, not the presiding genius of each Department, but somebody whose judgment can be trusted in the interests of the community. Is it so? Does the Air Service never consider the other Departments, never consider any of the problems which are taxing the whole world to-clay, never touch anti-aircraft guns or aircraft carriers, which to my mind are death traps? All these matters of controversy were left out of the speech. Instead of that, we had some idea of how the money was actually going to be spent.
      I turn from that side of isolation to another. We are either part of the League of Nations or we are not. All the Cabinet believe that we are part of the League. All the world outside knows that there is only one danger spot at the present time. How do you relate your expenditure on the Air Force to the League of Nations? What are the special dangers we are facing to-day? How do you relate your expenditure to the new problem of unannounced war? What changes have you made by reason of the fact that we can
      304
      reasonably expect assistance from a great many other Governments in the operations in which we may be engaged in future? What arrangements have been made about sharing aerodromes, about getting information as to where the aerodromes are? Above all, what information has been pooled as to the types of machines and the training of the people who are to use them? Does the Under-Secretary know what is being done in Germany to-day, and, what is more important, what is being done in Russia? Has there been any sort of co-operation between the staffs? Above all, does he know what they are doing in America? I have always been told, and I think with some truth, that the three nations who are best at fighting in the air are the Americans, the English and the Germans. I do not know whether that be so or not. It is most refreshing if true. Those airmen will be 100 per cent. more valuable if we can collect and use every idea that is evolved in the other countries in the League of Nations. Under the old idea, of course, it would be spying to try and find out what they were doing in France or America or Russia. Under the new conditions it is no longer spying, but common sense to find out what the other nations are doing.
      I do not know anything about it. I once had a Commission in the Royal Naval Air Service; but they tell me that the Americans have made two great changes recently, and I do not believe that the Under-Secretary knows anything about them. One is a new form of fire extinguisher; instead of phosgene, they used something else so that a red hot exhaust does not fire the petrol. The other is that every member of the ground staff in the American Air Force, whether he be intended for a pilot or not, and whether he be an officer or not, is trained to ride a motor cycle, to drive a motor car and to fly an aeroplane. It is part of their training that there is no hard-and-fast definition, as there is in our service, between the officer and the noncommissioned offices and man. The noncommissioned officers and the ground staff are supposed to learn how to pilot an aeroplane. They thus get reserves, and instead of having, as we have, 25,000 men of whom only 2,500 are able to fly a machine, they are all supposed to be

      305
      able to do that if need be. In addition, they are all trained in radio-telegraphy.
      There is a change coining, I am told from America, in the method of conducting aerial war. Whereas at the present time the squadron is commanded and directed by the officer with the squadron up aloft, now, owing to the development of radio telegraphy, operations are directed much more from the ground and the orders are sent up from there. Just as in the Army the officers no longer fight in the front rank but direct from behind, so in the air the officer now will direct his squadrons and the formations up aloft from the ground. That is important, of course, because the enemy squadrons may be out of sight higher up. The fact that they are flying on different layers means that direction from the ground is essential because news has to come from all quarters to headquarters on the ground before it can get back to the squadrons in the air. On account of that, the place of the officer in the Air Force is no longer in the fighting aeroplane and his place tends to become more and more on the ground. I am a complete amateur civilian talking about matters of which I do not know anything, but these are the things I have gathered by casually talking to American pilots. I should be much happier if I felt that the right hon. Gentleman's Department was keeping in constant contact with what is being done everywhere else, not only so as to help our force, but so as to give to those other forces in the League of Nations which should be allied with us the latest and best information as to British aeroplanes.
      We have to get out of our heads the old idea that the whole world was our enemy from whom we had to conceal things and that we had to build up a force capable. of tackling one, two or three Powers, and to realise instead that the British Air Force is becoming more and more part of an international police force in which information must be pooled, risks must be taken jointly, and costs divided out so that no member of the League bears more than his fair share of what is to be done. I apologise as a civilian for taking up so much time, but I hope that when these Estimates are introduced in future we shall not merely have a statement of how the money is to go, but a statement of what part the British Air Force is bearing in the collective work of the air forces of
      306
      the world, and how the Air Force itself is collaborating with the Army and Navy in order to give the maximum amount of support for this country at a minimum of expenditure.
      6.45 p.m.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We always enjoy a speech from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and always feel that he succeeds in hitting the nail on the head. He and I are both lucky to-day, because we are addressing the House in the presence of the great Co-ordinator, and it would be extremely pleasant if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to say something about co-ordination. We have had a Debate on Defence, and two Debates on the Services, this being the third, and no word about co-ordination has been said from the Treasury Bench. Of course, we are handicapped, from the Parliamentary point of view, for this reason, that it is out of order to speak on another Service when one particular Service is under discussion. We try to get over that Parliamentary difficulty by having a Debate on Defence, but whenever we do so it invariably becomes a, Debate on foreign policy, and so we go on, year after year, without ever getting any nearer to what we desire. I pay my humble tribute to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He said that this was the fifth year in which he had presented the Air Estimates to the House. He certainly should be a practised hand and indeed he is. I listened to his speech with very great pleasure and I thought the peroration reached a very high level indeed. It seemed to be rather a copy of one of my own, but it was extremely good.
      His speech was interesting not so much from the point of what it said as what it left out. One of the things which technical development has brought about, and which has fundamentally altered military tactics in the air, is the enormous increase in speed of long-range bombers. That has been brought about by intensive competition between air lines in America. So much is that the case that whereas two or three years ago we thought we could defend ourselves against long-range bombers by high speed fighters, the present position is that the long-range bomber is very nearly as fast as the fighter, and that puts one country more

      307
      at the mercy of another than it ever was before. I regard it as an extremely disquieting state of affairs. All the old ideas of fighting in the air are, at present speeds, quite impossible. The difference in speed between the fighter and the long-range bomber is small, and as the range of the fighter is also small it looks to me as though they will probably never meet.
      My right hon. Friend said in his peroration that he hoped that by means of the air all peoples would so to speak become an aerial police force. I think that is coining about. I have never noticed that there was any particular enmity between the various air forces of the world, and if bungling politicians, whatever their nationality, cause a war I know that it will be with the very greatest regret that any air officers, to whatever country they belong, will fight in the air again. In Germany we have seen great aerodromes positioned in the West, and it would look as though they were designated to serve against us, but, of course, the very opposite is the case. Nobody would put an aerodrome in the West if they thought it was possible that it would be bombed from a country like our own, so that all their arrangements are not directed against us, but, more probably, directed towards the East. Although we have to prepare so as not to be inferior to any other nation I think that the mentality of the flyer is giving to ideas that internationalisation of spirit which no other development has so far brought about.
      The Air Ministry have been proceeding with an enormous expansion programme. Hitherto I have always criticised the Air Ministry for its lack of ability to produce machines that were anything like up to date. The procedure was for a specification to be issued and for firms to design machines according to the specification and send drawings to the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry selected one or two designs and ordered prototype machines to be constructed. These were finally built and then sent to Martlesham Heath, where invariably one or two crashed. Others were built and they were then sent to Farnborough and remained there for a long time while alterations were made by the Air Ministry, and finally they were put into production. Between the
      308
      issue of the original specification and the aeroplane coming into the squadrons there was a lag of nearly seven years. I think that statement is best exemplified in the case of the Hendon and the Hey-ford aeroplanes. Under those conditions it was impossible ever to have in a squadron an aeroplane which could be in any way called up-to-date.
      Now I am delighted to see the extraordinary change which has come over the Air Ministry, under the pressure of world events. I will give an instance of their up-to-dateness which is worthy to be brought to the notice of the House. Lord Rothermere wens to a firm of aeroplane makers and said "Please make me the best aeroplane in the world and in six months the manufacturers produced something which was so outstandingly better than anything in the Air Force that the Air Force ordered 150 of them straightaway. It is true that the Air Ministry saved their faces by introducing a few alterations, but even without any alteration the machine would have been outstandingly the best machine we could possibly have had in the Air Force. I think that shows that some of our criticism in the past was justified. If we are to have these go ahead methods in the future I congratulate the Air Ministry on its change. If the great Departments of State which look after the Fighting Services are to be of any value at all they ought to be organised so as to be ready for war. It became evident in the last war that models and types of machines had to be changed very quickly in order to keep ahead of the enemy in technical equipment. If that cannot be done we must fall behindhand and must automatically be defeated. Nobody can say that the organisation of the Air Ministry in the past would enable it to deal with that situation should war arise. Therefore I am glad to see the change. My right hon. Friend said a word about the high price of aircraft shares. I am not a manufacturer or a holder of aircraft shares, but I must remind the House that in the ease of aeroplanes we are not building sterotyped machines. Brains are of the essence of the problem. It is not a matter of mass production. Unless we pay for she brains that invent and develop aircraft ahead of somebody else we shall not have the best machines in the world. That is the essence of the problem in aviation.

      309
      May I say a word about co-ordination? My right hon. Friend made a point which I was going to stress about the eternal question of the battleship versus the aeroplane. My Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, when speaking for the Navy yesterday, mentioned that there had been some experiments, but are these experiments to be kept secret for ever? There were some experiments in America. Some old German battleships were taken out to sea and the Press of America was invited to come to see how very innocuous attacks upon them from the air would be, and the attacks would indeed have been very innocuous if the Navy had been left to do the job. Unfortunately, General Mitchell surprised the world by saying that he was going to attack these battleships, and, to the immense annoyance of the Navy, he entirely destroyed them with a few bombs. That was a most distressing business for their Navy. But I think we are liable to get some false. impressions from what happened at that time. No doubt strengthening the armour on the deck of battleships has very much improved battleships. Cannot we be told whether any actual experiments to prove what defence exists against aerial bombardment have been undertaken? Is that to be a. secret not to be known to the world?
      Then there is the question of what is called the "near miss." Has the "near miss" a serious effect on the hull of a battleship, as Americans say it has We do not know these things. I do not know whether they should be kept secret or not, but I feel that the House would be very much happier if the Under-Secretary had told us that a real series of experiments had been undertaken along these lines. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said the other day that a Committee should be set up to co-ordinate the type of investigation to be undertaken, because no amount of talking will decide these points. The only thing that will decide is actual experiments, although I realise that we cannot get a complete replica of wartime conditions. My hon. Friend who spoke from the Liberal benches mentioned the question of landing troops not only by aeroplanes but by parachute. That sounds fantastic now, but in a few years time such things do not become
      310
      fantastic. It is a new development such as must follow from the conquest of the air. War is three dimensional now, not two. The Secretary of State for War said the other day that they were looking on with interest at these experiments but were not going to do anything. Is it within the province of my right hon. and learned Friend to send a battalion of infantry to jump out of aeroplanes? A new horror will be added to the life of infantrymen if that is the case. But who is going to do the experiment? I cannot see that any machinery exists to start an experiment of that sort. Perhaps the great co-ordinator will undertake it, though I do not think he will be popular when he gives his first orders to some regiment to jump out of aeroplanes.
      I have just one word to say on civilian aviation. I have been, and I always shall he, firm in my belief that civil aviation has nothing to do with the Air Ministry at all, and the sooner we take it away from the Air Ministry the better, more especially as the Air Ministry have a Herculean job to look after the defence of the country at the present moment. The lack of logic in the matter is, to me, astounding. If the motor car had been invented during the War then, on the present analogy, all motoring in this country would have been controlled by the War Office, and we should have had machine guns in the back of every car or else we should be going about with truck machines. That is the sort of development which would be going on.
      I do not know whether from the point of view of the Empire it is right to have an Imperial Airways Company or whether it is best to run the thing from the point of view of the State. These things, like Socialism, vary between extremes. But I am very unhappy in my mind as to whether the present system is the right one, and when I see the Secretary of State and Sir Eric Geddes going up and down the country like a couple of back-scratch artists, one saying how marvellous the Air Ministry is, and the other saying how marvellous Imperial Airways is, I get very suspicious of the position. If we are going to spend taxpayers' money on the necessary development of Imperial Airways I would like to see that money spent on ground organisation so that there would be ground organisation available for everyone. But I do not like to see the use

      311
      of the taxpayers' money to start depots for the use of one company and one company alone. There are some things in connection with this which I must raise at a later time on the introduction of the Air Navigation Bill, including the disinclination of Australia to come into the Empire arrangements. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that anybody, if he so desires, can fly and try to make money anywhere over the world without subsidy, but also without obstruction from the Air Ministry? Is the whole machinery of the Air Ministry going to be used against the company or individual who tries to start a line? Are the Government going to be so wrapped up as shareholders in Imperial Airways that they are going to try to stop anybody who tries to take a part in this?
      I cannot close without congratulating the Air Ministry on the way they have grappled with a difficult problem. I saw the Air Ministry born, I saw it attacked, I have seen it, nearly destroyed by the other Services. I know that in the first six years it had to fight for its life against the older Services. Let us remember that that is finished now. It has got to be our main line of defence and as efficient as possible. Since last year there has been an enormous improvement.
      7.4 p.m.
      Mr. ECKERSLEY: On rising for the first time in this House I would ask the indulgence which the House always gives to people in the position in which I find myself now. I would not have taken up the time of the House this evening were it not for the fact that I hope to touch for a very few minutes on a subject with which I have been closely connected for many years. I want to develop very slightly the theme of the light aeroplane club, which has already been touched on by two or three speakers. But before I do that perhaps it would not be considered presumptuous if I congratulated the Under-Secretary on the magnificent preparations which have been made for the defence of this country from air attack. It seems to be universally agreed that civil aviation must form a background of reserve pilots for the fighting service. This has been recognised by the Government in the provision of Air Ministry schools for the teaching of pilots. But
      312
      there is a certain class of young man in this country who is keen to fly, who will make and does make a magnificent pilot, but who cannot for several reasons enter any of these schools. For this reason I feel that the light aeroplane clubs have not yet reached the limit of their usefulness to the Air Ministry.
      The Under-Secretary gave us a figure of 3,000 pilots who have been trained by these clubs. That is a considerable figure, and although all these pilots will not necessarily keep up their licences I believe that a fair percentage do so. We have had it said many times in this House within the last few weeks that the country in order to evade war must be prepared. I believe that that does not only mean that the fighting services should be in a high state of efficiency, but that the whole country should be organised behind those Services in order to supply them in war. If this is so, surely we should take every possible step to encourage every young man to fly whenever possible. In my own club we have noticed during the last few months two rather regrettable signs. One is that we are experiencing more difficulty in attracting new pupils, and, second, some of our experienced pilots—only a few, I am glad to say—are drifting away. The second of these two facts may be put down to an admirable cause; they are joining the Reserve training schools for the main part. But this affects the clubs financially; they may not lose members' subscriptions, but they must lose the subsidy for renewal of their licences. The other point is much more serious. It means that we have come to saturation point of the class of young man who financially is able to fly and has the wish to do so. It is possibly our duty to expand and to try to draw in the next class of young man from the financial point of view.
      To do this we shall need more money, and it is for that reason that I am speaking to-night. I know that the Air Ministry will find great difficulty in re-organising the present system of subsidies. I would not suggest for one moment that the combined resources of the Air Ministry would find this task impossible. Perhaps something could be done in the way of a rebate on the duty on petrol used in the aeroplanes. If this were done we should he able to draw into the scheme of these clubs young men

      313
      who at present cannot possibly afford to fly. I suppose that all hon. Members will agree with me that one of the tragic things from the flying point of view in the last War was the number of young pilots who were killed while training and before they got to France. Almost as tragic was the number of young pilots who went to France with little experience and were comparatively easy prey for the more experienced German pilots. Something on the lines I have suggested should be done if that is to be obviated in the future. Finally, I do not think that the Government, from a purely social point of view, could do a finer act than to bring capital to the hands of thousands of young men who want to fly but cannot afford it. If the Under-Secretary could see his way to do something for them he would make many thousands of friends.
      7.11 p.m.
      Mr. GARRO-JONES: The hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) has many a time distinguished himself on the cricket field. This is the first time he has gone in to bat in the House of Commons and I think the House would wish me to congratulate him on a useful innings. I think that he placed his finger on a very important spot when he dealt with the training of pilots. I share his recollection of one of the tragedies of the last War, when pilots came out to fight at the front with only 20 hours' solo flying experience. I was perhaps even more than he able to appreciate the tragedy of their position, because I was an observer. Time after time I went up with these people whose valour was far greater than their skill. I hope that anything we can do will be done to prevent a repetition of that tragedy. The training of pilots is more important in my view than the question of production, because it will take longer to overcome the difficulties. At the conclusion of the War I took part in the organisation of the United States Air Force. At the beginning the United States had 400 or 500 pilots. When we returned at the end of the War they had over 10,000 pilots. I recognise that these figures do not represent the high degree of skill which our pilots must have. But when the right hon. Baronet spoke of 2,000 or 3,000 pilots being trained in the year, that led me to believe that the magnitude of this
      314
      problem of training pilots was not being properly appreciated.
      I wish to add, with great respect to the Under-Secretary, my protest against the fact that we have not a Cabinet Minister in charge of this spending department in this House. We find the Admiralty represented here by an Under-Secretary and the Air Ministry represented here by an Under-Secretary. I feel that it is less invidious of me to make this complaint on an occasion when the right hon. Baronet really distinguished himself in introducing these Estimates. He will forgive me if I say that I was surprised by the grip and the grasp which he showed. But I believe it to be wrong that we should have an Under-Secretary in charge of these Estimates, and particularly so at a time like this when also we have an Under-Secretary in charge of the Admiralty and a Minister with no service experience in charge of the co-ordination of defence. I will make this complaint in the words of a former Prime Minister, and I hope that Members of all parties on the back benches will insist that the House of Commons is entitled to have Cabinet Ministers in charge of the spending departments in this House. I shall not give the name of the ex-Prime Minister who uttered these words. Perhaps hon. Members will be able to recognise the style and find out the name for themselves. This is what he said:
      "Members of the Opposition bringing forward questions of importance, or urging inquiries of interest, are put in collision with gentlemen whose abilities we all recognise, who are frequently adequate to the offices they nominally hold, but are obliged to encounter us upon questions which no one can properly treat who is not in the counsels of his Sovereign, who is ignorant of the motives of the policy really pursued by the Cabinet, and who cannot enter into those engagements and make those representations which the authority of Ministers of the Crown alone entitles them to express."
      I believe that that lays down a classic Parliamentary principle, and I am content to leave it at that and to commend it to the notice of the Prime Minister.
      I do not intend to make an excessively long speech to-day, because the range is so wide. I intend to devote my main observations to the civil side. Before doing so, I wish to take advantage of the presence of the Co-ordination Minister on

      315
      the Front Bench to point out that there are two crucial and central problems which will be for him to solve. The first of them is: What is the comparative offensive and defensive power of aircraft and battleships? The second is: What is the practical possibility of defence against aerial aggression upon our great cities? Upon those two fundamental matters no authoritative information has ever been given to the House. If we could get some guidance on those two problems it would illuminate our discussions upon defence, while without that guidance we are discussing defence problems in the dark.
      Up till now we have heard that the Americans put out a few battleships—stationary battleships—which were bombed successfully by aeroplanes. Whereupon it was said that aeroplanes could sink battleships and battleships were no longer useful. Quite recently we have adopted, I believe, an opposite policy in this country. After the Navy had been pressed for many years to allow experiments to take place as to the offensive power of aircraft upon battleships—I trust I shall be corrected if I am doing them an injustice—the Air Ministry or the Navy itself sent up a few very slow machines known as Queen Bees, radio-controlled, to attack those British battleships. They travelled at about 80 miles an hour on the level, and were incapable of any manoeuvres such as war manoeuvres of evasion. They were successfully shot down by the battleships. If we are not to base our conclusions on the fact that stationary battleships, without firing their pom-poms or anti-aircraft guns, can be sunk by aeroplanes, or that slow, obsolete, radio-controlled aeroplanes can be sunk by battleships, it is of the first and fundamental importance that the question should be settled by every means that we can bring to bear upon it. In the last resort the human factor will be the unknown factor, and that is, how will they behave under fire? Short of that I believe we can do much to ascertain the comparative power of battleships and aeroplanes. I do not express an opinion on it, and I do not believe that any impartial judge would do so until he had more facts. My first plea to the Co-ordination Minister is that he should secure that these experiments should be made as far as possible.
      316
      I come to the question of the defence of London which, of course, is the outstanding question. I have had the advantage of discussion and friendship with a good many people whose task it will be to play their part in the defence of London. To-day, with a full knowledge of the facts, some of them are appalled at the position. I am not betraying confidential information when I say that, with a favouring wind, 2,000 bombers, launched from either one country or the other, could cross London at different altitudes and from different directions with devastating loads of bombs and in groups of 20, 40 or 50 at different times of the day, and could devastate London within a week. I believe that is unchallengeable as a strategical proposition, and yet we are not giving any information as to what steps the Government are taking to meet that situation. The other day I was reading of a power station which had broken down, and the long story of chaos of complete hold-up of traffic and of the whole operations of London as a result of that one breakdown, was appalling to anyone who realised how many times that danger and difficulty would be magnified if bombing machines were sent over London.
      What steps are being taken, if indeed we are in the peril which would warrant the White Paper and its vast expenditure, to meet a situation in which London would be made untenable as the Capital of this country? I believe that nothing has been done. I believe that if the General Post Office were bombed out of action next week, cur whole communications would be disorganised. The same with our power stations. What plans have been made? I believe that even the strategic defence of London depends upon the maintenance of the safety and the integrity of the capital. What steps have been taken? If none, I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see that steps are taken, so that even if the worst came to the worst and London were made untenable as the British Capital, that would not be the end of our struggle against any tyrannical invader.
      I am speaking in terms which I know do not always commend themselves to hon. Members on this side of the House. I trust that they are right when they think that these things ought not to be

      317
      countenanced. I mention them because I feel that however remote the possibility—I believe the possibility is remote—it is the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his new and onerous duty, a heavier duty perhaps than any Minister has ever held, to see that these steps are taken.
      I have said that I intended to speak only about civil aviation. That is the main purpose of my remarks to-day. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the relative importance of civil and military aviation is shown by the comparative figures of these sums, less than £1,000,000 for civil aviation and 30 or 40 times that amount for military aviation. I have collected a mass of information, but the House need not be alarmed. There is a lot of stuff with which I have decided not to burden hon. Members. I shall ask them in return to take for granted that every nation in the world realises to-day that civil aviation will play a vast part in the next 10 years in determining the economic condition of the various nations of the world and the condition and prosperity of its people. Trade development will follow the aeroplane. To give one figure only, I will quote from a report of Pan-American Airways which declares that 78 per cent. of the passengers using Pan-American Airways on their South American routes consist of business men using the best method of keeping in touch with their customers.
      When we remember that the same drive which the United States have put into capturing the whole of the air service through the British territories of the West Indies, and down to South America, they are at this very time putting into capturing the Pacific and the Far Eastern enterprises, including those of China, Australia and New Zealand, and that they are building bases to enable them to capture these routes while Imperial Airways are waiting to build the necessary flying boats, we realise that we are confronted with a very serious situation. At the present time we are relying for the whole of our civil aviation development almost entirely upon one company with a paid-up capital of about £500,000. This company has no responsibilities to the State. It has a responsibility to its shareholders which is greatly eased by the fact that the State not only prevents it from
      318
      making any loss but enables it to distribute very large profits as well.
      I shall not weary the House with comparative figures of miles flown, horsepower miles, or even with comparative speeds and so on, but I would point out that the figure upon which the hon. Baronet relies, of what he called ton-miles, may be a very illusory guide as to the comparative success of our civil aviation compared with that of other countries. It does not matter whether a machine flies 10 miles with one ton or one mile with 10 tons. The system of ton-miles evens out the concentrated routes which are easily successful, such as between Paris and London and those enormous lengthy routes which we have across Australia—or at least one of them—and which form, under the ton-mile system, a very imposing story of our success. You may have a very successful ton-mile record and still find that the main trade routes of the world are being captured by some other country. I believe that that is the case with regard to the United States to-day.
      The hon. Baronet has stated two or three times that he is going to leave that system as it is. He says that it would be uneconomic and would lead to the dissipation of public and private money to encourage competitive organisations. I want to show him, if I can, in my concluding words, that the monopoly-subsidy system will not do at all. I am going to quote to him, not anything coming from an Opposition source, which he may suppose to have biased views, but something out of the "Aeroplane" which is the great, standard aviation paper. So important is it, that I noticed in the last copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT that the hon. Baronet in a reply, stated that 19 copies of this journal go into the Air Ministry every week. I hope that if the copy went in from which I am going to quote that the Ministry all read and studied this quotation from it:
      "That Imperial Airways, as the Government's chosen instrument, should receive a subsidy and technical help is reasonable enough. That the subsidy should be the means of paying increasing dividends to shareholders is another matter. Why should a subsidy, which comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers as a whole, be used to pay higher and higher dividends to a few shareholders? The maximum rate of dividend payable should be fixed at, say, 3 per cent. which is better than the rate

      319
      at which the Government can borrow unlimited millions any day of the week and any profit remaining after this rate is paid, should be handed back to the Exchequer against the subsidy paid or should be spent on improving the flying stock or on higher pay for the ground staff."
      I feel I could not put it better than that. When we recollect that, between 1924 and 1934, the company received in toto £3,790,000 as subsidy and that in 1934 it received £567,954 and that those subsidies enables the shares to appreciate tenfold in the last three years, I think we must recognise that there is something wrong with the system on which we are running our Imperial aviation. If, as a result of events in the near future, we were to find that the menace of war had passed and that we were faced with the prospect of 25 years peace, as it quite possible, I wonder how long the House would be content to leave the development of Imperial aviation in the hands of this small profit-earning concern. I cannot think that the Government are doing so because they believe it to be the best way to run our Imperial air services. They are allowing this matter to remain in private hands because they are trying to bolster up the system of private enterprise. There could be no better example of a transport service which is fitted to be run by the State than Imperial Airways. We are not only protecting it from loss but we are paying its profits. We are paying large sums to enable it to run experimental lines and we are paying the cost of its experimental machines. Scientific departments of the State and indeed almost all Departments of the State are making their contributions towards this system of Imperial Airways and its subsidies. Yet we insist on maintaining it as a profit-earning concern.
      It is the same in a number of other branches of private industry. We keep on making payments by way of subsidy, by way of guaranteeing loans, by way of Government publicity campaigns, by way of remissions of taxation and of rates. We go in for every form of bolstering up and supporting capitalist concerns, merely to maintain them as concerns which are alleged to be private enterprise concerns, but are really private profit concerns. If I wanted to do a very good turn to those on the Front Bench opposite, the best thing I could do would be to warn them
      320
      against the danger of binding and fettering the Conservative party to an obsolete system. The capitalist system has been living on its capital for many years. This Government has had to draw out large chunks of credit almost every month, on the basis of guaranteeing the overdraft. The country is being compelled to pay, in various forms of subsidy and State aid, enormous sums merely to maintain an obsolete system without sharing in the profits.
      I do not wish to la your that point, but I urge the Government that the particular branch of transport service which is under our consideration now is an admirable case for State enterprise. I hope they will immediately prepare plans for taking it over and running it with bigger perspective and on a bigger scale as a State concern. I want them to realise that, if this country is to have in the airways of the world a voice and a control comparable with our hopes and with our influence, they ought to take this matter out of the hands of a small uninspired profit-earning concern. If they do so, we may then find that, instead of bombers and battleships, a great system of civil airways will in 10 years' time be the true measure of the strength and influence of Britain in the world's affairs.
      7.36 p.m.
      Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I wish, first, to associate myself with what the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) said in congratulating the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) on his excellent maiden speech. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), I do not agree with his opinions on unilateral disarmament. May I, with great respect suggest that his arguments as regards offence and defence were not logical? When he spoke about one gentleman punching another gentleman on the nose, I think his argument was not quite watertight. I could not help wondering whether he had ever associated personally with anyone who was trained in the art of self-defence. I assure him that a good boxer is usually a very peaceful individual and that, often, the presence of a good boxer has a pacific effect on rowdy individuals. There is no question that by strengthening our defences we are strengthening our influence in the cause of peace.

      321
      Turning to the Estimates, I think it is to be regretted that the expansion on the service side did not come three years earlier. It is to be regretted not only for the reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—the fact that we have been to a certain extent left behind—but also because this rushed increase has added to the difficulties with which the Air Ministry had to contend. I consider that the Air Ministry deserves credit for the way in which these difficulties are being dealt with. On the subject of the training of pilots—and there is still a shortage of pilots—the Memorandum shows that the system of training by the Royal Air Force has been changed and that the ab initio training takes place at civil schools and not at Service flying training schools, where is was previously carried out. Thirteen schools have now been established and are turning out pilots in considerably increased numbers with success. I would like in this connection to make one request to the Minister. At present, practically all permanently commissioned officers are trained at Cranwell. The great majority of Royal Air Force officers, however, are trained at the civil training schools and they enter on short service commissions, that is to say, they are gazetted for five years' service. I hope it will be possible to select a larger number of short service officers for permanent commissions. This, I believe, would act as an increased incentive to the present short service officers and as a great encouragement to recruiting.
      In connection with recruiting, I was glad to hear from the Minister the other day that liaison officers were being appointed to the various public schools and that they were to be officers holding high rank in the Air Force. Previously the liaison officers appointed to the public schools have been junior officers. I think the step which the Ministry has taken is wise and that it will be advantageous to recruiting. I do not, however, consider that it is enough. In the past the public schools have not pulled their weight as regards the air. I ask, with all due respect, whether there is any reason why the War Office should monopolise all the Officers Training Corps at the public schools 2 I cannot believe that an exaggerated idea of the
      322
      danger of flying is a serious obstacle, when one takes into consideration the tremendous thoroughness and the safety with which Royal Air Force training is conducted. I hope that the public schools will change their policy in this respect and will show that they realise how much the defence of the country depends on the Royal Air Force and how vital it is that the Royal Air Force should have first choice of the best youth of the nation.
      I turn next to the question of civil aviation which has indeed been dwarfed by the Service side. This is regrettable but quite explicable in the circumstances. I wish to submit two points in regard to civil aviation. The first is the great advantage of Empire communications, and in that connection I believe it to be very important that mails and passenger services should be segregated. The second point is that of defence. If civil aviation were developed on the right lines, we would not only have a reserve of highly-trained pilots—highly trained especially in long-distance navigation, but we would have a number of machines that could be used in case of emergency and also a large number of mechanics. A good deal of interest has naturally been expressed in the question of the vulnerability of London. I think the House would like assurance that all scientific means of defence are being explored and a further assurance that steps are being taken to organise the decentralisation of London in case of emergency.
      In conclusion—and I say this with the greatest respect—I take exception to something that the Secretary of State for War said about the Air Force in his otherwise splendid speech when introducing the Army Estimates. He spoke of the use of the Army in a way in which he said the Air Force could never be used. He described a function of the Army
      "as the presentation of force without the application of violence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1936; col. 2360, Vol. 309.]
      The psychological effect of a squadron of aeroplanes flying over a recalcitrant tribe on the North-West frontier and in Iraq has on more than one occasion had a very pacific effect without dropping a single bomb or using lethal weapons of any kind. That is exactly one of the functions that the Air Force

      323
      does fulfil—the function of presentation of force without application of violence. In a larger way I believe that there is nothing that will prevent an attack on London more effectively than the knowledge that Britain possesses the largest and best Air Force.
      7.37 p.m.
      Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: It is with considerable diffidence that I follow my Noble Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale) in a discussion upon flying or either, for that matter, in a discussion upon boxing, a subject which was introduced by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), because I know very well that my Noble Friend is far better qualified to speak on both these subjects than I am. But I would like to raise one matter which has not been mentioned in the Debate so far, and I am pleased to see in this connection that the Minister of Defence is on the Front Bench, because the matter which I wish to raise is the question of the fuel supply of the Air Force, and that, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, is very closely linked with the fuel supply of the nation as a whole. I do not propose to ask any foolish questions as to how much oil, how much petrol, how much lubricating oil there may be stored in this country by the Air Force, but I would like to ask whether the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that he has sufficient stores to make him independent of imports in case of emergency.
      In saying that, I realise very well that we shall always find willing sellers of oil, and no question of sanctions being applied against Britain can be contemplated, because I cannot conceive of this country ever being in the position of an aggressor State. The whole question of obtaining oil supplies is bound up with the question of transport, and we know that in the last War the Navy only just succeeded in securing our supplies of food and essential materials. To-day, with the Air Force, we should require just as much food and five or six times as much oil, and we have a Navy of perhaps only half the strength to discharge the essential functions required of it.
      It is unnecessary to harp on the perils of the oil question. We all know where
      324
      we obtain our oil front and that it must come either from North or South America, which entails crossing the Atlantic, or else it must come from the East. If it comes from the East, it has either to go through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, past Gibraltar, or else it can come by the pipe-line to Haifa or Tripoli. The pipe-line is exceedingly vulnerable, but even if it comes by that pipe-line, it has still to cross the Mediterranean aid pass Gibraltar, or else it can conceivably go round the Cape of Good Hope, in which case you would have to send our tankers on a trip of seven weeks there and seven weeks back. That is hardly practicable with the fleet of tankers now available, and I urge that the Air Minister should do all that he can to lessen the task of the Navy by providing himself with sufficient supplies of oil, so that in an emergency he could, if necessary, go to the Cabinet and say what a fairly highly placed individual in the Air Department said to me when I asked him, "What about oil supplies?" He said, "You can take it from me that, as far as the Air Force is concerned, the oil supplies are all right." I hope to goodness that is true, and I would like to see the Secretary of State for Air in a position where, if an emergency came, he could go to the Cabinet and say to the Prime Minister, "Sir, so far as the oil supplies of the Air Force are concerned, you need not worry."
      How is that to be done? That can be done, of course, by producing oil at home, and I am very much in favour of that policy, but I would like to issue a caveat against relying too much on home-produced oil in case of emergency, because everybody knows that oil is principally produced at one plant, that at Billingham. It is a very dangerous policy to have all your eggs in one basket, particularly when the basket is not a very strong one. Billingham is on the East Coast, near the sea, and could be raided from the air without any warning. It is 800 acres in extent, and it simply could not be missed. There are any numbers of inflammable tanks in that area, and if it were bombed the damage done would be appalling. One does not like to think of these things, but if any man wanted to win a medal by dropping bombs, I can think of no happier target for him to select. He could not miss it, and the amount of

      325
      damage he could do would be very serious.
      I would urge my right hon. Friend, therefore, not to put too much faith in Billingham. I would far rather that, if he is to rely on home supplies, he should have those home supplies in some less vulnerable position, and I would like to suggest that a very good position would be the coal-producing belt of country between Edinburgh and Glasgow, not only because I am proud to represent a constituency there, but because I believe that a plant there would not be nearly so vulnerable as the one at Billingham. I think it would be very difficult for bombing aeroplanes flying over that country, where there is very often a thick fog, to recognise the plant when they were over it, and even if they did recognise it, it is not on the coast, warning would be forthcoming, and steps could be taken to attack the bombing force. Further on that question of the belt of country between Glasgow and Edinburgh, they have there already, as my right hon. Friend knows, a shale-oil industry, employing about 5,000 men, and from every point of view it would be all to the good if the amount of employment given by that industry could be increased. I wonder if it would be practicable—I am not sure how far shale oil can be used for aeroplanes—for my right hon. Friend's Department to look into the possibility of giving a definite order for oil of various descriptions from the shale-oil plant in that district.
      I want to urge the Air Ministry not to concentrate too much upon the supplies which they can rely on from home sources, because if an emergency arises, which we all hope it will not, there will be a desperately keen demand for oil by every Department, as well as in ordinary industrial life. It may be that the Air Force would get first choice, and perhaps they deserve it, but think what the cost would be to the industrial productive strength of the country. Not only would the Navy need oil, but the Merchant Service also would want it, and the. figures of consumption are terrific. Something like 45 per cent., I believe, of the tramp shipping of the world is now on oil, as compared with 3 or 4 per cent, on oil before the War. Then you have the Army, which is now mechanised and becoming more and more
      326
      dependent on oil. As to industrial life, it is impossible to get figures, but the import of 10,000,000 tons of oil per year gives one some idea of how essential the supplies of this raw material are to us.
      The definite proposal which I would make to my right hon. Friend is that his Department should concentrate upon the storage of oil, so that he does not become a burden upon the Navy by asking them to import his supplies, and so that he does not cut out other legitimate users of oil in case of emergency, because he is self-supporting. It seems to me that his Department could do that as easily as any other Department, and that there is nothing to prevent his doing it. I would suggest that in storing this oil it should be put in underground tanks, that they should be camouflaged, and that they should be scattered about all over the country, not all on the South or all on the East, but that they should be on the West Coast as well, and that they should be put where a smoke-screen from the industrial districts would blind enemy raiders, possibly, and prevent their discovering it. I would suggest that he should have at least one year's supply in these tanks. In urging the Minister to do this, I am not asking him to spend money on supplies that will become obsolete and useless and so might he regarded as a waste; I am merely asking that the Government should invest their money in advance on oil, a commodity which is always going to be needed, whether in war or in peace; and I would like him to be able to assure us that he is making such provision in this direction that the Air Force will never be forced to let us clown by reason of running short of fuel.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
      8 p.m.
      Sir P. SASSOON: I was very sorry that I was not in the House when the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale) was making his speech. He is well known in this House for his knowledge of aviation generally. I would like to read his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and reply to them on the Report stage. The hon. Member who has just spoken raised many other important points on the question of varieties of oil, quality of oil and petrol and the storage

      327
      of oil for the Royal Air Force. Many of those question are matters of a certain amount of secrecy, as he will realise, but the contribution he made is very welcome, and I can assure him that all the points he has raised are continually and constantly under review by the Air Ministry. The actual query he puts to me about the quality of shale oil I can answer at once. Experiments have been made with shale oil, but all the information is that it is of very low octane value and not suitable at present for use in aero engines. We hope for a greatly increased future use of oil produced from coal in this country.
      The hon. Gentleman who rose after my speech has obviously been able to take full advantage of the great opportunities he enjoyed when he occupied my position at the Air Ministry, and therefore it is a great pleasure on this occasion to have a contribution from him and realise that what he says is the result of personal experience and great interest. His task this afternoon was not a particularly easy one. I felt that he probably agreed with me on many points, but after all he had his part to play, and if I may be allowed to say so, I think he did very well and made the best out of a not very easy job.
      He spoke about the Air Pact. I was not really quite clear as to what his criticisms were about my remarks on the Air Pact. We would like the Air Pact—I described it as the Air Pact of Western Europe—to be of the widest possible nature. in my speech I said I hoped it would be of the widest possible scope in the future. Of course, whatever pact was brought in would naturally be under the ambit of the League, and would contribute to that system of collective security which we desire to see. He also raised a point about secrecy. If only other nations would agree to reasonable publicity on matters such as strength figures we would be only too delighted. We would welcome such action, but, obviously, if other nations are not willing to do that, if they are not willing to give away their figures, we cannot publish our figures, because we should be giving away a bargaining instrument. They would be taking from us and giving nothing in return. In reasonable limits publicity would be very welcome.
      328
      The hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander) spoke from the Liberal benches, and I was very glad to receive his assurance of support on behalf of his party. He asked me a question which was also asked by several others as to whether we would obstruct any company that wished to operate anywhere in other parts of the world without subsidies. Certainly we have no intention of obstructing any company from operating any service anywhere, but, as I said in my speech, we do not wish to encourage services which would lead to duplication and waste of money and effort. We learned these lessons by painful and costly experience in other forms of transport both at sea and on land. I would mention the White Star Cunarder merger and the London Passenger Transport Board.
      We had the benefit or listening to two very admirable maiden speeches. I take it as a compliment to the Air Ministry that the hon. Members for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) and the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) should have selected this opportunity for making their maiden speeches. They were both of them excellent contributions to the Debate, they were instructive, they were well informed and they displayed a maturity and experience not usually found in maiden speeches. I hope we may frequently be able to look forward to further constructive contributions from them. I was glad to see also that they both laid the very greatest possible stress on the importance of personnel. That is one of the most vital features of our programme and that brings me to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest). He with his usual eloquence, based on his great experience, stressed the same point I have just mentioned, and it is true that, as I said earlier this afternoon, the provision of an adequate reserve of pilots is absolutely essential.
      Where I do not quite agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend is in thinking that we are as badly off at present as he makes out. There are 3,200 fully trained pilots on the active list of the Royal Air Force to-day. That is, according to the latest information we possess, a higher number than any other countries save Russia and France possess on the active lists of their Air Forces. There

      329
      are another 1,130 under training at our schools, service and civil, and we have increased these civil training schools to 13. Nine have been established since last June. In addition we have a reserve of approximately 1,450 and we are taking steps roughly to treble this over the next three years. The flying membership of the subsidised light aeroplane clubs alone amounts to very nearly 6,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Many members of these clubs belong to three or four clubs."] I also gave the figure of current "A" licences which is 3,353, or something like that, and we have in proportion to our respective populations a larger number of private flyers in this country than in the United States of America.
      What the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the auxiliary Air Force will receive very careful consideration. I am not at all sure that the esprit de corps of individual auxiliary squadrons—the friendly rivalry that exists between them—is not an asset of great value and one which we should do well to retain and foster rather than merge them into some bigger and soulless aggregations. The general effect of a scheme for improving the auxiliary Air Force is to pass pilots through the squadrons to the General List at a more rapid rate so as to ensure that the training facilities of the Squadrons are used to their maximum capacity in producing and maintaining a flow of trained officers and retaining them in an effective capacity as long as possible. We wish also to secure to auxiliary air force officers a reasonable flow of promotion during their service. Certain concessions mentioned in the Army Estimates in connection with the Territorial Army are now under discussion in connection with the Air Force. The marriage allowance will be given to all personnel over 21 in the auxiliary Air Force on the same terms and conditions as to the regular Air Force.
      My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) made as usual his most interesting contribution to the Debate and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Co-ordinator-General who was sitting in his seat was making notes. I am sure he was making notes for his future guidance. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Colonel Moore-Brabazon) speaks as usual with the
      330
      expert knowledge which we expect from was the first man to fly in this country, and I must thank him for the very kind remarks he made and the praise he gave to the Air Ministry for the progress made in technical development. I am sure he will not expect me to answer all the points he made in debate. Although I cannot say I agree with every one of his remarks, I was glad to find we were at least in complete unanimity over the theme of my peroration.
      Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the position of companies other than Imperial Airways?
      Sir P. SASSOON: I did so when the hon. Gentleman was not in his place.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. POTTS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
      "in view of the peril to civilisation latent in air warfare, this House calls for immediate and sustained effort to secure the abolition of military and inaval air forces and the international control of civil aviation."
      In moving this Amendment I should like to say that I have spent some time in investigating the position in connection with our fighting squadrons, both at home and at foreign stations. There is a slight difference between the figures given by the Under-Secretary and those which I have obtained from the official books. I make the figure 138 squadrons, against his figure of 133. In dealing with this matter I want to start from the termination of the Great War. We then had 200 squadrons, with 3,330 machines, while at March, 1928, we had 69 squadrons and 800 machines. I find from the OFFICIAL REPORT that dealing with the Air Estimates, which were then for £16,000,000, on the 25th February, 1926, the Secretary of State for Air, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said:
      "So far as the net Estimates are concerned, the increase is mainly due to the larger number of squadrons formed under the Home Defence scheme. … First of all, the duty of providing a Home Defence force against possible air attack; secondly, the duty of carrying out the air work of the Navy and the Army."
      He went on to say—and this is rather important:

      331
      "There are now 25 squadrons for home defence, and at the end of the financial year there will be 28. To-day we are in the position of being the second greatest air Power in the world, leaving out of account for the moment the Air Force of Russia, of which I have no official knowledge. … I am not making the comparison with our Home Defence Force. … I am comparing the total forces.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1926; cols. 766–9, Vol. 192.]
      He also stated that in the previous September five machines from Vickers No. 9 Bombing Squadron flew from Manston, in Kent, to Leuchars, in Scotland, and back to Manston, in a day, a distance of 870 miles. He mentioned also that a second flight had been undertaken by eight Vickers machines from Worthy Down, in Hampshire, to Edinburgh, and that, although the weather was very bad, three of the machines flew from Hampshire to Edinburgh and back without landing, a distance of 800 miles, in 12½hours.
      I want now to indicate what the number of our Air Force will be, as compared with the account that I have been reading to the House from the late Air Minister's statement some years ago. At the moment we have 138 squadrons, including those few which are on foreign stations. The Minister's figures, which must be taken as official, for the number of machines, is 1,500, as against my figure of 1,518. The Government are now suggesting an increase of 250 new warplanes for home defence, that is to say, another 11 squadrons, allowing for depreciation over a period of years. They are asking in addition for 12 new Empire air squadrons. When all their demands are met there will be 400 squadrons, and the number of machines will be increased from 1,500 to 4,400.
      I ask the House to imagine what will be the state of affairs when we have that number of flying machines put into operation by this country, with some other nation following suit with an equal number, and war being declared. What would then be the position of the two countries? It is no use people imagining that a defence can be built up by gunnery and so on which will prevent other machines from coming into this country, or will prevent our machines from going to another country. That is an utter impossibility. We have the present
      332
      Cabinet, while declining to organise industry for the prosperity of the people, eagerly ready to organise for war—while refusing to raise loans for public works for the enrichment of the nation's welfare, preferring to borrow huge sums of money for arms merits. The two extremes are, on the one hand, the improvement of the conditions of the people of the nation, and, on the other, to use a rather vulgar expression, damnation to the country and the people therein.
      Another point is with regard to the arms race and alliances of rival groups striving to obtain decisions by heavier war preparations than the other side possesses. We are a civilised people and we have a right to endeavour to find ways and means of setting our disputes across the table in preference to creating machinery for the destruction of human life, as we are doing at present.
      I regret the absence of the Prime Minister. He seemed in his speech to have lost his head and tried to carry the House and the country with him in favour of armaments. How will that be taken by foreign nations? Ho is advising, recommending and supporting an increase of armaments as a defence against other nations. If we provide 5,000 flying machines and some other nation has only 2,000 or 3,000, they will at once determine that they must be equal to us and will endeavour to get in front of us. We are travelling the wrong way. We are told by the Cabinet that we must prepare for war, and hon. Members opposite are being told to look in that direction and to urge the people of the country to follow suit. If the Prime Minister can see the danger of war arising in the near future, he ought to tell the House and the country exactly where we stand. If that is not the position, he is wrong in making the statements that he is making, because he is leading people to believe that there is a danger of war. We Are anticipating an expenditure of £100,000,000 or more on the Air Force in the next three years. That will lead to other nations spending as much as we do. There would be more sense in settling our disputes around the table, spending less on armaments and feeding our people who are starving. This huge expenditure is un-Christian, it is on the lines of barbarism and is out of date. Let the nations of the world continue their international discussions. That will

      333
      he better than using inhuman methods to obtain supremacy by force and the manufacture of explosives for human destruction. Differences between nations can be settled round a table much more easily—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member's argument seems to have no connection with the Estimates before the House, nor with the terms of the Notice on the Paper.
      Mr. POTTS: I find that we have 21 licensed aerodromes, eight purchased sites and five planning schemes. In different parts of the country there are 103 sites for aerodromes. The time has arrived when we ought to reduce all this fighting force. I do not believe in lowering the the standing of my country. I am as loyal as any Member on that side of the House and have done as much for the country as any man who sits on that Bench. I have put in 50 years of service on arbitration work. If an international conference could be appointed, say of three men from each country, from the ranks of labour, trained in trade union negotiations with employers, they could settle your foreign questions without any difficulty, and it would not take long to do it. When you get lawyers of standing and men who are interested commercially in these matters, you get proceedings extended for the purpose of enriching private enterprise. I hope that it is not too late and that the Govern-merit even to-day will take notice of the position in the country. If they are of the opinion that the electorate of this country will rally to them in the event of war occurring they will get a rude shock. They will be mistaken and proved to be wrong if they have to meet the test of reality in that event.
      I appeal to the Government, as I appealed to the present Prime Minister in 1926 in connection with the mining industry. I appealed to him to prevent a stoppage in the mining industry, and I told him that I knew that unless he intervened the collieries of this country would stop. He took no notice of that advice. The collieries of the country came to a standstill, and a very long struggle took place. I am just as certain now, being in touch with the working people of this country, as are my colleagues on this side of the House, that if war breaks out there will be more
      334
      difficulty than the Government anticipate. They must not think—if they have it in their minds, they should get it out—that it will be easy to get the young men of the country to go and fight the battles for them as they did in 3914. They will make a mistake if they have that impression. Therefore, I hope that the Government even now will begin to consider, and that the Prime Minister in particular and his colleagues will think about, this matter and will consult together and will keep on consulting. I know that there may be foreign nations here and there with whom we may have trouble, as in the case of Italy, possibly with France, though I hope that that will not arise, and with other nations like Japan. Just as you have trouble in industry, you have the same sort of thing internationally. It has taken years to build up the trade unions. It was said that it was impossible, but we have done it. Time, patience, confidence and sincerity have done it, and we can do it internationally if the task is undertaken by men who understand this sort of thing and endeavour to act in an amicable sort of way in preference to fighting one another to see which is the strongest nation. I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government to reflect upon this matter and to endeavour to continue consultation and bring about a solution of these problems. So far war has been avoided, although on many occasions this sort of difficulty has arisen.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must stick to the Air.
      Mr. POTTS: I know that I am touching upon a difficult problem, but times are difficult and we should be cautious. I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I hope that the Government will take note of what I have said in the House to-night.
      8.40 p.m.
      Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I rise with some diffidence seeing that some of my hon. Friends have recently crossed the Floor of the House and have occupied seats on the benches opposite. I hope that their absence from these benches is only temporary, as I am certain that, in dealing with this Amendment, we need the support of the hon. Members who

      335
      have temporarily left us. But their presence on the other side may be an encouragement to me while I attempt to address myself to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) has moved.
      Mr. TINKER: We have crossed over so that you will not have to speak to empty benches.
      Mr. BROWN: Certain hon. Members may think that the Amendment now before the House has been put down at an inopportune moment. They may consider that, being in the midst of a European crisis, it is not the time for us to put down an Amendment of this description. Probably it is more opportune that we should discuss this matter to-night than that we should discuss increased expenditure on the Air Force of the country. If we address ourselves to the Amendment we shall find that we have had already, in the course of this Debate, some encouragement from the speeches which have been delivered or found some support for the point of view embodied in it. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who is not in his place at the moment, assured the House that there was no enmity at all between the airmen of the various countries of the world, and I believe that a similar sentiment fell from the lips of the Under-Secretary of State for Air earlier in the day. I could not help but reflect, when they were expressing themselves in such terms, that if it was left to the airmen of the world there would be no air warfare in the future. It is only because Governments interfere and make a mess of things that we get war at all.
      Mr. PERK INS: Come over here.
      Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member had better wait a bit until I conclude my remarks, and then probably he will not be so ready as he is at the moment to extend the invitation. There is in this country, and elsewhere in the world, a growing consciousness of the increasing peril to civilisation through air warfare, and probably there is no one occupying a prominent position in the world today who has done more to impress that upon the public mind than the present
      336
      Prime Minister. I wait to call attention to some of the things which he has said regarding the menace to civilisation latent in air warfare before I deal with certain other points which I wish to make in connection with the Amendment.
      The Prime Minister has given us a sort of annual warning in regard to the menace of aerial warfare, until during a recent period, since when his warnings have been much more frequent. I propose to go back to a statement he made in the House of Commons oil 10th November, 1932. The statement has been quoted more than once, but in order to make out my case about the seriousness of the air menace I want to quote as far as possible people who can speak authoritatively. If anybody can speak with all the inside information and knowledge available at the moment, there is nobody who is more likely to have that knowledge than the Prime Minister of this country. I begin with this quotation:
      "I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through … The only defence is in offence; which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."— [OFFICIAL 11 EPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.]
      Later on in the same speech the Prime Minister said:
      "I am firmly convinced myself … that if it were possible the air forces ought all to be abolished."—
      The Amendment asks for the abolition of naval and military air forces.
      "—but if they are there would still be civil aviation, and in civil aviation there are the potential bombers."
      We have a remedy for that; we suggest the internationalisation of civil aviation. We make the Prime Minister an offer of that suggestion. But the Prime Minister went on:
      "In my view it is necessary for the nations of the world concerned to devote the whole of their minds to this question of civil aviation to see … that such disarmament will he feasible … All disarmament hangs on the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 635, Vol. 270.]
      I am quoting the exact words of the Prime Minister, and if the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) finds them amusing perhaps he will suggest to his right hon. Friend that the

      337
      choice of language should be different. The Prime Minister has a curious knack of adapting himself very carefully to his audience. In October, 1933, he was talking to the Conservative party Conference on the question of rearmament, and his remarks on this occasion are very interesting. He knew his audience at the Conservative party Conference quite as well as he knows his audience in the House of Commons. This is what he said to the party conference:
      "If rearmament began in Europe you may say goodbye to any restoration of cuts and to any reduction of taxation for a generation. To many nations, let us say to some nations, the expenditure that would he involved in increased armaments would bring them much nearer to financial catastrophe, it might even bankrupt some, and you may imagine from that what the effect would be on the trade of the world. I have never disguised my own view that another war in Europe would be an end of the civilisation we know."
      It is not possible to find graver words spoken by a more responsible person to justify our Amendment on the Order Paper. On this occasion the Prime Minister did not appeal to the pacific sentiments of the Conservative Conference but to their pockets, on the ground of the probable increase of taxation which would follow. In 1930 and 1931, when money had to be found for the unemployed as world depression increased and intensified, I heard all kinds of screeches and screams about the mounting expenditure from hon. Members when they were sitting on these benches. They say nothing about it to-day, because it is for the defence of property. If we want to do some of the things which it is in our hearts to do to relieve the community, or some sections of the community, of the burdens which press so heavily upon their shoulders, we become sadly familiar with the protests of hon. Members opposite against expenditure of that kind. The Prime Minister, one of the most responsible statesmen in the world to-day, is very conscious of the menace to civilisation latent in air warfare. There is one other quotation I must give because of the events of the last few days. On 30th July, 1934, the Prime Minister said:
      "Let us never forget that since the day of the air old frontiers have gone. When you talk of the defence of England you no longer think of the chalk cliffs of Dover, you think of the Rhine; that is where our frontier lies."
      338
      Can hon. Members marvel that the Germans have moved their forces into the Rhineland? Is it really a matter for surprise, after a statement like that? According to the "Manchester Guardian," on the 13th March, the reply to that statement of the Prime Minister made by General Goering was to this effect:
      "Germany's military forces are now strong enough to ward off any invasion of Germany. There would be no more military promenades to Berlin either by road or by air, and I most solemnly declare before the world that when Adolf Hitler puts forward our armaments into the Rhineland he does not arm for aggressive purposes nor to do harm to others. Our armaments do not threaten anybody, they are only for our own protection."
      I have heard that song throughout all the speeches to-day in this Debate. I must refrain from further quotations from the Prime Minister's speeches because / want to address myself to what the Under-Secretary for Air has said on the matter of disarmament.
      With regard to the abolition of naval and military aircraft, I want to say a few words about the general policy of the Government at the Disarmament Conference, so far as air armaments are concerned, because that is a very interesting story. As everybody knows, the French Government at the beginning of the Conference submitted a well-thought-out plan for the internationalisation of civil aviation. Those proposals were opposed by Great Britain, by Germany and by Italy, but after the election in France in May, 1932, the Radical-Socialist Government of that country put forward another scheme, on 17th February, 1933. The second scheme provided, first, for the total abolition of national air forces, and, secondly, for the internationalisation of civil aviation. Three days later, Lord Londonderry, then Secretary of State for Air, made an unexpected appearance at Geneva and told the Conference that Great Britain was in favour of abolishing national air forces on condition that means could be found to make it impossible to misuse civil aviation for military purposes.
      Consequent upon that proposal, there followed a proposal for the creation of a small international air police force, about which there was a good deal of talk at that time; but on reaching that stages the Secretary of State for Air and his

      339
      Under-Secretary were raising every conceivable difficulty, and, as far as I have been able to discover, not making a single helpful and constructive proposal. There are very good reasons now for us to understand why that was so. In the light of more recent statements, we have good reason to believe that the Secretary of State for Air never intended the project to succeed or even to give it any considerable assistance. I will try to justify the statement I have made. Speaking in another place, the Secretary of State for Air declared:
      "In 1932 the Disarmament Conference assembled, and almost its earliest discussions were centred around the posssibility of the total abolition of air forces or at least of the abolition of the artillery of the air, the bombing aeroplane, which is the weapon which is the distinctive arm of the Air Force and to which it owes its separate existence. Through that period, …"
      and these are the words I would like the House to note—
      "difficult for any Air Minister and particularly for one who, like myself, has always been convinced of the prime importance of the maintenance of an effective air arm to the security of this country, kept impressing upon my colleagues and upon the country generally the vital nature and place of the Royal Air Force in the scheme of our defences. I bad the utmost difficulty at that time. amid the public outcry, in preserving the use of the bombing aeroplane even on the frontiers of the Middle East and India. … I felt certain that when the ideals of abolition were examined practically they would be discovered to be inapplicable in the state of the world to-day. We could not put the clock back. Limitation, not abolition, was all we could really hope for.
      I heard an echo of that sentiment in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The point I am trying to stress is that while all those discussions were taking place, and knowing, as they did, the feeling of public opinion on the matter, the Government never attempted in the slightest way to assist the proposals which came before the Air Commission of the Disarmament Conference.
      Before coming to the right hon. Gentleman himself, I want to say a few words on the feasibility or possibility of the internationalisation of civil aviation. I agree that this is a proposition that one needs some time to expound and to explore if one is to get it across properly, but I would like to say a few
      340
      words about it because the right hon. Gentleman, as I will show in a moment or two, raised very considerable objections of all sorts to the mere suggestion that civil aviation should be internationalised. I will first of all put the matter in the form of a question: Is it or is it not possible to develop air transport under international ownership? I am encouraged to pursue this because of what the right hon. Gentleman said. For instance, he told the House that in the judgment of the Government it is far best in present circumstances to allow Imperial Airways to have a sort of complete monopoly. Incidentally, he told us in the course of his speech that, although there are several lines in several other countries, the marked tendency at the moment is for them all to be fused into one line.
      Sir P. SASSOON: One national line.
      Mr. C. BROWN: I do not think that alters the sense of what I am saying. I am only calling attention to the tendency which he emphatically and forcibly stressed and illustrated to-day. He went on to say that these units could perhaps become too large—in fact, that is his main contention against the proposal for the internationalisation of civil aviation. I would like to make one remark about that before continuing further. I do not think the question of machinery—and, after all it is in some degree a question of machinery—is ever insuperable, if there is the will and the desire to do a thing. Once there is that, the question of machinery is a secondary one. I agree that it may be very difficult to formulate and bring into existence, but it is very largely a secondary matter. It has been suggested that for this purpose there could be established an international directorate of aviation to begin with, which would very largely be composed of the Ministers of Transport of all the countries members of the Disarmament Conference. That would be the beginning. There would then be an international company which, the suggestion is, might be called "World Airways."
      I know it may be argued that I am only passing on names and not going into the details of how this machinery could be set up; but I would have no objection to going into those details if time allowed. It is because I do not wish to take up too much time that I

      341
      put forward only the general idea, and will now come to the objections which have been raised to the proposals by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who put certain points in connection with this matter. The first question he asked was whether so large and representative a body as the proposed international organisation would be capable of taking decisions without undue delay. I intend to deal with one or two of the points he made, because, after all, our Motion asks for the internationalisation of civil aviation. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will oppose it and will take his friends into the Lobby against it. Perhaps he will not devote very much attention to me in his reply, but will probably repeat some of the arguments he has already used. It is because he used those arguments that I address myself to them at the moment.
      Would there be such a great need for haste as the question presupposes? What are the circumstances in which he envisages the need for great haste and rapid decision? Cannot competent men always make rapid decisions if they are really competent? Has the right hon. Gentleman been for so long a Member of a Government which is made up of people who can never reach a decision without a long lapse of time, that he feels there is no body in the world with technical knowledge, experience and competence that can be gathered together to run a concern like this and to make quick decisions? He goes on to ask whether there might not be an inevitable tendency to arrive at decisions based on a compromise between conflicting interests rather than on sound business principles. We have heard the argument about sound business principles again to-day. Are there not acute rivalries at the present time? Are there not States with which we have to negotiate in order to obtain authorisation to fly over their territories, to land there, and to establish ground organisation? If a body of real experts drawn from all countries were running this world airways, would not their mutual interests outrun, if they were to do this as a commercial success, the national rivalries that might possibly exist between them? I see no force in the second argument that the right hon. Gentleman put forward.
      342
      He goes on to say that we must consider the effect of putting the control of the great international air lines under an administrative monopoly rather than an international air company, with the consequent removal of the valuable stimulus of commercial competition. I suppose that the Conservative party will cling to that phraseology to the end of their political days. All the time, however, they are rapidly doing all sorts of things that are a denial of what pretends to be one of the bigger principles of their political creed. I am not so sure that there is free competition. There are only two lines in the world which do not receive subsidies. Therefore, there is not much free competition now, and. it would not need much to abolish the lot. If this competition factor is playing the part that the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, free competition is not playing a very great part. Let us take the question to a higher level. Must we risk air warfare solely in the interest of trade? Is it not the business of trade to serve the interests of the well-being of humanity rather than to be something calculated, if it is carried on in certain ways, to result in slaughter and destruction?
      Anyone who has listened to the Debate to-day must have been driven to the conclusion, partly from what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that the development of air transport must clearly be international. Its range and speed are so great that it ought for economical working to cover much larger units than the average European State. I do not think that that can be effectively disputed, even by the right hon. Gentleman with his intimate knowledge of these matters. Few of the many things that demand to be treated from an international standpoint are more important than air transport. I appreciated to the full, as every Member did, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman handled the material he had to present to-day. I particularly admired the sentiments he expressed in the concluding passages of his speech, in which he voiced the hope that this new form of transport, instead of dividing nations from one another, would in the long run unite them.
      In commending this Amendment to the House, I think that that objective could be best achieved if during this period

      343
      of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and other European States—although the negotiations are about the tearing up of the Locarno Treaty—His Majesty's Government could once more bring into international discussion the old question of disarmament, and primarily disarmament in the air. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the tensions and political strifes in the European system to-day are primarily due to the air menace. I am not silly enough to believe that there does not lie beneath that menace something deeper, intense feelings of nationalism and economic rivalry. We would, however, relieve those tensions and stresses if some sort of approach could be made by the Government at this moment. They would serve the highest interest of mankind if they could take any steps that would lead to the abolition of naval and military air forces and place under international control for the service of mankind this wonderful method of transport which we have seen so recently come upon the world.
      9.13 p.m.
      Mr. PERKINS: I rise to oppose the Amendment, but I wish to make it clear that I fully appreciate the sincere motives of the Mover and the Seconder. They are sincere pacifists. They are terrified about the effects of unrestricted warfare in the air. I am also a sincere pacifist. Perhaps I am even more sincere than they, because they, at any rate, are not of military age, whereas I am. I am a pilot and I have a good deal of experience of flying in Europe. I know full well that if there should be a war my chances of being alive after the first month or six weeks would be very small.
      Mr. C. BROWN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not applied for the old age pension yet.
      Mr. PERKINS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will come along with me as my observer. It will give me pleasure to have him sitting in the front cockpit if that unfortunate occasion should arise when we have to start fighting again. I am opposing this Amendment because I do not believe it is possible, although it probably is desirable on the whole, and I do not believe it to be practical politics at the moment to abolish our
      344
      Air Force and to put civil aviation under some central authority at Geneva. Let me make two observations on the first suggestion in this Amendment, which is that we should abolish all military aviation. What is military aviation? What is a military aeroplane? A military aeroplane is merely a name for an aeroplane. You can call it a military machine or a civil machine. It is simply a matter of a name. If weir this country liked to call our fighting squadrons in the Royal Air Force sports flying squadrons, no doubt the Foreign Secretary could go to Geneva, dress himself in a white sheet, and tell the world that we in England have no military air force at all. That is true, and it has actually happened in Germany during this last three years. I remember very well, only two years ago, when I was flying back along the north coast of Germany that I called in at two or three of their flying clubs, and I very soon discovered that though on paper they were flying clubs they were really military training schools.
      If any hon. Member wishes any further illustration he has only to come with me in my tiny aeroplane one week-end—I extend this invitation to any hon. Member—to lunch at Frankfort. Any hon. Member who has ever been there for lunch knows that between eight and 10 Luft Hansa machines come in between half-past twelve and a quarter-past one. Hon. Members have only to put their heads under the wings of one of those machines, and they will see there a large plate, and if it were unscrewed I have a shrewd suspicion—though I have no proof of this—that inside they would find the apparatus all ready for bomb racks. An even better illustration still is found in the case of the Henkel, a German Post Office mail plane. It is a machine which was designed by the German nation to carry mails swiftly across Europe and is capable of a speed of 240 miles an hour. It is not so very long ago—only last year—that we had in this country only one squadron of single-seater fighters which were capable of catching those civil machines, of exceeding a speed of 240 miles an hour. It seems to me that it is a very simple thing for any country that wishes to abolish its Air Force on paper to do so and to staid up before the world and say "We have no air force, only a certain number of aeroplanes for sports purposes."
      Mr. MONTAGUE: I should like to ask whether the hon. Member really says that the Henkel machine is a civil machine. Is it not a bombing machine camouflaged?
      Mr. PERKINS: I am delighted at what the hon. Member has said. It bears out what I was saying. It is utterly impossible to distinguish between a military machine disguised as a civil machine or a civil machine disguised as a military. It is only a matter of what you prefer to call it; whether it is a military machine or a civil machine the difference is merely as a scrap of paper. It would be perfectly possible for the German Government to go to Geneva and say "We have abolished our military air force and all we have are a few civil machines which we keep for the benefit of our sports clubs." Therefore, I feel that it would be unwise at this moment for us to try to abolish military aviation. On land we have a police force and at sea we have a police force, but if we abolish military aviation we shall have no police force in the air.
      If we were to remove all armed machines from the air what would be the consequences It would mean, first of all, that every genuine civil machine would be a potential bomber, and, secondly, that these potential bombers would be able to drop a bigger load of bombs on any town than is now possible with the present military machines. As the House knows, Imperial Airways run two or three very large machines to Paris every day. At this moment, with military aviation in its present state, those machines would be no use whatever if it came to a war, because if they started on a bombing raid they would promptly be shot down. But if you removed military aviation and abolished the single-seater fighters, those civil machines would then come into their own. They could go across the Channel to France, Belgium or Germany and drop bombs, and there would be nothing in the world to stop them. It is vital to keep some form of military aviation to act as a brake against the finis-use of civil machines.
      Next I will try to illustrate my second point, that the result of abolishing military aviation would be to increase the
      346
      dangers to the civil population, by increasing the potential number of bombs which might be dropped. At this moment a military bomber has to be able to defend itself, and to do so it must have on board from two to six machine guns and has to carry a very large weight of ammunition for those machine guns. If that bomber, with its machine guns, is abolished and its place is taken by a civil machine which does not have to defend itself, and therefore needs no machine guns and no ammunition, it is capable of taking much bigger loads of bombs than the present bomber, which has to reserve probably half its carrying-load for the guns and ammunition. Therefore I claim that it would be possible for countries to develop their civil aviation, unless it were controlled in some form or another, and actually to drop a bigger load of bombs on the civil population.
      I believe the solution of this problem does not lie in abolishing military aviation, but in limiting military aviation within definte limits, the limits required for police purposes. I have a word to say also on the international control of civil aviation. During the last six or seven years I have watched the concerns which run flying services in various parts of the world slowly coming together. They have come together to prevent price warfare, to avoid cutting one another's throats; they are coming together to arrange time-tables in order that one service may connect with another; and they are coming together in order to allocate what little traffic is to be obtained. They are all co-operating very closely, and it seems to me that a logical step in the future, perhaps not a very distant future, will be for all these firms to be fused or to be amalgamated. I know that is not what the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment meant. He does not want one large company run by private enterprise or run by the various Governments. What he means is that all these civil air lines should be run by an international committee at Geneva or elsewhere.
      That scheme may be desirable, but I do not believe that it is possible, for three reasons. Practically speaking, no civil air line in the world can exist now without a subsidy from its Government. Why do the various Governments subsidise civil aviation? They do so for war purposes. They want to have a reserve of highly

      347
      trained pilots and some machines which could be used in time of war. If you take civil machines away from these countries it is only logical to say that at once all the subsidies will stop, and that no country will be prepared to pay Geneva to run an air line in which they have no special interest. The effect of this would be to put a damper on all civil flying in Europe. If that is the intention of hon. Members it will be much better for them to come into the open and say so, instead of trying to disguise it under a vague scheme called internationalisation.
      There are two other difficulties. The first is the administrative difficulty. How are you going to work it; who is going to operate it; who is going to pay; who is going to pilot the machines; who is going to pay for the upkeep of the aerodromes? All these are questions which I have never yet had satisfactorily answered. I remember that a few years ago the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) made a most interesting speech on this subject and gave a glorious illustration of international control. He told us how Tangier desired to buy a fire engine. Unfortunately, the French were very anxious to supply it, the Spanish were equally anxious, and so were the Portuguese, and there was nearly an international incident over the question. Finally they came to a happy compromise by which the French supplied the engine, the Spanish supplied the hose, and the Portuguese supplied the petrol for running it. It seems to me that the difficulties of working some such scheme are too great.
      Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: How does the Sleeping Car Company operate?
      Mr. PERKINS: I have not the slightest idea. I am not in any way concerned with that company, but if the hon. and gallant Member inquired at the offices I have no doubt they would supply him with the information. There is a third objection, which is the most important one. This scheme has been mooted for several years at Geneva, and only one country is prepared to agree to it, that is France. The American nation has turned it down. It is fairly obvious that the Germans will not agree. There is no reason why Russia should agree, and everyone knows that the Dutch would not agree. The only countries,
      348
      with the exception of France, that will agree are the countries which have little or no civil aviation in their own territory. The countries which have, and which are rapidly going ahead, like ourselves, the Dutch, the Germans and the Russians, will not agree to it. Therefore it seems to me a waste of the time of the House to discuss something which is utterly impossible. The Amendment says that the object is to remove the peril to civilisation latent in air warfare. The Under-Secretary of State said that he was most anxious that we should get some foam of convention in the air. I agree with him. If we do not, and if we go on with this arms race, we shall shortly find ourselves in the bankruptcy court.
      I would welcome any reasonable convention to limit the air forces of the world, particularly in the West. Now is the proper time to approach the Governments of Europe. We shall never have a better opportunity than we have at this moment. We have come out into the open and shown our hand, and we have made it perfectly plain to all the Powers in Europe that the more they build the more we are going to build, and as they know that we have the longest purse and that we can in the end outbuild them, I believe that they will now be agreeable to some form of limitation of both military and civil aeroplanes. It would be unwise to try to get a world scheme of limitation, but I believe it would be possible to get it as far as the four great Powers in Western Europe are concerned—ourselves, France, Italy and Germany. Cannot we ask the three other Powers what is the maximum number of military aircraft that they want? If they say 2,000, let us fix that as the limit, and let us all agree to build up to the highest standard fixed. Let us make no stipulation as to the type of machines, but let each country decide what it wants for its own use. We tried two years ago to get agreement on a low lever, but that failed because Germany and France had aspirations to building higher. If we can fix the highest level anyone wants I think the Powers would be agreeable to do a deal on those lines.
      It is useless to limit military aircraft unless you have a definite limit for all civil aircraft. We should do the same thing with these countries, as far as civil aircraft is concerned, and if they say they want 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000, let us

      349
      again take the maximum and agree that we will not exceed that number. Then we would have an agreement between the four principal Powers in Europe that they would not exceed some grand total that would include all military and all civil machines. I realise there would be opportunities for cheating, and the only way to get round that would be to have some form of roving commission, an international commission that could go to any of the four countries to inspect, to look at the factories and see what was going on, a commission that would be in more or less permanent session and which would have power to revise the upper limit, so that if one country wanted more civil or military machines it would be allowed to have them, provided that all the others were allowed equal terms.
      I believe the ultimate effect of such an agreement, if it could be brought into operation, would be that we would cut out any form of race in armaments. Any form of competitive building would be cut out, I hope for all time. We should have a high level for a start, and I believe that in a few years, when the countries saw how expensive this was, they would be prepared to scale down in equal proportions all round. I believe that the effect after about 10 years would be that the countries of the world would spend less on military aircraft and more on civil aircraft.
      Lastly, the most important consideration of all is that this scheme has some chance of being accepted by the principal Powers of the world, whereas the scheme which has been put up from the front Opposition bench has, as everybody admits, no chance whatever of being accepted by the Powers of the world. I believe that the time has come—or the sooner it comes the better—for a convention. I believe that it will come along the lines of a definite total upper limit of all aircraft, including both civil and military.
      9.36 p.m.
      Mr. GALLACHER: I want to draw particular attention to a phase of this matter that has not been touched upon. There has been much talk to-night of air defence and of utilising the aeroplane for defence. The question of who or what is to be defended has not been touched upon at all. My concern and the concern of hon. Members on these benches is, and
      350
      always must be, the defence of the general mass of the people of this country. That defence is all-important to us, but it is not of any importance to the other side of this House. In a discussion the other day of aviation, reference was made by the Secretary of State for War to the great development of aviation in the Soviet Union, and he mentioned that, in a film, he had seen 1,200 parachutists descending at one time from a fleet of aeroplanes. He mentioned other features of aviation. The significant point is that the Soviet Union have millions of people from whom they can choose pilots or parachutists but in this country, because of the character of the defence that is contemplated, the choice for pilots is very limited. It is limited to a very small section of the community.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on the Amendment, and that his speech does not appear to be appropriate to it.
      Mr. GALLACHER: I want to deal with the question of military and civil aviation.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not the occasion to deal with that subject. The Amendment deals solely with the-abolition of them.
      Mr. GALLACHER: It deals with the abolition of the bombing air force and with the internationalising of civil aviation. If we were to internationalise civil aviation and abolish war planes and bombing planes, it would follow that we would have the widest possible opening for the development of aviation. That is the point I want to bring out. Everybody is concerned with the development of aviation, but aviation cannot be developed in present circumstances while you are determined to maintain what is called a defence air force. In the circumstances that obtain here, you make the development of aviation impossible. I think that is in order anyhow. It is very important to bring out that point. Everyone is aware that aviation in this country had a much greater and freer start than in, Russia, yet the Secretary of State for War can tell us of the wonderful exhibition of aviation in Soviet Russia and can say, "We have nothing like that here."
      What is the matter? I want to assert that the character of so-called air defence is holding back the possibilities of

      351
      air development. In demanding the abolition of the air forces, so far as war is concerned, through international arrangements and control, we are therefore concerned with providing the opportunity for a completely new character of air development or expansion. I have referred to the fact that the Prime Minister, who has been quoted on several occasions to-night, said at a meeting in the Albert Hall that he regretted that the aeroplane had been invented. Never on any occasion has there been such an expression of hopeless political bankruptcy as that statement. The aeroplane is one of the greatest inventions. It opens the way to the conquest of new worlds. Just as with the conquest of the waves we were able to link continent with continent so, with the conquest of the stratosphere, we can link planet with planet through the development of civil aviation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let hon. Members have no doubts about that. It is true.
      You can never make real headway towards the correct utilisation of this very potent possibility of extending the whole range, life and character of mankind while you have this so-called air defence. While you have air defence, as you call it, you are limited to this very small and select few who can be utilised for war purposes. I was in Oxford a week ago last night, and there I was informed of a young man who went from the University to join the Air Force. After six months he gets an examination. He is asked certain questions about the technical operation of the aeroplane, which he answers. Then he gets a further question from the officer. The young man looks at him and the officer says: "It is all right. We know all about it." The young man had finished. He had been investigated, and it had been discovered that he had had associations with the Communists.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot see what this has to do with the Amendment.
      Mr. GALLACHER: I am trying to show that the utilisation of aeroplanes for war purposes actually means the elimination of the sources from which the real development of aviation should proceed. That is a state of things which we should all be concerned in ending. Aeroplanes
      352
      can never defend the people of this country in the way that has been suggested, but they can be used for the advancement of civilisation to an unthought of degree. Why should we seek to limit the range and the power which the aeroplane can give to mankind? Why should not every man and woman in this country be encouraged to fly?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is again getting away from the Amendment, and if he cannot keep to it I must ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. GALLACHER: The Amendment proposes to put an end to the utilisation of aeroplanes for war purposes. It also asks for the encouragement of civil aviation under international control, so that none of these machines can, at any time, be converted to bombing purposes, so that in no circumstances shall aeroplanes be used for the slaughter of the people. I am trying to deal with a very important aspect of that question. I say that, if you remove this limitation from the development of aviation, enormous progress can be made, not only in the manoeuvring of the machines but in extending the range and possibilities of aircraft. I consider that my argument is sound and legitimate. I am trying to show to hon. Members opposite the vital importance to civilisation of getting away from these crude ideas of utilising the aeroplane for defending property interests, at the expense of the advance of civilisation. If it were not for the propery interests there would be no selection of pilots on the lines which I have indicated. There would be no investigation into their political associations.
      I make an earnest appeal to hon. Members opposite and to the Minister to support this proposition in favour of ending completely the use of bombing aerplanes and ending completely the use of aeroplanes for purposes of defence when that defence is limited to the protection of property. I ask them to support the proposition that we should devote our knowledge and experience to building up civil aviation, in such a way as to throw open to all men and women and especially the young; men and women, opportunities for study and experiment in aviation such as exist in the Soviet Union. If they will make a declaration, before all the other countries in Europe,

      353
      that they are prepared to abolish air warfare in order to open the way for the advance of civil aviation—the full range of which we cannot possibly foresee at the moment—they will be doing a real service to the cause of human progress. If they do not take that view, however, if they are determined to utilise this great power, not for the advance of civilisation but for raining down death from the skies, then I tell them that they are marching towards their own destruction and the destroyers will not come from countries over the seas. Their destroyers are here in this country, and will get leadership, when the day comes that will ensure the end of this murder from the skies.
      9.50 p.m.
      Mr. TINKER: I support the Amendment and I join in the appeal which has been made to the House by the Mover. He said that if things were allowed to go on as at present we might look forward to civilisation being annihilated, and it is not difficult to visualise that possibility when one considers the aerial forces which are at the disposal of the nations to-day. Anyone who has taken part in warfare can realise the feeling of dread which enters one's mind when an aeroplane passes over in war. Even to-day, when one is passing through London, and sees an aeroplane flying overhead, one cannot help feeling how defenceless we are against aeroplanes dropping bombs. This Amendment seeks to draw the attention of the House to the ideal state of things which we are trying to reach. I realise that, at the moment, what we ask for seems to be an impossibility but that should not prevent us putting forward our views and trying to make those ideals permeate the minds of Members in all parts of the House, in the hope that something may be done on the lines suggested.
      A lead has to be given from some quarter. Each nation declares that it does not want to fight and each nation claims that it does not want air forces coming over its territory. This Amendment asks for the abolition of what is called the fighting aeroplane and for the placing of civil aviation under international control. One hon. Member said that it was an impossibility, but is anything of this kind impossible in this world, if we have the mind and the will to tackle the question? If we want
      354
      collective security, we must be prepared to trust our neighbours. If we have not that trust in our minds, it is useless to talk about collective security. If we distrust every other nation, if we think that they cannot play fair with us, it means going back on all our ideals and equipping ourselves with all the fighting forces and weapons possible and simply taking our chance.
      Any idea of collective security must proceed on the lines suggested in the Amendment. First of all we must seek to abolish aerial warfare, and I think it can be done. I believe that, if there is good will prevailing, that kind of thing can happen. I believe that, if we were to appeal to other nations and to put before them some scheme on these lines, they would readily agree to it. If I was proceeding on these lines, I should have an international police force for the air, and when all the other nations had been secured in their minds, I think we could readily get them to agree to do away with aerial warfare and to have control over civil aviation. If we had arrived at the point of getting the confidence of the other nations, I could see the thing coming to maturity. All that is required is confidence among the nations of the world.
      I can see that the Government cannot accept this Amendment to-night, in view of the state of Europe, but we on these benches must take every opportunity on occasions like this to bring before the House of Commons how we feel on these matters, and if we do, and they see our sincerity and our belief in this idea, we may prevail on the other Members to see our point of view. If to-night we may not get much success, in a few years to come, like many other things that have come to pass, it will be mentioned that a few years ago this proposal was lost when it came from the Labour benches, because the state of the world was such that it could not then be accepted. It is with these views in my mind that I commend this Amendment to the House.
      9.57 p.m.
      Sir P. SASSOON: I think the whole House must have been impressed by the sincerity of the speeches to which we have listened from the other side. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who has just sat down, said that he felt in his heart that it was not possible to get

      355
      what he is asking for to-night, but he hoped that in the days to come the principle of the scheme which was advocated would have so permeated the minds and hearts of the people of the world that it might be possible. Optimism is one of the most pleasing traits. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment must admit that if there was any known way of abolishing aerial warfare to-day, there is not a single Member in this House, of whatever party, who would not gladly and immediately take it. The whole country and the whole House, I am sure, are united in the desire to abolish aerial warfare, and what is true of this country and this House is, I am sure, also true of the vast masses of the populations of all civilised countries. They all realise, without any necessity for exaggeration or panic-mongering, that aerial warfare is a ghastly thing.
      The hon. Member who moved the Amendment may well feel that if the mind of mankind is so largely at one on this subject, we must be ready to move in this direction, but unfortunately it seems to me that if there is one thing which is as certain as that civilised people all over the world abhor the idea of aerial warfare, it is that every nation is at a loss as to the possible method that might be used to abolish it. To-night the House is being asked to vote large sums of money to the Air Force to enable it to be expanded in such a way that it may be a guarantee that this country will not lightly be subjected to the horrors of aerial warfare, and I feel that in that policy the country is behind the Government. The general feeling is clear that risks have been borne long enough, if not too long, and that the deficiences in our defences must be repaired at once.
      That unanimity of opinion, accompanied as it is by prompt and decisive action on the part of the Government to repair the deficiencies in our defences in the air and other arms, is, I think, a notable thing and it cannot be without its effect upon any country which would under any conceivable circumstances contemplate attacking us. The spectacle of a united Great Britain solidly behind a Government recently returned to office by a substantial majority devoting its first energies and the resources of its newly recovered prosperity to making this country
      356
      and the Empire safe from aggression must have a daunting influence upon any possible peace-breaker. I therefore think it would be unfortunate if anything were to be said to-night that might lead those who do not know our ways to doubt our unanimity on the subject of defence.
      If this Amendment had been moved to-night to draw the attention of the House to the need of reducing the chances of aerial warfare, I should have had no quarrel with it. That is in fact what I feel we shall be doing if we pass these Estimates. The line of argument that has been taken to-night is one with which we are already familiar. We have discussed it often before in this House. It seems to me that a strong British Air Force, equal to that of any foreign Power, is the best method at the present moment for preventing the occurrence of aerial warfare. So far as this Amendment expresses a desire that some way may lie found to make aerial warfare impossible, it is indeed like knocking at an open door, but if it is to be construed as a criticism of our expansion scheme or a recommendation to this House and the country to disarm, it is not knocking at an open door, but it is rather flogging a dead horse.
      The Mover of this Amendment was certainly logical. He coupled with the need for the abolition of aerial warfare the international control of civil aviation, but the abolition of aerial warfare presumably carries with it the abolition of military air forces, and that is where I join issue, because it seems to me that he is asking us to do something to-night which he must know is impossible at present, international conditions and national feelings being what they are to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) developed so well this argument that it is common ground that the abolition of military air forces would be wholly useless as a means of abolishing aerial warfare unless at the same time civil aviation were either abolished or very rigidly controlled. In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king, and therefore if you were to abolish all military air forces, the nation with the strongest and most powerful civilian air fleet would become master of the air. Can this country contemplate with equanimity, or at all, the placing of British

      357
      and Dominion civil aircraft under the control of any international body?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, if there is anybody who thinks so, I do not believe that he has the country with him. I think that, from the point of view of the Empire at the present moment, it would be the greatest possible mistake.
      There was developed also to-night the point that competition between nations for the air communications of the world is getting stronger every year, and I think one can see an example of that in these Estimates, where further provision is taken for the development of Empire air routes and also for the inauguration of a trans-Atlantic service. It is a clear recognition of the vital importance that air communications are going to have in the world of to-morrow. I do not think that to any nation or any aggregation of nations air communications are so vitally important as they are to the British Empire. They provide the greatest hope, which is based on practical considerations, of the Empire remaining together as a commonwealth of nations, united in national ideals, understanding, temperament and community of political and economic interest. I still believe that there cannot be two people in this House who would be willing to hand over the control of this vital link to any international body however constituted or however hedged around with limitations. I would like to see this Amendment withdrawn, not because I question the complete sincerity of the Mover or of those who support it, but because I think that although they are anxious to advance the cause of peace they are not really doing it by those means. I think they are really endangering it. If they think the League of Nations is a fit body to take over control of civil aviation, so that military air forces may be abolished, they are asking of the League more than it can do in the present condition of international relations.
      As a matter of fact I think the fate of this Amendment is a comparatively minor matter, for whatever the result is it will not deflect any nation from the course they have laid out for themselves in the arrangements for their civil aviation services or their air defence. But we must look back and see that successive British Governments have done everything they can to persuade other countries to disarm. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did Lord Londonderry do that?"] The disarmament to which we subjected ourselves for many years was to give an example to other nations, but they never followed it. We embark to-night on another method of maintaining the world peace, and that is to show the world that Great Britain has the power and the will to make aggression unprofitable.
      If the hon. Member who moved the Amendment or any of his friends want to have a clear indication that Great Britain has neither abandoned the hope nor the cause of peace, if they want to have some assurance that the idea of aerial warfare is not upheld, they will find it in a score of speeches made by Members of all parties in this House. We are carrying out to-night another task, which is to fulfil an obligation clearly laid on us at the last Election, and which has bean emphasised a hundred times and in a hundred ways since, and that is of so organising and strengthening our defences that the wealth of the British Empire shall not be a temptation to any aggressor, and that this country will not fail in the discharge, in co-operation with other members, of her duties as a member of the League, and I hope it is in that sense that the House will speak with the same united voice that has for many months past been ringing clear and loud throughout the country.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 121.

      Division No. 103.]

      AYES.

      [10.10 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

      Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Albery, I. J.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

      Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

      Braithwaite, Major A. N.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. sir W. J. (Armagh)

      Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

      Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

      Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

      Bernays, R. H.

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Birchall, Sir J. D.

      Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

      Apsley, Lord

      Bird, Sir R. B.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Blindell, Sir J.

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Bossom, A. C.

      Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

      Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

      Boulton, W. W.

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Butt, Sir A.

      Gunston, Capt. D. w.

      Peat, C. U

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Guy, J. C. M.

      Penny, Sir G

      Cartland, J. R. H.

      Hamilton, Sir G. C.

      Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

      Carver, Major W. H.

      Hanbury, Sir C.

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Cary, R. A.

      Harbord, A.

      Peters, Dr. S. J.

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Harvey, G.

      Petherick. M.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Pickthorn, K. W. M.

      Channon, H.

      Hepworth, J.

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

      Radford, E. A.

      Christie, J. A.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Colfox, Major W. P.

      Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

      Hunter, T.

      Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

      Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

      Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

      Joel, D. J, B.

      Reimer, J. R.

      Craddock, Sir R. H.

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

      Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Ropner, Colonel L.

      Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

      Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

      Crossley, A. C.

      Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

      Rowlands, G.

      Crowder, J. F. E.

      Kimball, L.

      Salmon, Sir I.

      Davies, C. (Montgomery)

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Salt, E. W.

      Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

      Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

      De Chair, S. S.

      Latham, Sir P.

      Sanderson, Sir F. B.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Leckle, J. A.

      Sandys, E. D.

      Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

      Lees-Jones, J.

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

      Dodd, J. S.

      Liddall, W. s.

      Scott, Lord William

      Donner, P. W.

      Lindsay, K. M.

      Selley, H R.

      Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

      Little, Sir E. Graham-

      Shakespeare, G. H.

      Drewe, C.

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)

      Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

      Lumley, Capt. L. R.

      Slmmonds. O. E.

      Dugdale, Major T. L.

      Lyons, A. M.

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

      Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

      Eekersley, P. T.

      M'Connell, Sir J.

      Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

      Edge, Sir W.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

      Elliston, G. S.

      MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Spens, W. P.

      Emery, J. F.

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

      Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Erskine Hill, A. G.

      McKie, J. H.

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Evans, D. D. (Cardigan)

      Maclay, Hon. J. p.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Everard, w. L.

      Magnay, T.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Fildes, Sir H.

      Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

      Tasker, Sir R. I.

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Fremantle, sir F. E.

      Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

      Furness, S. N.

      Markham, S. F.

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

      Fyfe, D. P. M.

      Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

      Turton, R. H.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Wakefield, W. W.

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

      Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

      Walker-Smith, Sir J.

      Gledhill, G.

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

      Goldie, N. B.

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

      Warrender, Sir V.

      Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

      Waterhouse, Captain C.

      Granville, E. L.

      Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

      Wayland, Sir W. A.

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

      Wells, S. R.

      Gridley, sir A. B.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

      Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

      Munro, P.

      Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)

      Grimston, R. V.

      Nall, Sir J.

      Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

      O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

      Owen, Major G.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

      Guinness. T. L. E. B.

      Patrick, C. M.

      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

      Ward and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Compton, J.

      Grenfell, D. R.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

      Cove, W. G.

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

      Adamson, W. M.

      Daggar, G.

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Ammon, C. G.

      Dalton, H.

      Groves, T. E.

      Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

      Day, H.

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Dobbie, W.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Banfield, J. W.

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      Hardie, G. D.

      Barnes, A. J.

      Ede, J. C.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Barr, J.

      Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

      Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

      Batey, J.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Bellenger, F.

      Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

      Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

      Benson, G.

      Foot, D. M.

      Hicks, E. G.

      Broad, F. A.

      Gallacher, W.

      Holdsworth, H.

      Brooke, W.

      Gardner, B. W.

      Holland, A.

      Brown, C. (Mansfield)

      Garro-Jones, G. M.

      Hollins, A.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

      Gibbins, J.

      Hopkin, D.

      Burke, W. A.

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Jagger, J.

      Cluse, W. S.

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Cocks, F. S.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

      John, W.

      360

      361

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Muff, G.

      Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Oliver. G. H.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Paling, W.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Klrby, B. V.

      Parker, H. J. H.

      Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

      Lathan, G.

      Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Leach, W.

      Potts, J.

      Thome, W.

      Lee, F.

      Pritt, D. N.

      Thurtle, E.

      Leslie. J. R.

      Ouibell, J. D.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Logan, D. G.

      Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

      Viant, S. p.

      Macdonafd. G. (Ince)

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Walkden. A. G.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Rlley, B.

      Walker. J.

      McGhse, H. G.

      Ritson, J.

      Watklns, F. C.

      Maclean, N.

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Watson, W. McL.

      MacNelll, Weir, L.

      Rothschild, J. A. de

      Welsh, J. C.

      Mander. G. le M.

      Rowson, G.

      Wilkinson, Ellen

      Marklow, E.

      Sexton, T. M.

      Williams, T. (Don Valley)

      Marshall, F.

      Shlnwell, E.

      Wilson, C. H. (Attercllfte)

      Maxton, J.

      Short, A.

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Mliner, Majo J.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Montague, F.

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

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

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

      Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 112.

      Division No. 104.]

      AYES.

      [10.20 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

      Crowder, J. F. E.

      Hcpe, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

      Albery, I. J.

      Davles, C. (Montgomery)

      Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

      Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

      De Chair, S. S.

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. sir W. J. (Armagh)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hunter, T.

      Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. ot Ldn.)

      Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

      Hurd, Sir P. A.

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Dodd, J. S.

      Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

      Apsley, Lord

      Donner, P. W.

      Joel, D. J. B.

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Dorman Smith, Major R. H.

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

      Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Drewe, C.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

      Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop!

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

      Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

      Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Dugdala, Major T. L.

      Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

      Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Keyes, Admiral of the Flaet Sir R.

      Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

      Eckcrsley, P. T.

      Klmball, L.

      Bernays, R. H.

      Edge, Sir W.

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Blrchall. Sir J. D.

      Elliston, G. S.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

      Bird, Sir R. B.

      Emery, J. F.

      Latham, Sir P.

      Bllndell, Sir J.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Leckie, J. A.

      Bossom, A. C.

      Ersklne Hill, A. G.

      Lees-Jones, J.

      Boulton, W. W.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      Llddall. W. S.

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Everard, W. L.

      Lindsay. K. M.

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Flldes, Sir H.

      Little, Sir E. Graham-

      Bralthwalte. Major A. N.

      Foot, D. M.

      Liowellin. Lleut.-Col. J. J.

      Brass, Sir W.

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Brfscoe. Capt. R. G.

      Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Brockiebank, C. E. R.

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Lumley. Capt. L. R.

      Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

      Furness, S. N.

      Lyons, A. M.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

      Fyfe, D. P. M.

      Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      M'Conncll, Sir J.

      Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

      Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Burgln, Dr. E. L.

      Gledhlll, G.

      MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Butt, Sir A.

      Goldle, N. B.

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Graham Captain A. C. (Wtrral)

      McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

      Cartland, J. R. H.

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      MrKle. J. H.

      Carver. Major W. H.

      Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

      Maclay, Hon. J. P.

      Cary, R. A.

      Grldley, Sir A. B.

      Magnay, T.

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

      Maklns, Brig.-Gen. E.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Grlmston, R. V.

      Mander, G. le M.

      Channon, H.

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

      Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

      Christie, J. A.

      Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

      Markham, S. F.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Guinness, T. L. E. B.

      Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

      Colfox, Major W. P.

      Gunston, Capt. D. W.

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

      Guy, J. C. M.

      Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

      Colville, Lt.-Col D. J.

      Hamilton, Sir G. C.

      Mills. Major J D. (New Forest)

      Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

      Hanbury, Sir C.

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

      Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh.W.)

      Harbord, A.

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

      Courtauld. Major J. S.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)

      Craddock. Sir R. H.

      Harvey, G.

      Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Croft, Brln.-Gcn. Sir H. Page

      Hepworth, J.

      Munro, P.

      Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Rlpon)

      Nail, Sir J.

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Holdsworth, H.

      O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Crossley, A. C.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

      Owan, Major G.

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Patrick, C. M.

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Peal, C. U.

      Rothschild, J. A. de

      Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)

      Panny, Sir G.

      Rowlands, G.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

      Salmon, Sir I.

      Tasker, Sir R. I.

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Salt, E. W.

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Peters, Dr. S. J.

      Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

      Petherlck, M.

      Sanderson, Sir F. B.

      Tutnell, Lieut. Com. R. L.

      Plckthorn, K. W. M.

      Sandys, E. D.

      Turton, R. H

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

      Wakefleld, W. W.

      Radford, E. A.

      Scott, Lord William

      Walker-Smith, Sir J.

      Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

      Seely, Sir H. M.

      Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Selley, H. R.

      Warrender, Sir V

      Rankin, R.

      Shakespeare, G. H.

      Waterhouse, Captain C.

      Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

      Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)

      Wayland, Sir w. A.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Wells, S. R.

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Simmonds, D. E.

      Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

      Williams. H. G. (Crovdon. S.)

      Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

      Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

      Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

      Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

      Womersley, Sir w. J.

      Reiner, J. R.

      Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

      Rlckards, G. W. (Sklpton)

      Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

      Spens, W. P.

      Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

      Ropner, Colonel L.

      Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Ward and Major George Davies.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Groves, T. E.

      Parker, H. J. H.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

      Hall, G. H (Aberdare)

      Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

      Adamson, W. M.

      Hail, J. H. (Whltechapel)

      Potts, J.

      Ammon, C. G.

      Hardle, G. D.

      Prllt. D. N.

      Anderson. F. (Whltehaven)

      Henderson, A. (Klngswlnford)

      Qulbell, J. D.

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Henderson, J. (Ardwlck)

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Banfield, I. W.

      Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

      Riley, B.

      Barnes, A. J.

      Hicks, E. G.

      Rltson, J.

      Barr, I.

      Holland, A.

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Batey, J.

      Holllns, A.

      Rowson, G.

      Bellenger, F.

      Hopkln, D.

      Sexton, T. M.

      Benson, G.

      Jagger, J.

      Shlnwell, E.

      Broad, F. A.

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Short, A.

      Brooke, W.

      John, W.

      Sllverman, S. S.

      Brown, C. (Mansfield)

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Burke, W. A.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

      Cluse, W. S.

      Kirby, B. V.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Cocks, F. S.

      Lathan, G.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Compton, J.

      Leach, W.

      Stephen, C.

      Cove, W. G.

      Lee, F.

      Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

      Daggar, G.

      Leslie, J. R.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morptth)

      Dalton, H.

      Logan, D. G.

      Thurtle, E.

      Day, H.

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Tinker, J. J.

      Dobble, W.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Vlant, S. P.

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      McGhee, H. G.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Ede, J. C.

      Maclean, N.

      Walker, J.

      Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

      MacNelll, Weir, L.

      Watklns, F. C.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      Marklew, E.

      Watson, W. McL.

      Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. B. T. H.

      Marshall, F.

      Welsh, J. C.

      Gallacher, W.

      Maxton, J.

      Wilkinson, Ellen

      Gardner, B. W.

      Mliner, Major J.

      Williams, T. (Don Valley)

      Glbblns, J.

      Montague, F.

      Wilson. C. H. (Attercllfte)

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

      Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

      Muff, G.

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Grenfell, D. R.

      Oliver, G. H.

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Palinj, W.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Mr. Whitiley and Mr. Mathers.

      Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
      [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

      PERSONNEL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 50,000, 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, 1937."
      10.29 p.m.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move,
      "That a number, not exceeding 45,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."
      I am moving this reduction in order to deal with one subject. I desire to get information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the act Lai measures which are being taken for defence against air attack. There has been a great deal of discussion on the matter, but the Under-

      365
      Secretary has not up to the present been asked to specify actually what is being done, and, therefore, I would ask him to take this opportunity of discussing the broad question that has constantly been raised, and also the question whether, whatever precautions are taken, there is no possible effective defence against air attack. I raise this question because of the speech made by the Prime Minister about three years ago, which gave the country the impression that practically all efforts to defend ourselves against air attack are wasted. I will read the actual words of the Prime Minister:
      "I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth which can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people tell him, the bomber will always get through."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.]
      I want to know whether that represents the view of the Air Ministry, because whether it is the doctrine of the Air Ministry or not it must have a most profound practical result. It will determine what proportion of our planes shall be bombing planes and what proportion fighting planes for defensive purposes. It has generally been assumed that this is the view of the Air Ministry, but during the last two years a rather new element in the community has been giving its mind to these problems; that is a number of scientists whose reputation is certainly not exceeded in this country, and who, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have been called into consultation on the committees of the Air Ministry and have been sitting on committees for about 15 months. Some of these scientists have expressed their view in public, but the new element which has come into the discussions does not accept the view that there is no effective defence against air attack. They take the view that that is a defeatist proposition and do not agree by any means with the statement of the Prime Minister. Having gone into the matter I find that their view that there can be built up an effective defence is supported by technical papers like "The Flight," and also by men of great experience like General Ashmore, who was responsible for the air defence of London during the last War. In order to make the matter clear let me repeat what General Ashmore said. He said:
      366
      "No scale of defence, however great, can secure complete immunity from bombing, but by suitable arrangements the attacker may be made to suffer such casualties that his efforts will die out."
      That is a very different perspective from that which the public has had in mind as a consequence of the statement by the Prime Minister, and I think it is important that we should now know what is the perspective of the Air Ministry on this question. I have looked at such information as is available to a layman, and, while I admit that it is not precise, what General Ashmore points out is that taking the experience of the War—I agree, of course, that much has happened since then—the defence overcame the attack. On 19th May, 1918, Germany made her great culminating air attack upon London, and sent over 30 machines. Three of those machines were brought down by fighting in the air, three were shot down from the ground, three were so badly knocked about that they crashed, and one landed in Essex because of engine trouble. Therefore, one third of the attacking force was wiped out.
      As a result of this, it is rather strange that we should now take it for granted that there is no defence against air attack, for in the last War, following on experience of air attacks, there were no attempts to attack London at all during the last six months of the war. It is suggested in the technical papers and by the new elements entering into the discussion of this subject, that the Air Ministry is defeatist upon this matter. and is not showing in building up air defence the same intense zeal which it is showing in building up the method of attack by bombing.
      I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions about the policy of the Air Ministry, and I would ask him to give such replies as are possible. I will begin with the moment when the attacking force crosses the Channel and comes to our shores. I am told that there will be only eight minutes between the time the attacking force comes to our shores and the time it is in London. That is the shortest estimate made by qualified people. When the attacking force reaches our shores the first persons on whom the Air Ministry will rely for information as to the direction in which the attacking aeroplanes fly will be the observers. I would like to have some information about these observers. They

      367
      are in groups all round the coast, but they are not in any way expert or even skilled. They consist of the local parson, the schoolmaster, the postman—little groups of civilians; and these people are dealing with an issue in which every period of 10 seconds matters. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that this observer corps has a sufficient stiffening of professionals of experience to help out its work.
      I see from the Estimates that the entire amount of money spent to give them any professional assistance is £900 a year. That strikes one as extraordinarily small when one considers the vital importance of the work which they have to do. When the attacking force passes the observer corps, the next information about them comes from the searchlight battalions with their sound beaters. That would be the last information which Uxbridge would have on which it would be able to give any indication to the patrolling force where to go. There are several questions about the searchlight battalions which I have to ask, and which I see the technical papers are raising. They are not professionals but Territorials, and they are doing work in which every second matters. It is skilled and complicated work. Again I should like to be assured that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that they have a sufficient professional backing for work of this complexity. General Ashmore points out that he began during the War with the same system of volunteers, but he had to abandon them—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to point out where on the Estimates this particular force is borne. I understood it was carried on the Votes of the Army.
      Mr. LE ES-SMITH: That is true, and it shows how exceedingly unfortunate it is that one cannot really discuss this subject in these circumstances in any intelligible way. We can discuss the observer corps, but when it comes to the searchlights which are doing the same work, we are not able, owing to the rules of the House, to carry the matter further. I think, however, that I may raise the question on this Vote whether this particular work would not be better done by the Air Ministry than by the War
      368
      Office. It again strikes one who inquires into this question from the outside as very anomalous that this work should not be in the control of the Air Ministry. Again, I find that the technical papers are complaining that it is neglected because the best instruments are kept for the purposes of the War Office and that this work is hit until last. In the air exercises of last year, great complaint was made upon this topic. Air exercises are of little value unless searchlights are working all the time. The complaint was made that in those air exercises the only searchlights were at two points in Kent, and the bombers were able to proceed without any searchlights playing on them. That was due to the fact that the War Office decided that when the air exercises were taking place, they would send only one searchlight battalion into camp. None of the other searchlight battalions were in camp at the same time. Owing to this dual control, not only was there no practice in searchlight work, but, as far as I can see, the value of most of the exercises was greatly reduced.
      I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to express any opinion on that point, but I hope he will bring it to the attention of the new Minister, and point out that it is just the kind of question which he has been appointed to give a decision upon. I come to the last method of defence, about which I should like to have such information as the right hon. Gentleman feels he can give. During the War, according to General Ashmore's account, a very great part of the success of the defence of London was due to the system of kite balloons carrying nets. I need not go into the technicalities of the subject, but they compelled the attackers to fly at a certain height. He actually quotes a report which, in March, 1918, was made to the German High Command by the German Air Force:
      "If kite balloons are increased and improved much more they will make a raid en London almost impossible."
      General Ashmore proposed that this system should be retained, but owing to the need for economy it was not retained, and, as far as these Estimates show, there is no 'indication that there are three of these kite balloons left. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is giving ear to the advice coming to him on this subject from scientific quarters and following the experiments which ore being made in the

      369
      Welsh mountains on methods of defence which, if not of that type, have something of the same idea behind them. I put this question because the public is completely befogged. We have the Prime Minister making one definite statement and a vast body of expert opinion saying that it is wrong, and that if the Air Ministry would give as much attention to this side of the question as it does to methods of attack we might find, as is the case with operations at sea, that in the end defence conquers attack. If that should prove to be the case it would make an enormous difference not only to our feeling of security but to our whole policy. I will end by reading General Ashmore's conclusions:
      "Defence in this country will put a stop to raiding in a much shorter time than any counter-bombing could hope to do. It is time that a redistribution of strength between our bombing squadrons and our fighting squadrons should therefore be considered."
      Those are the questions on which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give such information as he feels that he safely can give.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I put the reduction I ought to refer to one observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman about which I had some doubt at the time. That is the question of how far it is in order to discuss the ground defence of London on this Estimate. I am bound to say that except for a very passing reference this question will not be in order. I sympathise with the Committee that the Rules of Procedure make it difficult to discuss the question.
      10.51 p.m.
      Mrs. TATE: It has been the fashion to-day, as in past years, to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the admirable manner in which he has introduced these Estimates. It is true, as has been said, that he introduced them this year with even greater skill than before, if that be possible, but I do not think that he is to be congratulated on that, for practice makes perfect, and in five years a practice of lulling to sleep the suspicions of this Committee with regard to the adequacy of our air service ought indeed to be perfect. He spoke with great feeling on the future of aviation, and reassured us that, owing to the generosity of Lord Rother-
      370
      mere, we have an extremely effective military machine. But it is not the actual number of machines that we have that will be vital in time of war; it is the capacity for producing those machines in large numbers. Not one word has been said this afternoon about whether we have the jigs laid down which can produce those machines in large quantities in time of war.
      The Under-Secretary spoke with tremendous feeling of commercial aviation and of his own faith that aviation is the greatest power the world has been given for promoting peace. I whole heartedly concur in that belief, but I cannot feel his extraordinary satisfaction with the commercial aviation of this country. He told us that Bishop Wilkins said 300 years ago that the day would come when people would call for their wings as regularly as they called for their boots. What matters is what countries' wings reply to the call. To-day there is a danger that the call will be answered by Pan-American Airways.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a separate Vote for civil aviation, which will come on later. If I admit a general discussion now, and if it is the will of the Committee I have no objection, but it must be on the strict understanding that the discussion will not be repeated on the Vote. I am in the hands of the Committee.
      HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
      Mrs. TATE: Last year the Under-Secretary told us that it was the intention of this country that there should be four or five services a week to India, three to East Africa and Singapore, two to South Africa and Australia, seven or eight services a. week to Egypt, and that he hoped later on we should do even better than that. We know it was not intended that these services should come into operation until 1937, but the Under-Secretary said then that the years had a habit of passing quickly, and 1937 is not very far off. In view of such a rapidly approaching date we have a right to expect that the ground organisation should be laid down to make these services effective.
      When we look at these Votes, what do we find allowed for ground organization? The sum of £204,000 to supply adequate

      371
      ground organisation, meteorological service, radio beams and night-flying installation. Anyone with a knowledge of the cost of such services will agree that the sum voted is hopeless, and that we have a right to say that our commercial aviation is being starved. For meteorological service the increase in the Vote is some £6,000, and £2,000 of that is to be voted to the Navy. The safety and efficiency of our Empire transport depends upon this. As the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, we have in this country installed at only one aerodrome the latest system for directing and landing in the fog. Only the other day we learned of the lamentable condition in a fog of 15 foreign aircraft, which were flying over Croydon for some time and were obliged to return to their own landing grounds. It was fortunate that they were, like the wise virgins, supplied with sufficient oil to enable them to do so. One feels little consolation from recent lamentable evidence which was given following a crash, and which showed that had they been machines of Imperial Airways there is very grave doubt whether the quantity of oil they carried would have enabled them to return to their bases.
      When we hear of the services that are to be inaugurated, we feel that we have a right to know what the machines are going to do. We are told that 29 flying boats and 12 land machines are under construction. Doubtless, we think that when those machines have taken the air, the whole world will be edified at the perfection of British design and the magnificence of the weapon given us by Imperial Airways to conquer the airways of the world. What do we find in actual fact? I believe that these machines will have a maximum range of about 1,500 miles. They will not be completed until 1937. In America there is the "S. 43," which is already two years old and has a maximum range of no less than 3,000 miles. It is able to carry a pay-load of from 3½to 5 tons. Another machine, which is already one year old, has a range of about 3,000 miles, and aeroplanes which are on the stocks in America will probably have a range of about 5,000 miles.
      We boast of the machines that are being constructed by Messrs. Short, and
      372
      whose range is 1,500 miles. Hon. Members are going to be taken to see them to-morrow, and if Imperial Airways are going to give us all a champagne lunch before we see them, Heaven knows we shall need the champagne. Hon. Members opposite have said that they are not against a monopoly service, and we have been told that the monopoly has been granted to Imperial Airways on the score of economy. If the Under-Secretary argues that it is economical not to have competition on a line where aeroplanes and seaplanes are already running, we might have to accept that, but will he explain what economy there is in having a monopoly service which is going to prevent any other line operating a route, although the Imperial Airways have not a machine with which they could possibly fly that route? Statements have appeared in the Press, doubtless inspired by Sir Eric Geddes, to the effect that we are shortly to have a service flying the Atlantic. There is no possibility of flying the Atlantic with any machine which has a lower range than 2,700 miles. I shall perhaps be told of that extraordinary abortion, the Short Mayo composite aircraft, but, even if it worked, that can never be an economic proposition because it needs a large plane and a small plane at every stopping place, and it is only going to carry mails.
      If Imperial Airways say that they are going to fly the Atlantic before 1940 then I call their bluff and I say that they have no machines with which they can do it. Yet to-day not only is that route reserved and a monopoly of it given to Imperial Airways, but, if a private line were prepared to build aeroplanes to fly the route, owing to the interference of the Air Ministry, they would not be allowed to do so, neither would they be given Post Office contracts. I ask the Under-Secretary, again, wherein is the economy? In answer to a question the other day the Postmaster-General told me that we were paying no less than £60,000 to French and German lines for flying the South Atlantic. I think this country has the right to ask why we should be paying that sum to foreign air lines. Why not to British air lines?
      I believe that if the development of commercial aviation had been left to private enterprise we should not be in this lamentable position. I believe we can construct the machines. That has

      373
      been proved with regard to military machines. When Lord Rothermere asked that a good machine should be built, a magnificent machine was forthcoming because we had not the lamentable interference of the Air Ministry in the technical design. I believe, with the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), that civil aviation ought to be taken out of the hands of the Air Ministry which has proved that it cannot deal with it. It ought to be put under the Board of Trade. I shall have more to say about the deplorable services of Imperial Airways on the Air Navigation Bill, but I do not want to detain the Committee longer at this late hour. While congratulating the Under-Secretary on his rather deplorable skill in hiding the facts I cannot congratulate him or those whom the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey described so felicitously as his fellow back-scratchers, on the service they give us in Imperial Airways.
      11.4 p.m.
      Mr. ELLIS SMITH: As I am anxious to keep strictly in order on this Vote I have analysed the figures dealing with the technical training of aircraft apprentices, metalworkers, woodworkers, and others who are dealt with in it. It has now been ruled that we shall be able to discuss this matter on the lines followed by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and I want to raise issues that have not been raised yet except by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. I ask him not to ride off from the issues which I am about to raise as he did earlier in the Debate, but to deal with them specifically because they concern thousands of men throughout the country. In introducing the Estimates, he outlined the main principles of the Air Ministry, and I want to relate this to the policy that they are pursuing in industry. He said that we must have an industry capable of turning over to war production and a plan for large units of civil industry to manufacture parts, and he said that arrangements are being made for firms to carry out large extensions for war potential. He also said that our equipment must be second to none in quality and that British craftsmen are the greatest in the world.
      My first observation is that young men trained in secondary schools and in universities have been brought from all parts
      374
      of this country to London in order to undergo examinations and have interviews with officials at the Air Ministry. Many of them have failed to pass those examinations, and, being unemployed, they have been left stranded in London, and many of them have not had their return fares. But I want to deal in the main with the factories that are manufacturing for the Air Ministry, and I would like to obtain some assurance from the right hon. Baronet. We find that scientific methods are being adopted in order to produce aeroplanes, but the same scientific methods are not being used in order to deal with the labour that is necessary. Huge capital is being sunk in the aircraft industry, but the exploitation of the men employed in it is greater than in any other section of industry.
      The expansion of the aircraft industry in this country coincided with a great slump in heavy industry, with the result that there is very little organisation in the aircraft industry. The methods of production that have been introduced, as, for example, piecework systems of all descriptions, are being applied in the production of aircraft. There is no guarantee with regard to piecework prices. In the heavy engineering industry, once a price is mutually agreed upon, no matter what the piecework earnings of a man are, that price is not reduced. Only in that way can you maintain confidence between the employers and the men, but in the aircraft industry as a whole there is no guarantee so far as the fixing of piecework prices is concerned. When a man makes any piecework earnings at all, every excuse and every loophole is taken in order to reduce those piecework prices. Then stop-watch methods have been introduced, and in scores of factories in this country men are standing over those engaged on production with stop watches, in order to fix the amount of time that a man must be engaged on a particular operation. In addition to that, all kinds of time-study methods have been adopted. Skilled men are being taken off production and their employment is being concentrated on manufacturing jigs. All this is undermining confidence in the factories and bringing about a seething discontent which is reflecting itself in many aircraft centres in this country.
      I want to put two specific questions to the Minister at this stage. Does he think

      375
      these methods of production tend to make for airworthiness in the production of aircraft? Do these methods of production conform to the Fair Wages Resolution passed in this House in 1910? There must be reasons why the aircraft industry is seething with indignation. Here are one or two more of the reasons. The exploitation of the distressed areas is being carried to a greater degree by aircraft manufacturers than by any other industry. Here is one typical example. One aircraft factory is recruiting its work-people from men obtaining grants from the Lord Mayor's Fund. They are starting boys and youths at fourpence per hour plus 10 shillings subsistence allowance. After a few weeks their pay is increased to sixpence per hour, but the allowance is dropped, which means in reality a reduction of twopence halfpenny per hour.
      Then we see the introduction of trainees and the dilution of labour to an extent we never thought we should see again. Lawyers, doctors, and professionally trained men are well protected. There is no danger of dilution so far as they are concerned, but when it comes to working-class lads who have been trained in skilled trades, and who, as the result of sacrifices by their parents, have been able to serve seven years' apprenticeship to a trade and spend five years in evening classes, developing themselves technically in order to qualify in the aircraft and heavy industries, we find that from 1922 to 1934 they have been subject to unemployment and the means test. Now that there is a possibility of full employment, they see coming into the factories trainees, and the introduction of dilution again.
      The Government in their papers have stated that they have met the Federation of British Industries. They have had assurances from the employers, and no wonder this strike is taking place in many of the aircraft factories of the country, because the men engaged directly on production are just as capable of reading what the Government have done as anyone in this House. They have seen that so far as the employers and manufacturers are concerned their interests are being safeguarded. Assurances are being given to them, but this Government is showing very little interest in the main-
      376
      tenance of the conditions of the organized workers.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that these strikes are unofficial strikes, and have not the sanction of the trade unions?
      Mr. SMITH: Yes, Sir. I thank the hon. Member for that interjection. It enables us to deal with the issue that is raised. We must remember that this is an expanding industry. There is more capital being put into this industry than into any other, and the result is that the industry is not yet organised in the same way that others are. The men's grievances cannot be ventilated in the same way that they are in other sections of industry, and it is reflecting itself in this way. Unless this matter is dealt with, you will find it will reflect itself in a bigger way than some people think.
      I want to contrast that with the policy of speculation on the Stock Exchange. In May, 1935, the Prime Minister gave an assurance in this House. Very briefly this is the main thing he said:
      "The whole Government are determined that, in the efforts we regard as necessary for the next couple of years, there shall he no profiteering in what I must call an emergency."
      The Under-Secretary was equally emphatic. The possibility of profiteering, he said, had not been overlooked, and the Government would take every step they could to prevent it. And yet we have seen the speculation which has taken place on the Stock Exchange. I know that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the right hon. Baronet, have said that speculation on the Stock Exchange has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but this is what the Financial Editor of the "Manchester Guardian" wrote on the 25th February last:
      "That the considerable reaction of prices during the last few days spells the end of the armament boom, not one broker among a dozen thinks for a moment."
      We have seen that the values of aircraft shares on the Stock Exchange have increased, according to the "Economist" of the 29th February last, in the following way: Fairey Aviation shares, in April, 1935, were 23s. 6d.; they are now 37s. 6d. Hawker Aircraft shares, in April, 1935, were 25s. 3d.; they are now

      377
      32s. Hawker Siddeley shares, on the 1st October, 1935, were 23s. 6d.; they are now 30s. In the light of the pepper case, does not the right hon. Baronet think that the new flotations indicate some need for more control over prospectuses?
      Do the Government think it desirable, now that they have introduced this defence programme, that this speculation should be allowed to continue? Will they, in placing orders, take into account the effect on costs of this speculative inflation? We see new issues with no evidence of public subscription for new plant. From the "Financial Times" and the "Financial News" to-day we see that more capital is to be put up in the aircraft industry, but none of that is going into new plant; it is mostly reorganisation for the purposes of company finance, the promoters taking the cream off before the manufacturing takes place, leaving the managers employed direct on production, and the workpeople, to make the dividend. Hon. Members may ask: "What has all this to do with what we are discussing?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I anticipated that they would say "Hear, hear," and that is the reason why I put the question in the way that I did. Perhaps they would like to be reminded of our experience. If they had lived in Lancashire, they would not have replied "Hear, hear" to a question of that kind, but would have been sufficiently interested in their own system of society to know how their frignds the capitalists in Lancashire have suffered by speculation. This is how it affects, not only the workpeople, but the managers employed in production. Suppose that one share in any of these firms stood at £1 12 months ago, and that it now stands at £5, and that one of those hon. Members who said "Hear, hear" had bought a number of those shares a few years ago, as many people did. The value of those £1 shares would now probably be £5 and instead of the managers of the firms and the workpeople having only to make dividends on £1 they would have to make dividends on £5.
      Captain Sir IAN FRASER: Were these ordinary or preference shares?
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): I have allowed the
      378
      hon. Member large latitude. I must ask him to relate his speech to Vote A.
      Mr. SMITH: Quoting from the "Economist," these were ordinary and not preference shares. We find that the workpeople engaged in industry are having to make more profits on debentures than they have ever done. These capital charges are greater than ever they were. All this is bringing about a greater degree of exploitation in the aircraft industry than there has been in any other section of industry. What do the Government propose to do with regard to the introduction of dilution, the introduction of the trainees in the aircraft industry and the other issues that I have raised on behalf of the men employed in that industry
      11.22 p.m.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: So far as the hon. Member's first observations are concerned, he admitted that the strikes of which he complained were unofficial strikes, of which the unions disapproved and, when he says the unions are not strongly represented in the aircraft industry, he only shows how little he knows about that industry. The unions are in quite a strong position and the strikes are due to certain undesirable manifestations that I thought hon. Members were as anxious to stamp out as we are. I will not follow the hon. Member into the City, because some of his arithmetic would take rather longer to correct than I have at my disposal.
      The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) referred to the Prime Minister's oft-quoted statement that the bomber will always get through. This is an indication of what the Prime Minister on another occasion called the many-sidedness of truth. The right hon. Gentleman was understood by everyone who heard him to mean that a certain percentage of a fleet of bombers would get through. I do not think that can be questioned. The number that will get through depends largely on the weather and on the pessimism or optimism of Members in this Committee. Whatever is the position on this matter of defence against air attack, hon. Members opposite, it seems to me, cannot forsake the position that they have so unhappily assumed in the country and the House of refusing to approve the Air Estimates for this year. I some-

      379
      times wonder when I listen to speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they have ever taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with conditions and feelings on the Continent of Europe. How many hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in Europe during the last three months or even during the last year? Some, I dare say, who speak volubly on the European situation have not been outside these Islands at all. That is a matter for regret, and it would be an excellent thing if all hon. Members in this House were obliged to spend a certain number of months each year abroad, and then there might be better international understanding and less chance of war.
      Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to advocate from those benches that the money be supplied by a subsidy from the Government to enable us to take the trip which he so desires us to take?
      Mr. SIMMONDS: I will not enter into that discussion to-night for the very obvious reason that it is not a suitable time in which to do it, but, frankly, the Government and many Labour organisations might spend money in that way rather than in many other directions in which it is now expended. If we look abroad, it is obvious that the Government are only doing what they are obliged to do in view of their responsibilities in present circumstances. I had the good fortune to be in Germany a fortnight ago for a few days when the White Paper was published. I had an opportunity of talking to German men of all classes and to hear frankly their reactions. They were universally, as they were voiced to me, reactions of disappointment at the White Paper, and, in. particular, as far as the provision for the Air Force was concerned. Hon Gentlemen immediately will say, "Of course they were disappointed. We have told you all along that these increased forces were unsettling Europe." Quite the contrary was the truth. Their disappointment was that, whereas they expected to find an increase of 2,500 aeroplanes, there was only an increase of 250. The average German knows that if there is one thing that will prevent him from being dragged from his desk and from his home to take part in some foreign adventure it is
      380
      a strong British Air Force. That is casting no reflection on any ruler in Germany to-day because everybody knows that circumstances are largely uncontrolled; and there is a left wing in the Nazi movement which, even if Herr Hitler's proposals be honest to a degree, may in the end prevent us from reaping the fruition of the peace that he suggests. Therefore, it is an absurdity for anybody on the opposite side of the House, either here or in the country to suggest that the increase in the Air Force, small as it is, is going to cause the slightest flutter in any foreign country. On the contrary. Hitler himself has said that a strong Britain in the air will be a guarantee of peace in Europe. Many hon. Members will share the view that in the present international situation the Government might have gone a lot further in the way of increasing the Air Force. If you are dealing with a nation which places its faith in force it is not a sufficient deterrent to say that if they increase their forces we shall increase ours. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Birmingham, said that we have the ability to outstrip all others, and I believe that if the Government had said boldly that we were to have 5,000 more aeroplanes, unless the international situation improved to such an extent that we could reduce that figure. we might have prevented the militarisation of the Rhineland. It is because we were not prepared to say boldly that we intended to have certain armed forces, which Germany in her present Economic situation could not hope to reach, that we are having difficulties on the Continent.
      As the Government have not been bold in the matter of the home defence Air Force, so also they have not been bold in the matter of an Imperial Air Force. I asked the Under-secretary the number of first-line aircraft available, excluding the fleet air arm, for the defence of the Empire when the 12 proposed squadrons were added, and the reply was 430. If hon. Members will cast their eyes round the world and think of the responsibilities of that small force, from Hong Kong and Singapore to Aden, Egypt, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar and the West Indies, they will agree that 430 aeroplanes are a fantastically small force for such an immense purpose, and we have therefore the fear before us that the

      381
      policy of recent months of drawing on the home defence forces to augment our Imperial forces will become a precedent. It is a most dangerous precedent. A force of 1,750 aircraft should be maintained for the defence of this country, and if the Under-Secretary is able to give the Committee any assurance on that point it will be appreciated in many quarters.
      In view of the lateness of the hour, I will keep my remarks exclusively to the Service point of view. There are three or four points which arise in connection with production—[Interruption]—and they are as important to hon. Members opposite as they are to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I want to raise two or three points—and the measure of my remarks will be gauged by the minutes I occupy—with regard to the production of this vast force which the Air Ministry now has in hand. Production depends on tools, machinery and men. I want to emphasise to the Committee that the production of to-day is being seriously prejudiced because we have not adequate tools and adequate machinery, and we have not the skilled men. Of one of the greatest organisers whom I ever had the pleasure to meet, it was said that he had no limitations, and I believe that what the Air Ministry and what we have to say to all the Departments of the Government is that they must cast aside the normal limitations of their spheres of activity in order to solve this problem.
      I instance the case of skilled labour. A little while ago I inquired of the Minister of Labour whether he would facilitate the return to this country of British citizens who went to the United States in better times, are now out of employment and would, I believe, come back here to fill some of these skilled jobs which are at present waiting. His reply was that there was no statutory provision to enable these men to return.
      Mr. LOGAN: In speaking of skilled labour, does the hon. Gentleman mean engineers?
      Mr. SIMMONDS: I speak of those skilled workmen of which there is a dearth in the aircraft industry. If my hon. Friend is unaware of the specific categories in which there is a dearth, I shall be happy to supply him with those trades.
      Mr. LOGAN: It was not my ignorance I wanted to expose, but that of the hon. Member. I asked whether there was a lack of engineers because I want the hon. Member to know that there is no such lack of skilled labour in the country.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: I trust the hon. Member has exposed what he desired, but I am telling him that there is a serious shortage of skilled engineers in certain branches of engineering. These are key men, and as a result of their absence we shall have to wait in some cases six months and in some cases nine months in order to get the tools which we need to-morrow. That is a serious position.
      Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that there is any amount of these skilled men over 45 years of age to whom industry will not give employment? Answer that.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: The answer to that is quite definite. It is that all the Employment Exchanges up and down the country have applications for men with this experience, and, irrespective of age, if only the employers could get these men, they would jump at the opportunity and would pay good wages. If only hon. Members on the other side would take the trouble to go to their Employment Exchanges and make themselves acquainted with these deficiencies, they would come to this Committee a little better informed than they appear to be.
      Mr. GRIFFITHS: We go there more often than you do.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: The second question, so far as production is concerned, is the difficulty of what I will call multiplication. If there should be an outbreak of war, we must immediately multiply our sources of supply. If I may take one example of the Rolls Royce works at Derby. It is giving no secret away to say that so far as aerial power in this country is concerned, the Rolls Royce works at Derby are the very heart, because a very large number of our aircraft are powered with that engine. It is also well known abroad that these engines are built nowhere else except at Derby. If, therefore, an enemy air force could wipe out these works, they would have struck a blow at the heart of the British Air Force from which it would take a considerable time to re-

      383
      cover. Therefore, it is essential that all the firms that are manufacturing skilled products such as engines should at once manufacture for storage by the Air Ministry complete sets of jigs and tools which could be farmed out in an emergency. We should thus spread out the risk over the country and not be in the hopelessly vulnerable position in which we are today.
      The last point I want to raise is in connection with State factories. I have heard it suggested from the other side that the Government are remiss in not beginning State factories. On the contrary, I think the Government have chosen the best of both worlds in the arrangement they have made of supplying the money for the factory and the machinery and handing them over to private enterprise in order to carry through the manufacture. I want to emphasise that this is a most serious problem which I trust all Members on the other side will appreciate. The Air Ministry at the moment is the judge of the varying qualities of the products of the aircraft industry. One of the worst features of aircraft production during the War was that while the then Royal Aircraft Establishment judged the whole of the industry, it also produced its own aircraft. It was thus both judge of the industry and a competitor with the industry. That was a hopeless position which does not, at the moment, vitiate the relations between the industry and the Air Ministry. It will be well to observe, therefore, that in the arrangement which the Government have made with the private engineering manufacturing companies to operate their own plants in Government-owned factories, we have achieved a compromise which avoids excessive expenditure on the part of these firms and yet prevents unwholesome competition between State-run factories and the aircraft industry. I congratulate the Air Ministry on the boldness with which it has proceeded to order a certain experimental craft before the period which my hon. Friend mentioned would in the ordinary way have been the case. I know the features of some of these craft. The technical officers in the Ministry who have approved the order of these craft have taken a risk that civil servants do not usually take. I believe that their judgment has been sound, and the Com-
      384
      mittee and the country owe the Air Ministry staff a great deal for the way in which it has risen to the important task which the country has allotted to it.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. WOODS: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for making fairly clear the difference between the two sides of the Committee on this matter. His case evidently is that the way to peace is by increased armaments and his complaint is that the Government have proposed to add only a few hundred machines to our air force when they ought to have added thousands. I do not see why he should stop at thousands, because if that is the way to peace the more machines we have the quicker we attain peace, apparently. He presumes to be an authority on mathematics and multiplication, and if that is the way to peace the more machines there are the sooner peace will be achieved. We dissent from that view. We say that the day has arrived when the way to peace is by increasing goodwill among men. The method he advocates has been tried century after century and with the same inevitable and tragic results. He and his friends do not seem to have profited from the lesson that that is the way to war.
      He chided us on this side for not visiting the Continent. I suppose he has been over for a week-end trip and seen just a few German people. It is absurd to think that because we sit on the Labour Benches we are not as interested in the world and international affairs as are hon. Members opposite, although we may not fraternise with the same strata when we go abroad. I had the privilege last ear of making an extended tour through a number of Continental countries, including Germany. Austria and Italy, and studying that new type of Government at first hand, and the supreme impression made on me was that just as the spontaneous desire of the people of this country is for peace so the people in those countries, enduring the same tragic poverty and insecurity and threats of war, find a common expression with us in the desire for peace. I yen though modern dictators in countries like Germany are making preparations for war all their public utterances are of a purpose with

      385
      the utterances of hon. Members opposite, who claim to be apostles of peace.
      I wish to elucidate something which was implied in the peroration of the able speech with which the Under-Secretary presented his Estimates. He believes that in the Air Force we have a, powerful factor making for peace. We can appreciate his sentiments, but on this Vote A, for men, we should like to know how airmen can become agents of peace. Is there to be included in their training special lessons in international good will? If not, are they to be made so utterly human and so international that they will not do the work which was resented so much in the War, of dropping bombs on innocent, impotent and defenceless people? We are told that we are to have a new type of bombing machine, and fighters that will travel at 300 miles per hour. I do not think it will be possible for the Under-Secretary to persuade our Continental friends that these new machines must be recognised as doves of peace. If it can be proved that they will be ambassadors of peace, bringing enlightenment and understanding and a spirit of good will into the world, let us know how it is to come about.
      There is one human aspect on which both sides of the Committee will be in agreement. These young men who enlist in the Air Force are the finest type of young manhood in the country. In this service they are doing essentially experimental work, and taking for the country abnormal risks. It would come as a shock to the country if the people were told that while the country is prepared to accept their services and encourage them to take these risks, if disaster befalls we practically wipe our hands of any responsibility. I had to appeal to the Under-Secretary recently regarding a young man who met his fate at Port Sudan. That young man was one of the finest lads I have known. He entered the Air Force, studied and became efficient, received successive promotions. His widowed mother was proud of him. One night the news came that lie was no more. He had been contributing the bulk of his earnings to his mother. Now, because his father had been able to save and leave a house for his widow to live in, because there is a daughter who is working, because the income of the household is £1, we are told that the Government can take no account of the fact that this lad
      386
      was supporting his widowed mother. She is infinitely poorer by the loss of her son, to her almost everything in the world, she is financially far worse off. Before we go any further and ask any more young men to take up this Service, the least the country can do is to say that it will honour their responsibilities to their families. I appeal to the House and to the Minister. If we are to be highly proud of this Service, we ought to take responsibility and play the game by these young men, so that they will know, whether they live, or die in this great Service, that those for whom they live and labour will not be at a, loss because of disaster.
      11.56 p.m.
      Mr. WAKEFIELD: Many hon. Members have to-day drawn attention to the importance of encouraging civil aviation. I make no apology for again turning to that subject. I believe that by developing our commercial air strength we can secure in the cheapest possible way the objectives which we have set ourselves. Attention has been focussed in recent Debates on the importance of organising industry, and, in particular, the human element, in preparation for war. Experience in the last war showed how important it was that the Royal Navy should have a large Mercantile Marine at its back to safeguard food supplies, to help man the ships of war and to do the trawling that was necessary to clear the seas of mines. It was necessary also to have a large Mercantile Marine reserve. What was important for the Navy 20 years ago is more than ever important for the Royal Air Force to-day. It is of the utmost importance that this country should have behind it a large reserve of efficient, experienced and skilled pilots and of commercial aeroplanes that can, if need be, act as bombers.
      An examination of the position of the Royal Air Force will, I think, prove my argument. The duties of the Royal Air Force may be classified under four main heads. First, there are the fighters, the machines and the pilots whose duty is to obtain and maintain command of the air, and to protect and defend these shores and the shores of any other country as may be necessary under the obligations that we have undertaken in the cause of collective security. Then there are that second section of aeroplanes and pilots

      387
      who have to co-operate with the Army, whether by reconnaissance, photography or artillery co-operation, or whatever may be required. The third section is required for fleet co-operation and for the protection of our ships and merchant convoys coming to our shores. Finally, there are the bombers, the offensive arm of the Royal Air Force. Bombing machines have a long range. Their job is to go into the enemy territory and to destroy communications and factories and in general to play havoc with the enemy's country. That is their job in time of war, and a very terrible job it is. It is to bring fear; it is to retaliate, too, and a powerful bombing strength will definitely show foreign countries that this country has a power of retaliation. That is an important factor, because if this country has a large bombing strength behind it, it is clear that no other country will enter into aggression if it is well known that this country has behind it the means to retaliate if need be.
      The objective of this country is security, security to be obtained with as little expenditure as possible, and I believe that this can be obtained by encouraging the development of our civil aviation. If this country has as many civil aeroplanes as possible, with pilots trained and accustomed to fly day by day, night by night, wider all conditions of weather, under every kind of difficult circumstance, then in time of necessity those self-same pilots will be the most efficient and the most able to pilot their machines and carry their bombs into enemy territory. Therefore, by maintaining and developing a large commercial air strength, we are at the same time building up a reserve of pilots and machines which will be available if necessary in time of war, for a machine can just as well carry bombs in war as passengers or mails or other goods in time of peace.
      It may be that operating services cannot be done at a profit, but surely it is far cheaper to obtain this large reserve of pilots and machines by using them for commercial services in time of peace and having them available in time of war, if need be, than to spend money on a large number of bombing machines which cannot be usefully employed in time of peace. The position of the Royal Air Force is therefore different from that of the Royal Navy or the Army, because in
      388
      the Navy it is not possible to turn your trawlers or your merchant shipping into submarines, destroyers, or cruisers, nor can you use your tanks in time of peace to convey goods or for commercial purposes. They are there only for war operations. But civil aeroplanes can be used both in peace and war. Therefore it is of importance that this civil aviation should be developed as much as is humanly possille.
      There is a further reason. In flying to-day it is possible to fly to an enemy country unseen in the midst of clouds. It is not necessary to have the latest and most up-to-date machines available for that purpose. A slower machine or an obsolete type of machine in the clouds, unseen by enemy aircraft or by hostile defences on the ground, can reach its objective on account of the development that has taken place in blind flying. Therefore, so long as a machine has a long enough range to get to its objective, it does not matter that it is not of the latest type or is not able to fly as fast as a fighter or other machine. Therefore all our aircraft and all our pilots that are available in the country must surely be counted in our first-line strength. I have seen many references made to commercial pilots and machines, but surely if it is possible for commercial machines to be used for war purposes, and if your most valuable bombing pilots are your commercial pilots, they should be taken into account for first-line comparisons.
      I have asked one or two questions in this House recently as to the number of pilots in possession of "A" and "B" licences and the equivalent in foreign countries, and the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, in his remarks earlier to-night, pointed out that this country was in a fairly satisfactory position. He suggested, for example, that proportionately to the number of people in this country and in America the number of pilots in possession of "A" licences was approximately the same, but my information does not quite bear that out. My information is obtained from the United States Chamber of Commerce Bulletin last month, which states that the pilot licences active were 14,800, that the scheduled air transport pilot ratings active were 734, and that the student licences active were 25,500. If you compare those figures with the 3,300 "A"

      389
      licences in this country and the 583 "B" licences, it does not put such a happy complexion on the state of affairs.
      With regard to Germany, I asked what was the position in Germany, and I was told that no figures were available, but I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) who said earlier that he understood there were something like 18,000 to 20,000 pilots available in Germany. My information, obtained from reliable sources, is that there are at any rate not less than 12,000 pilots in Germany available and ready to fly machines if need be. Surely that evidence is sufficient to show that it is of the utmost importance that greater encouragement should be given to civil aviation than has been given in the past and that is being given now. I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman said about how civil aviation was being encouraged and the great strides that are being made, but surely a great deal more could be done and ought to be done than is being done now to ensure that this country does have that adequate reserve of skilled and experienced pilots ready and available in case of any emergency.
      In conclusion, I would urge that no steps be left untaken to promote the development of civil aviation. I appreciate that this country compares ill with America. We have not the great spaces here that America has for the development of commercial aviation, but we have something far greater; we have world-wide communications and we have a far-flung Empire and Dominions at the other end of the earth, and the best way to shorten the distance, to abolish space and time, and to promote social intercourse between ourselves and the Commonwealth over the seas is by urging forward with all possible speed the development of commercial aviation throughout the world and in that way very cheaply obtain the security which is so essential for peace.
      12.9 a.m.
      Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: I should like to refer to one point that was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) on the necessity for adequate factory equipment behind our Air Force. The wastage of aeroplanes through accidents, wear and tear, and becoming out of date is enormous even in
      390
      peace time, and it will rise to something tremendous in war time. There must therefore be an enormous and adequate factory equipment behind our Air Force. It is quite a mistake, in my opinion, to try to reckon your Air Force in terms of first-line machines. It is to be reckoned in terms of factory equipment, able to maintain a rapid and ceaseless flow of aeroplanes to the front line in war-time.
      There are two questions which I would venture to put to the Minister—and may I say in view of what was said in the House the other day about his preferring written to oral answers that I shall be satisfied with written answers. The first has reference to the question of experiments which may have been carried out on this very vexed subject of the aeroplane versus the warship. Has the Air Ministry received every facility and every co-operation which it has asked for from the Admiralty in that respect? It is certain that experiments have been carried out by the Air Ministry, but they ought to be carried out with certain equipment and under certain specific conditions, and I ask if the Air Ministry requirements have been fully met by the Admiralty.
      The second question I ask is with a view to bringing the Debate back to the very important subject raised by the Mover of the Amendment, and that is the question of defence against air attack. In the White Paper which was issued last March, the question of defence was referred to, and these words were used:
      "Increase in speed, range and height accentuates the difficulty of bringing defensive aircraft into action to repel an attack. The only deterrent seems to be counter-attack."
      In the second White Paper which we debated last week, the words used are these:
      "The prime function of the R.A.F. is to provide an effective deterrent to attack."
      The language used is not quite so emphatic as in the first White Paper, and I would like to know if the first White Paper still holds the field, and if it is still considered that the only deterrent to air attack is counter-attack. In other words, if Birmingham is bombed and laid out, is the only consolation we can offer to the survivors the fact that we have bombed and laid out Essen or some other town? Is it considered an effective defence against air attack to attack enemy

      391
      aerodromes or enemy factories where aeroplanes are constructed or to attack enemy towns by way of counter-attack? I have only risen for the purpose of putting those two questions to the right hon. Baronet, and I shall be most grateful if he can see his way to give some reply.
      12.14 a.m.
      Mr. EVERARD: I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member opposite in the questions he has asked. I should like to associate myself with my friends on this side of the Committee in their congratulations to my right hon. Friend, not only on the excellent way in which he has presented the Estimates, but on being able for the fifth time to present them, and to present Estimates which are more acceptable to those who sit on this side of the Committee than any previously presented.
      I have had the opportunity of travelling by air through every country in Europe, including Russia, where I travelled last autumn, and no one can possible blink the fact that it is past time that we made up the deficiencies in our own Air Force. In the old days, when every country was willing and able to give full returns as to its strength, military and otherwise, it was more easy for us to take risks in regard to our own safety than it is to-day. There are to-day, in various parts of Europe, vast territories whose military preparations are almost unknown, and it shows the spirit of peace for which this country stands that, in spite of the increase in our Estimates for all three Services, I have seen no comment in any of the foreign Press to the effect that we are an aggressive nation or desire anything more than to be capable of defending ourselves. It was Great Britain that offered equality of air forces at the recent Disarmament Conference; we stated that we were prepared to have an Air Force no stronger than, but as strong as, any Air Force within striking distance of these shores; but unfortunately agreement could not be arrived at. We should be far more likely to get an agreement if we were of the same strength as other countries than if we were to remain the fifth or sixth air power and asked others to come down to our strength.
      Some important questions arise on these Estimates. The first is that of the personnel of the Air Force. I do not wish
      392
      to deal with that question now, as it has been already dealt with by others. Another most important item is the provision of reserves, to which I think my right hon. Friend and the Air Ministry should give every possible attention. Although in war there are great losses in both the other Services, there is a far larger percentage of loss of skilled pilots and others in a war in the air, and it is more difficult to make up leeway there than it is on the ground.
      Another question is, have the Air Ministry carefully considered the training, in the use of present-type aircraft, of officers who have completed their service To-day aircraft are being made to be flown at over 300 miles an hour. The speed of the training machines in this country is probably in the neighbourhood of 100, or 90 miles an hour. The speed of the machine that a man used to fly in the Air Force may have been 150, and to expect him, after a short training at 100, to take charge of one of the new machines with a speed of 300 miles an hour would be rather like expecting someone who was getting elderly, and who had been accustomed to driving a smal motor car, to take one of the fastest cars round Brooklands and compete with a man who had been doing it for years. This is a very important point, which should be looked into in order to ensure that reserves have a proper training in the new fast machines, so that they may be capable of flying them in time of war.
      I am glad that my right hon. Friend made an appeal to employers, who have not, I think, really played their part in the Territorial organisation, either with regard to the Air Force or the Army. That has been largely because they did not understand the necessity, and the men they employed have not liked to ask for facilities. I would suggest that this matter might be brought to the attention of the Federation of British Industries, and, through them, of the employers, because it is of enormous importance that we should have their co-operation.
      Another matter of importance is short week-end training and some of the personnel for the reserve. It is impossible for a great many people to give up some weeks of time for the purpose of doing their reserve training. If they could go

      393
      at the week-end within a short distance of home you are far more likely to encourage people who have gone through the ordinary light aeroplane club or other method of training to go into the reserve and become a useful adjunct to the Air Force. I believe more use could be made of the light aeroplane club movement itself in this respect. There is an enormous shortage of instructors all over the country. There has never been a time when the pay of pilots or instructors has been so high. It is all very well to say let us pay for new organisations and train people. The first thing we must do is to utilise to the fullest capacity the instructors that we have to-day. There is a vast amount of the time of the instructors in these clubs which could be devoted to other purposes if arrangements should be made in that respect.
      There is a question on which I have had one or two difficulties myself. I understand that the Air Force has offered certain commissions to applicants from the Dominions. They have been able to obtain medical examination in the Dominions and have then come over here at their own expense and endeavoured to join. I have at least one case, and I believe there are more, where people who have been passed by doctors in Canada or elsewhere have been failed by the Air Force doctors here. Surely arrangements could be made for these people to be doctored in the Dominions and saved the expense of coming here only to be turned down.
      May I say a word on long service commissions? I am not very satisfied, with the great expansion that we have in the Air Force, to see that the cadets from Cranwell have only gone up from 133 to 144. This is a two years' course and presumably half that number, 72, will on the average be coming into the Service in the year. That seems an extraordinarily small number. I agree that there is everything to be said for the method of the short service commission but I believe for the permanent stability of the Air Force it is essential to have a, larger proportion of full term cadets from Cranwell passing through and going up to the higher commands. I am very pleased to see the excellent results my right hon. Friend is obtaining from the new civil training schools. It is a very
      394
      fine piece of business that the Air Ministry have done for these schools. They have got their pupils taught to fly very much cheaper than they could teach them themselves, and they have got 13 first class aerodromes made at someone else's expense which will be useful to the country in time of war. I am not so satisfied as to whether they will keep up the standard of the pupils in those schools. I have already heard that the second course pupils are not so capable as those who came forward at first, but as in other walks of life those who are keen, able and capable come forward first and then you get less capable people coming. I have no doubt the Air Ministry have their eye on that matter.
      A great deal has been said regarding the question of profiteering in aircraft firms. I have never had any shares in any aircraft concern in my life, nor have I been associated with any aircraft firm. Therefore, I can claim to be entirely unprejudiced on this point. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that none of us, either on that side or on this, desire for a moment to see anybody taking any undue advantage of the difficulties with which the country is faced at the present time. But let us look at the other side of the question. Here you are asking for the best brains of the country to come to the assistance of the Air Ministry to produce the latest type of machinery that is possible, and the finest machines in the world. I believe that if you can produce the best of anything in this world, you are justified in asking a reasonable price for the use of your brains and your intelligence.
      There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend. He talked to us about the instructions to proceed. That is all right, but I understand from some of the people connected with aircraft firms that there is some difficulty about the position. It is not always easy, if you get the instruction to proceed, to proceed at full steam, unless you get some satisfaction as to the method of financing the increased organisation required in your business. I have heard it said that "The Air Ministry have not actually yet concluded a definite contract. They tell us that we are going to make a profit, but they do not tell us whether we are going to make a profit if we work day and night shifts as well."

      395
      There is an enormous amount of extra expenditure put upon the aircraft or any other industry working night shifts. If that is not allowed to be charged against the agreed price these firms may well be working to-day at a loss. There is an enormous amount of new buildings which the Government have asked these firms to put up, but it is, I understand, in some cases being found rather difficult to finance these operations because this definite final price has not yet been agreed upon.
      As one who has always been interested in the private side of aviation I look with some trouble on the position we are in to-day. It seems to me that all the efforts of the Government, and all the efforts connected with civil aviation, are to make it as difficult as possible for the private owner to fly about this country. There is now a method in operation, through the Department, of somebody being able to take the air over your own aerodrome for the purpose of blind flying. Whereas on the Continent they are waiving landing fees, and it is easy to fly over all the countries of Europe, it will soon be impossible without restrictions of all kinds to fly about this country. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary, when he is considering the Maybury Committee's report, to consider the position of London aerodromes in future. I do not like the abominable word "planning," but there must be some arrangement made in this matter. As the great bulk of our population live in the North of England, with the development of internal air services in future you are bound to have a terminal aerodrome on the North of London as you have Croydon on the South. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider whether it would not be possible to transfer the auxiliary squadrons at Hendon to the West or South of London in order that Hendon may be made the airport for the North of London. A lot of money is being spent by private owners of aerodromes and municipalities on the improvement of buildings on aerodromes. I think it would pay the Air Ministry to make some grant to owners of aerodromes where they could show that the buildings would be in a locality and of a type that would be useful to the country in time of war.
      396
      I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) regarding Imperial Airway s. They have many defects, but not nearly as many as she has put upon them. The answer to the question of British or American machines surely is that. 25 of the countries in Europe use British type aircraft, and that there is no country in the world which can compare with the quality of engines and aircraft which this country is turning out to-day. I thank my right hon. Friend for the great advance which he has been able to make, and hope that next year wt may see still further advance.
      12.34 a.m.
      Sir P. SASSOON: The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) raised a point at the beginning of the discussion on this Vote in connection with offence versus defence, and he appeared to suggest that we were perhaps devoting attention to and incurring expenditure on methods inconsistent with statements that have been made in previous debates. There is nothing inconsistent between what we are doing and what the Prime Minister said nearly three and a-half years ago. The primary method of defence against air attack is undoubtedly at present, and will perhaps always be, the ability of our own Air Forces to check the enemy at the outset by counter-attacks on his depots and aerodromes, and other centres of his offensive operations. But even if more passive measures of defence are at a, disadvantage in air warfare, it is still true that they may greatly and increasingly reduce the scale of attacks, and their effectiveness; and that they may serve to divert them from areas the protection of which may be of special importance. It would be an error of the first order to abandon the unceasing pursuit of further methods of defence. There are at the present time some of the very best scientific brains at work on that subject, and it may well be that, apart from the toll that cur fighters will take of attacking aircraft, further antidotes will be devised. I can only say that the Government attach the greatest importance to the outcome of the work that is proceeding, and intend to press on with it with all energy and despatch.
      The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that tae questions he was putting to me about observer corps were

      397
      not really for the Air Ministry, but they do come under the Ministry on these occasions, and there is complete coordination between the Air Ministry and the Army. The questions of a system of nets which he raised, and kite balloons, are being carefully looked into. I cannot say more than that for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman understands, but it is being kept under careful review by the Government. The other speeches made were full of interesting points which have been covered to a great extent in some of the speeches I have made. I am very grateful for all the suggestions we have received. The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has been answered by others, and in my speech earlier I dealt at length with many of the topics that she discussed. Apparently I am unable to convince her, but the figures she has produced will be looked into. I would be interested to hear about the flying boats with a range of 8,000 miles and what load they can carry. Perhaps the hon. Lady has been looking at some American advertisements,
      but I shall be glad to receive any information she has.
      My hon. Friend who spoke last impressed upon the Government the necessity of utilising to the full the number of instructors, or utilising them more than we are at present. That is being done, because we need the services of all the instructors we can. With regard to candidates being passed before doctors in Canada that also is going to be done. They will be passed and accepted for training here by the Canadian Air Force and they will come here and go straight into training. If there are any other points that have not been dealt with I will deal with them either in writing or on the Report stage, and I thank the House for the indulgence they have given me to-day.
      Question put,
      "That a number, not exceeding 45,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 170.

      Division No. 105.]

      AYES.

      [12.40 a.m.

      Adamson, W. M.

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Rltson, J.

      Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)

      Hall, J. H. (whitechapel)

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Banfield, J. W.

      Hollins, A.

      Rowson, G.

      Barr, J.

      Hopkin, D.

      Sexton, T. M.

      Benson, G.

      Jagger, J.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Burke, W. A.

      Kirby, B. V.

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Cluse, W. S.

      Leonard, W.

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Compton, J.

      Logan, D. G.

      Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

      Daggar, G.

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Stephen, C.

      Dalton, H.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

      Davidson, J., J. (Maryhill)

      Marklew, E.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      Marshall, F.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Ede, J. C.

      Maxton, J.

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      Milner, Major J.

      Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

      Oliver, G. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Gibbins, J.

      Potts, J.

      Mr. Whiteley and Mr John

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Pritt, D. N.

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

      Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

      Drewe, C.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

      Bull, B. B.

      Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

      Albery, I. J.

      Burghley, Lord

      Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

      Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Dugdale, Major T. L.

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Duggan, H. J.

      Apsley, Lord

      Cartland, J. R. H.

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Channon, H.

      Eastwood, J. F.

      Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fuiham, E.)

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Eckersley, P. T.

      Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

      Christie, J. A.

      Emery, J. F.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Erskine Hill, A. G.

      Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

      Colfox, Major W. p.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      Beaumont, Hon, R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

      Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

      Everard, W. L.

      Bernays, R. H.

      Courtauld, Major J. S.

      Foot, D. M.

      Bird, Sir R. B.

      Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Blindell, Sir J.

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

      Boothby, R. J. G.

      Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Bossom, A. C.

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Furness, S. N.

      Boulton, W. W.

      Crowder, J. F. E.

      Fyfe, D. P. M.

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

      Bracken, B.

      Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

      Goodman, Col, A. W.

      Braithwaite, Major A. N.

      Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

      Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

      Brass, Sir W.

      Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

      MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Salt, E. W.

      Gridley, Sir A. B.

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

      Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

      McKie, J. H.

      Sandys, E. D.

      Grimston, R. V.

      Maclay, Hon. J. P.

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

      Guest, Capt, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

      Magnay, T.

      Scott, Lord William

      Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Seely, Sir H. M.

      Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

      Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

      Simmonds, O. E.

      Guinness, T. L. E. B.

      Markham, S. F.

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

      Gunston, Capt. D. W.

      Maxwell, S. A.

      Smith, Sir R W. (Aberdeen)

      Guy, J. C. U.

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Mellor, Sir J. S. p. (Tamworth)

      Spens, W. P

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

      Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Holdsworth, H.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Munro, P.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

      Patrick, C. M.

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Joel, D. J. B.

      Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

      Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Petherlck, M.

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Turton, R. H.

      Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

      Procter, Major H. A.

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Kimball, L.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

      Walker-Smith, Sir J.

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Latham, Sir P.

      Rankin, R.

      Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

      Leckie, J. A.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

      Warrender, Sir V.

      Liddall, W. S.

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Waterhouse, Captain C.

      Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Wells, S. R.

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

      White, H. Graham

      Loftus, P. C.

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

      Lyons, A. M.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

      Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

      MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

      Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

      M'Connell, Sir J.

      Ropner, Colonel L.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

      Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-

      MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

      Rowlands, G.

      Jones.

      Original Question put, and agreed to.

      PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £6,518,000, 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 March, 1937."
      Captain GUEST rose—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That Vote has already been passed.
      Captain GUEST: On a point of Order. With great respect I should like to submit to you, Captain Bourne, as occupying the Chair this evening, that it is hardly fair to put a Vote of such an important nature as this without even looking at the House of Commons to see whether anybody wants to say anything.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to criticise my conduct.
      Sir PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did get up, and was very persistent in trying to catch your eye.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not until after I had collected the voices.

      WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £6,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of 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, 1937."
      12.51 a.m.
      Captain GUEST: I have no intention of keeping the Committee for more than a few minutes, except to take the opportunity of submitting to you, Captain Bourne, that the way in which the main Vote A was rushed through at the end of the discussion was a pity from the point of view both of supporters of the Government and of those who oppose the Government. It is the biggest increase in any Service, for it is very nearly 100 per cent. increase in a new Department which is hardly understood in the country, namely, the Royal Air Force. I do not think, with great respect, that the Committee should allow itself to be hurried through so tremendously on such an important subject as the one which we have been discussing. I know that many of my friends—I have no knowledge of what was the desire on the Opposition side—who are fully in support of the Government's programme, never had a chance of submitting their speeches

      401
      because the Chair called on the Under-Secretary to conclude the Debate.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now criticising my conduct. He cannot do that. I would point out that I said at the beginning of this Debate that if we had a wide discussion on Vote A it was on the understanding that the next Votes were not discussed. As the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee raised no objection to that, I assumed there was no desire to discuss the matter further.
      Captain GUEST: On a point of Order. To what extent is the House as a Committee committed to an agreement of that nature with the Chair?
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The House is committed absolutely. I put the Question and waited for an appreciable time to see if anybody in the Committee raised any objection, but no hon. Member did so. Honourable understandings in this House are invariably carried out.
      Sir I. FRASER: With all respect, Captain Bourne, is it not within your recollection that you said that if a wide discussion were agreed to on the Vote, you would not expect that discussion would take place on another particular Vote.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. I said if a wide discussion took place I should not expect another discussion, and I looked round the Committee and waited to see if any objection was raised in any quarter. No objection was raised whatsoever.
      Sir I. FRASER: With all respect, did you suggest that there should be no discussion on any subsequent Vote?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather thought that I indicated it. I think it was generally understood that would be so if we had a wide discussion on Vote A. Therefore I did not rule strictly, and I would remind the Committee that I could have ruled out half the discussion if I had not thought it was the understanding that the remaining Votes should not be discussed.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUD ING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £18,491,000, 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, 1937."

      CIVIL AVIATION.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £760,000, 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, 1937."
      Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  1. Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £1,249 17s. 8d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  2. Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £3,426,845 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  3. Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, the sum of £251,241,900 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. "—[Captain Margesson.]
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

  SUPPLY [27TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  Order read for Consideration of Seventh and subsequent Resolutions.
  Seventh Resolution,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, to meet such of the charges for the withdrawal of the remaining half of the abatements of Ministerial

  403
  Salaries and Civil Service Remuneration as have not been otherwise provided."
  Agreed to.
  Eighth Resolution,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,180, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid, and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries."
  Agreed to.
  Ninth Resolution,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Expenses of the Funeral of His late Majesty King George V."
  Agreed to.

  SUPPLY [27TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.

    CLASS VI.
    Tenth Resolution,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Roumanian Clearing Offices under the Debts Clearing Office and Import Restrictions Act, 1934."
    Agreed to.
    Eleventh Resolution,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain services arising out of the War."
    Agreed to.
    Twelfth Resolution,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £101,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid, loans, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery development; and sundry other services."
    Agreed to.

    CIVIL (EXCESS), 1934.
    Thirteenth Resolution,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,249 17s. 8d. be granted to His Majesty to make good an Excess on the Grant for Public Buildings Overseas for the year ended the 31st day of larch, 1935:—

    Amount to be Voted.

    Class VII.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Vote 8. Public Buildings Overseas

    1,249

    17

    8 "

    Agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the rural district of Orsett, which was presented on the 11th day of March, 1936, be approved."—[Sir J. Simon.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Wands-worth and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 3rd day of December and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications and addition:

  Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out '1935,' and insert '1936'

  Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out '1935,' and insert '1936.'

  Clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out '1935,' and insert '1936.'

  Schedule 2, page 18, lines 26 and 27, leave out 'is not included within the Wandsworth limits,' and insert 'consists of the parishes of Cobham and Stoke D'Abernon."

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(For protection of Surrey County Council.)
    In executing any works and in exercising any powers, s) far as the same shall affect any county bridges vested in the county council for the administrative county of Surrey (in this Section called "the county council"), in the parishes of Cobham and Stoke D'Abernon, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:

    (1) For the purposes of Section eight of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1897, the notice to be served on the county council shall be not less than seven clear days instead of three clear days as therein provided;

    405

    (2) The plan required by Section nine of the said Act shall be accompanied by a section of the proposed works and shall be sent by the Company to the county council or their surveyor not less than one month before proceeding to execute the proposed works;

    (3) Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to affect the rights of the county council to remove, alter, or rebuild, in any manner they shall determine, any county bridge vested in them over, near to, or attached to which any mains, pipes, or works of the Company are carried, and the Company shall upon reasonable notice in writing under the hand of the clerk or the surveyor to the county council so to do, proceed to alter the position of such mains, pipes, and works as required by such notice and shall complete the same within a reasonable time, and all the expenses of any such alteration, together with all reasonable expenses incurred by the Company in temporarily carrying or supporting any mains, pipes, or works altered or affected or in maintaining the supply of gas and the pressure
    406
    thereof in such mains, pipes, and works shall be paid to the Company by the county council. Any difference arising under this sub-section shall be determined by two justices, as provided by Section nine of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847;

    (4) All works shall be so executed by the Company as not to stop the traffic and, so far as reasonably practicable, as not in any way to impede or interfere with the traffic over any county bridge or the approaches thereto."—[Dr. Burgin.]

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at One Minute after One o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINES ACCIDENTS.
  MINES ACCIDENTS.
  SELLING SCHEMES.
  SELLING SCHEMES.
  MINERS' HOURS (OVERTIME).
  MINERS' HOURS (OVERTIME).
SCOTLAND.
  DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.
  DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.
  LENZIE ACADEMY, DUMBARTONSHIRE (HEADMASTER).
  LENZIE ACADEMY, DUMBARTONSHIRE (HEADMASTER).
  AUTOMATIC GAMING MACHINES.
  AUTOMATIC GAMING MACHINES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SOUTH AFRICA (TARIFF).
  SOUTH AFRICA (TARIFF).
  ZINC.
  ZINC.
  HARWICH HARBOUR APPROACH.
  HARWICH HARBOUR APPROACH.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  TYPHOID OUTBREAK, LANGWITH, DERBYSHIRE.
  TYPHOID OUTBREAK, LANGWITH, DERBYSHIRE.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
AGRICULTURE.
  DAIRY PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  DAIRY PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  MILK IN SCHOOLS.
  MILK IN SCHOOLS.
  BEET SUGAR.
  BEET SUGAR.
  WINDOW CLEANERS (SAFETY APPLIANCES).
  WINDOW CLEANERS (SAFETY APPLIANCES).
  BROADMOOR LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  BROADMOOR LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
  BROMPTON BARRACKS, CHATHAM (SICKNESS).
  BROMPTON BARRACKS, CHATHAM (SICKNESS).
  CHARITY COMMISSION (AUDITS).
  CHARITY COMMISSION (AUDITS).
  EGYPT.
  EGYPT.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Clancarty (E. Clancarty)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before we proceed further with the business on the Order Paper I should like to ask if the noble Marquess who is leading the House can give us any information as to the course of the debate upon the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I should like to know what procedure is proposed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity of explaining the procedure which it is proposed to adopt with regard to this debate. I understand that a number of your Lordships wish to take part in the debate, and that it will not be convenient therefore to bring it to a close
2
this afternoon. In those circumstances I would propose that the debate should be continued until the dinner hour this evening, and that it should then be adjourned until Thursday and that the concluding stages should be taken that day.
LORD MARLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to national health insurance, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to non-contributory old age pensions, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to public health in London, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  In the Preamble, page 1, line 1, leave out the first (" the ") and insert (" a ")
  In the Preamble, page 1, line 1, leave out (" set forth in the Schedule hereunto annexed ") and insert (" relating to Perth Corporation)
  In the Preamble, page 1, line 6, leave out (" requisite ") and insert (" expedient ")
  In the Preamble, page 1, line 7, after (" should ") insert (" subject to amendment ")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out (" contained ") and insert (" so made which as amended is set forth ")
  In the Schedule, page 38, leave out lines 1 to 16.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, all these Amendments are drafting and are consequential on the Scheduled Order. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (BEDFORD JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTER AND DERBY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-SUSSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I know that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air is waiting to move his important Resolution, to which

5
your Lordships are desirous of listening, and therefore I assure your Lordships that I will be as brief as possible. This is a Bill to give Parliamentary approval to an Agreement of the 29th July of last year between the Treasury of this country and the Ministry of Finance in Belfast. The circumstances in which the Agreement was made are set out in Command Paper No. 5081, which was issued a few weeks ago, when the Financial Resolution on which this Bill was based was before another place. Briefly the circumstances are these. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, laid down that unemployment insurance should be a transferred service for which the Parliament of Northern Ireland should be responsible. It was not then anticipated that any special assistance would be necessary, but from 1921 onwards the depression fell with exceptional severity upon the two staple industries of Northern Ireland, which, as your Lordships are probably aware, are first shipbuilding and, secondly, the linen trade. Northern Ireland has only a small insured population, owing to its large agricultural community, and it has a very high percentage of unemployment. It was thus obvious from a comparatively early date that Northern Ireland could not, out of its own resources, maintain a system of unemployment insurance at the same level as that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was considered at one time that it might be a good thing to amalgamate the two systems, but this idea was rejected, as it would have been totally contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1920, which especially laid down that social services in Northern Ireland should be administered by Belfast and not by Whitehall. Two Agreements were therefore made, the first in February, 1926, and the second, a continuing Agreement, in December, 1928. Under the first Agreement the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund remained as a separate entity, but by a system of mutual reinsurance the burdens of unemployment insurance in Northern Ireland were in fact shared between the taxpayers of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain. The 1926 Agreement was entered into for a period ending on March 31, 1930, but by the second Agreement, which was concluded in December, 1928, the operation of the first Agreement was continued indefinitely.
6
Under these two Agreements—I shall have to give your Lordships a few figures, as the matter is rather complicated—Northern Ireland was entitled to a contribution from the United Kingdom Exchequer when the total payments by the Northern Ireland Exchequer to the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund exceeded per head of total population the total payments by the United Kingdom Exchequer to the British Fund; the basis was that of the total population of each country, and not that of the insured population of each country. Translated into figures, this meant that, before qualifying for any grant from the United Kingdom Exchequer, Northern Ireland had to pay £28,000, or 2.8 per cent., to the Northern Ireland Fund to correspond with every £1,000,000 paid by the United Kingdom Exchequer to the British Fund, whereas, if the insured population basis had been adopted, the figure of £28,000 would have been reduced to only £21,000, or 2.1 per cent., a difference of £7,000 for each £1,000,000 paid by the United Kingdom. Until 1931 this point was not of decisive importance, but when the payments by the United Kingdom Exchequer rose to the order of £70,000,000 a year owing to the vastly increased unemployment in this country and the cessation of borrowing for this expenditure, the difference of £7,000 for each £1,000,000 meant a loss to Northern Ireland of some £500,000 a year. The exact sum is, I believe, £490,000. In the year ending March 31, 1931, the United Kingdom contribution to Northern Ireland under the Reinsurance Agreement was £547,416; in the following year it shrank to £165,437, while in the three succeeding financial years no contribution at all was payable.
It was in these circumstances that the Northern Ireland Government urged that the comparison of insured populations afforded a more equitable basis, and asked for the revision of the existing Unemployment Agreement. The whole position was re-examined in the spring of 1935 and it was felt that the contention of the Northern Ireland Government was fair and reasonable. The result of that examination is embodied in the Agreement for which I am asking your Lordships' authority this afternoon. The Articles of the new Agreement provide first of all, that the Northern Ireland Unemployment (Insurance)

7
Fund is to be kept in a state of parity with the Unemployment Fund in Great Britain by means of grants from the Northern Ireland Exchequer. The meaning of "parity" is that if the insured population of Northern Ireland is say 2 per cent. of the insured population of Great Britain the balance on the Northern Ireland Fund—whether surplus or deficiency—must be brought to the point at which it is 2 per cent. of the balance on the British Fund.
Secondly, the contributions made by each Exchequer to its Unemployment Fund, including the grants made by the Northern Ireland Exchequer to bring about parity, are totalled, and the Northern Ireland Exchequer is left to bear an amount which represents, in relation to the payments from our Exchequer to our Fund the proportion between its insured population and the insured population of Great Britain. The amount by which the payments from the Northern Ireland Exchequer to the Northern Ireland Fund exceeds this due proportion is divided as seventy-five to twenty-five between the United Kingdom Exchequer and the Northern Ireland Exchequer respectively. Thirdly, the contributions made by each Exchequer to its Unemployment Assistance Fund are treated in exactly the same way, except that in this case Northern Ireland's due proportion is arrived at by taking the proportion which its "assistance" population bears to the "assistance "population of Great Britain. For purposes of convenience that estimate is based on the populations insured under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts of the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland.
As regards the financial effect of the new Agreement, the White Paper states that the contribution from our Exchequer in 1935–36 may be estimated at £722,000, as compared with an amount of £275,000 which would have been required under the previously existing Agreements. It is not possible to frame any reliable estimate of the contributions which may be required from our Exchequer in future years since the calculations to be made depend upon the relative burden of unemployment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this connection I would draw your Lordships' attention to
8
page 8 of the White Paper, Command Paper No. 5081, where you will see a letter from Mr. Pollock, the Minister of Finance for Northern Ireland, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he says:
In the first place I understand and agree that if the liability of the United Kingdom Exchequer under the Agreement should in any one year exceed the sum of £1,000,000, you will be entitled, if you so desire, to reopen on its merits the question of the amount of the contribution and this will not be regarded by me as a breach of faith or of the Agreement."
Now, my Lords, to turn to the Bill. It is a short Bill of two clauses. Clause 1 provides, firstly, that the Agreement in the Schedule shall be confirmed, and secondly, that any sums payable under the agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. The second clause consists of the short title and of the Acts to be repealed, and it lays down that this Measure shall not come into operation unless and until His Majesty by Order in Council declares that a corresponding Act has been passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This Bill was passed by another place without a Division. It is, I think, a more or less agreed Bill, and, as I have said, was passed by the House of Commons as a non-contentious measure. There was a little discussion only on the financial Resolution and on Second Reading. I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading here.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COINAGE OFFENCES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MILK (EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DEFENCE SERVICES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the defence proposals of His Majesty's Government which are outlined in Command Paper No. 5107 (Statement relating to Defence). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there is absent from our debate, to-day, one whom we and the country can ill afford to spare. It seems only a few weeks ago that we were all looking forward with confident expectation to Earl Beatty contributing to these debates on defence all that his long experience and his vigorous advocacy would have made so valuable. Deliberately careless of his own health when there was any claim of duty, or the paying of respect—as deliberately careless there as he had been thoughtless of life in any hour of danger—he has passed over. Those who knew him best, and served with him in action, or worked with him in administration, have paid their tributes to the leader they were proud to follow and to the man they loved—tributes with which all of us, whether we knew him well or little, would wish to be associated. When such a man passes surely something more than his memory lives to invigorate and inspire all of us in our work.
I now beg to move to resolve, That this House approves the defence proposals of His Majesty's Government, which are outlined in Command Paper No. 5107 (Statement relating to Defence). Let me hasten to assure your Lordships that the fact that I am moving this Resolution and not my noble friend Lord Monsell, in whose name it originally stood, does not indicate any split in the Cabinet, nor even—what I understand is the latest cliché of noble Lords opposite—any divergent dualism in our policy. The only reason why the First Lord is unable to be here to move this Resolution is that he is fully occupied with the Naval Conference, where I am sure everybody in all quarters of the House wishes him well. If he is able to keep the fleet of that Conference in being, to steer it through all the storms and shoals which
10
it encounters—the storms from without as well as internal difficulties—and to pilot it safe to port, I think he will have achieved no mean feat of international seamanship.
The White Paper is a comprehensive exposition, not only of the immediate programmes which the Defence Services are to put in hand, but also of our general defence policy. A short time ago I had the opportunity to explain to your Lordships the broad lines of the policy which the Government propose to adopt for what I may call the co-ordination of defence. I think that those proposals were received with general assent in the House, with one exception, and I do not therefore propose to devote any time to that side of the matter to-day. I do not think I need devote very much time to justifying to your Lordships the case for very considerable expenditure and expansion in the Defence Services of the Crown, in spite of the rather long Amendment which I see on the Paper following my much shorter Motion. Surely, from whatever standpoint one looks at this—whether you consider our own vital interests, our own wide Imperial connections—defence is necessary. If you consider our hopes, our firm hopes, based on collective security, those hopes have no foundation at all unless the forces which make for peace are going to be strong enough to keep the peace of the world.
And as we are strong upholders of that policy, we cannot be behindhand in our capacity to play our part. It is no good simply to have the will to peace, the will to collective security: the means must be there at the back. If the term "collective security" means anything, surely it means that the collective forces for peace are going to be sufficiently strong to prevent war arising. The effective deterrent—that is what matters more than anything else in the world. It is, I think, an illusory view that we could pursue a policy of isolation, because our interests stretch over all the world and our Empire is world-wide, and because the sea is no longer an effective barrier, unless it be a very wide one; but even if you should conceive the right policy of this country to be one of isolation, I believe such a policy would not only be illusory, it would also be the most expensive. And certainly that policy would need at least as great a

11
programme and plan of defence as that which we are now putting forward.
" Disarmament "figures in the Amendment of the noble Lord. Can any one who has followed the protracted negotiations of the Disarmament Conference believe that there is the faintest chance of getting disarmament unless this country is as strong as other countries, and unless the world knows that this country is able to build on the necessary scale? We will strive to get disarmament—always we will strive for that as long as there is the least chance; but with all that experience behind us, I say with most profound conviction that unless this policy were carried forward, unless this policy were endorsed by Parliament, the chances of effective disarmament would vanish entirely. Therefore on all grounds I submit that the need for a considerable elaboration of our defences is proved up to the hilt. I am much more concerned to consider whether the plans which we are now-presenting are wisely framed and are adequate for their purpose. As I explained to your Lordships in the last debate, the plans we now put forward are the considered plans framed by the Cabinet after the most exhaustive inquiry by a strong Cabinet Committee, an inquiry not merely into the needs of each Defence Service separately but into the proper basis of the combined policy of all the Services, and into all the world-political considerations which must govern our decisions. They are therefore put forward as a fully considered and comprehensive plan.
If our programme and our planning are to be adequate and rightly directed, I submit that in the case of each of the three Services we must be satisfied that three requirements are met. I would put first the provision of an effective force in each Service. What, objectively considered, is the size, the character and the quality of the force with which each Service should be provided? Secondly, I put the provision of adequate reserves for each Service, both in men and in material. Thirdly, civil industry should be, as part of our plan, fully able to turn over to war production on a large scale whenever occasion should require, and to turn over to such production rapidly and effectively. I put those three propositions as each of them necessary, as fundamental,
12
and as inter-dependent. I shall show later that a considerable output will actually be required from the civilian industry of this country to reinforce the ordinary sources of munitions supply, and by civilian industry I mean those factories which are not ordinarily occupied with the making of munitions. I shall hope to show that the plans now submitted to your Lordships fulfil adequately all those three conditions.
The plans are comprehensive. We have considered in the first place the present need of the Services both in relation to general policy and in relation to each other. We are taking steps to provide for the constant review of the programmes which we have set out, both individually and collectively, in the light of developments, political, strategic, and technical. We are also under these schemes creating the means of industrial expansion and adaptation necessary to meet emergency requirements or war needs, to create what I think I may conveniently call the "war potential" in industry. While I regard the preparation of that war potential as at least as important as any other part of the programme, and as inseparable from these specific programmes, I ought to say a few words before I come to that on the programmes of each of the three Services.
To take first the Navy. The plans there cannot be final at the present time. They cannot be finally produced until we know, not only the results of the present Naval Conference—and I do not wish to exaggerate these—but, what is more important, until we know what action the other great naval Powers will take in the future following upon the conclusion of this Conference. Meanwhile, certain definite proposals are put forward. There will be a steady building of cruisers and destroyers. In cruisers, the aim is to increase the number to seventy. The destroyer programme is that which, on careful consideration, the Admiralty think is most suitable both in numbers and in types for their varied duties. Provision is made for the continued modernisation of existing battle ships, and provision is also made for the laying down early in 1937—the earliest moment at which it is possible—of two new capital ships. May I say just one word or two upon what I believe is vulgarly known as the bomb versus battleship controversy? No one is

13
keener than the staffs of the two Services to resolve by effective experiments, or by as effective experiments as you can have, a true solution of this matter, A number of experiments have taken place; more experiments are planned to take place in the future. It seems to me that the less you are in touch, and the less responsibility you have, the more confident can you be. A limited knowledge, of a problem always makes it very easy to dogmatise as to its solution! No one supposes that a capital ship is, or is likely to be, immune to attack from the air; but that is not the problem.
The problem is this: How can you guarantee the destruction of a capital ship? So long as other countries have and build capital ships, can we take the risk of not having similar ships which can meet them on equal terms in action unless, and until, we can guarantee that we can destroy or immobilise the capital ships of a hostile Power by other means? It seems to me that unless you can give with real certainty such a guarantee, to deny yourselves capital ships while other nations are building them would be a risk, a hazard, which it would be very doubtful wisdom to take. It is not only in this matter that the closest co-operation between the Navy and the Royal Air Force is necessary. The Air Forces serving with and co-operating with the Navy will have to be strengthened, but that will have to be done in the most effective way. New developments are taking place to-day in aircraft design and performance which present a wholly different picture to that which would have been presented a year ago. We have now, and will have coming shortly into production, machines which in range, speed, and power far exceed anything that we had in the past. That immediately presents a wholly new picture when you come to consider the function of aircraft co-operating with the Fleet. It means that shore-based aircraft in the narrow seas can do a very great deal which a year or two ago it was supposed no such aircraft could do. It would indeed be very foolish to make any plans which did not pay full regard to this great new development.
But we have to remember that the ships of the British Navy have not only to operate in and guard the narrow seas, but wide tracts of ocean as well. The
14
form which the expansion and the co-operation should take must be conditioned by wise appreciation of aircraft development and of combined naval and air strategy. I must add this—that co-operation which both Services are only too anxious to give is really not helped by persons trying to fan the flames of old controversies long since resolved. I believe that the spirit in all three Services to-day is, as I said in a recent debate, a genuine spirit to give and to get the best that each can contribute.
In the Army there is a very moderate increase proposed in size, but a great increase in efficiency. Mechanisation is carried forward. New tank battalions and new tanks: the anti-tank gun and the antitank rifle, which have now been conclusively proved, will be brought into use. The new Bren machine gun will be introduced, and the Field Artillery will be thoroughly modernised. In addition to the re-equipment there will, of course, be the creation of those very necessary war reserves; and not only, I am glad to say, better equipment in arms and munitions, but better equipment in housing, which is hardly less important. Some of the barracks really are a disgrace. I am not sure that I think all the Air Force places are quite up to the standard which any local authority would require if it were a case of building a house. We have got some places that hang over from the War, but I think we are better off than the Army. We have not got barracks which are a hundred years old and which seem to have had few, if any, amenities introduced into them during that time. Therefore the housing conditions will be taken in hand.
May I add this? Everyone knows what a valuable training the Air Force is to a man who enters it as a mechanic. Everybody knows that when you pass into the Air Force and become a skilled aircraftman, this is about as fine a training for engineering in future life that a man can have. But I want to say this on behalf of the Army. I do not think it is equally realised how valuable the training centres and the training courses in the Army are, and that they manage to pass even in time of slump a very large number of these trained men into employment. That will be steadily proceeded with. And it should be remembered by anyone who is thinking of joining the Army, that he not only joins a great Service

15
but that he is training probably for after employment and will have a very considerable chance of obtaining that employment.
I turn now to the Air Force. The expansion which I announced in July is going steadily forward. A very large increase will be made in addition to that. There will be an increase in first-line strength and an increase in war reserves. For obvious reasons we have never given the figures of reserves. If we could have complete publicity among all the countries of the world it would be a great advantage. We would welcome it. We cannot give information which other people do not give. Such figures as have been given, for example, figures of first-line establishment, obviously lead to misunderstanding. I saw it stated somewhere, for instance, that to add some hundreds to first-line establishment merely meant the ordering of a few hundred machines. Of course it means nothing of the sort. While I have no intention of giving—and I am sure I should not be pressed to give—any particulars about reserves, I may say this as some indication, that in the next three years we aim at taking delivery of more machines than have been delivered to the Air Force in the seventeen years following the War.
There is no subject, I think everyone in this House who knows air questions will undoubtedly agree, in which comparison is so difficult and so misleading unless you can be quite sure you are comparing like with like. Nowhere does quality in men or machines count for more—the machine of high performance, the pilot, and, even more, the formation which is highly trained and has had full experience. Let me give an example as regards machines. I said, speaking in another place when I was introducing the new programme, that one of the things we were aiming at was to get any new improvement into production as soon as possible after it had been proved. Indeed we took some risks in ordering on a large scale machines of types which we could not feel certain, were going to be completely proved, but we felt it was so important to get these new improvements into production as quickly as possible that it was right to take the risk of piling up orders behind the production of the first machine. We know enough now, as these machines are coming forward, to
16
say, I think with confidence, that these risks were well taken, and that the results will more than justify them. But these new types of machine, in range and speed and performance, present so entirely different a picture from those of a year ago that any comparison which took a force of the old machines and compared it with the force of the new machines would be a perfectly worthless comparison.
I may say that in this we are not merely the judge in our own cause. Perhaps the best tribute to the success of the designers of these machines is that I hardly know a country in the world which is not extremely anxious to possess itself of some of them even if it has to wait a considerable time before we are served first. What we have conceived to be our duty in this matter is, objectively, to create the most effective force for our purpose—effective in defence and effective as a deterrent against attack. Concurrently with this, experiments and research go on all the time in matters of air defence. Your Lordships would not expect me to detail in any way either the nature or the extent of these experiments. Their value must lie in their secrecy. I would only say that some of the greatest scientists in this country are working wholeheartedly with the Services and with the Department of Scientific Research as a team in complete partnership, and that there is no scamping in money or material for any experiment which those men, working together, think can even possibly afford a valuable chance of solution of defence problems.
I spoke of reserves. There are, of course, reserves in material, in machines—I am coming in a moment to our plans for industrial expansions—but there are also the reserves in men. In the Air Force those have come in the past through the men who had the short-service Commission, as we call it, and have then passed out of the Service into the Reserve. I thought ignorantly before I was acquainted with the facts that a short-service Commission, the taking of an officer for live or six years, was rather a blind-alley occupation. I found by experience that it is nothing of the sort; that to take a man at eighteen or nineteen, give him his five years of training, and then to pass him into civil life is, as a matter of fact, much the best thing that you can do. Even in the slump, as

17
my noble friend Lord Londonderry would bear out, for it was in a time when he was responsible, over 80 per cent. of these short-service officers were finding regular civil employment as they passed out of the Service. It is, therefore, a valuable career.
There is also the direct entry into the Reserves. We are going to take steps to make that entry easier, and to get the initial training at times more convenient to the man in civil life. We are expanding our auxiliary squadrons. The Army is trying to get the numbers for the Territorial Force. May I on behalf of both Services make in this House an appeal which I have made before, and ask your Lordships' help, which can be great in this matter? It will make a tremendous difference if employers will give that fortnight of holiday during which a man goes either to the Air Force reserve or the auxiliary squadron or the Territorial battalion or battery. It is a pretty hard thing to ask a boy, who before he went into business was probably accustomed to rather longer vacations, who now has a fortnight, that is all, in the year, to give up that fortnight or even a week of that fortnight to do his training. If, on the other hand, it became the general practice that employers should give a fortnight's leave, as some are doing, to the man for his time in camp with the Air Force or the Army, that would be a tremendous incentive and a help to filling the numbers which are needed.
I pass to the final proposition which I put, the third test which we have got to apply in seeing whether these plans are adequate, the test of whether we are taking steps to make our civilian industry ready so that it can turn over to be a great producer in war. There is no doubt about our potential resources. There is no doubt about our staying power. What is important is that we should be sure that those resources can come into play in time. If that can be done it will be the greatest deterrent and the greatest keeper of peace. In normal times the plan would be this. You would have the Service Departments placing their ordinary orders with what I may call the professional firms, with the Government arsenals and establishments and with the regular munitions firms. At the same time it would be our duty to see that plans existed by which
18
ordinary civilian industry could come in to play its part in war—plans not merely existing on paper, but plans supported with arrangements that plant should be available where required and supported with a sufficiency of what I may call educative orders. But the present requirements of our programme exceed the capacity of the normal munitions industry to fulfil. We therefore propose to employ a number of selected firms, who would turn over to munitions production in war, to build new additional factories and workshops, to build them as agents for the Government, to equip them and produce in them those things which we want for our present programme and which are in excess of the capacity of the ordinary munitions industry to produce. In that way we shall reinforce the munitions industry to supply our present needs and we shall indeed be making a very effective preparation against the possible emergency of war.
I have said that these additional factories will be built and managed on Government account. No one can do that work so efficiently as the great firms which have practical production knowledge. Indeed they were the very people who, in the Ministry of Munitions in the late War, had to do all that job and create and manage new factories. We shall call upon them to do that in addition to their ordinary civil work. But I am sure there is one thing which we do want to avoid in any planning even now—that is anything like the "time and line" procedure which crept in during the War under which the more you spent the larger your remuneration. If a man spent £1,000,000 he got a percentage on what he spent. Another man who spent £800,000 on the same work got the same remuneration or in some cases actually a smaller remuneration than the man who spent £1,000,000. I do not say that was universal, but I think all your Lordships will remember cases where that occurred. We want to avoid all that. We propose, therefore, wherever possible, that the remuneration shall be related to efficiency so that where a firm as manager of these works makes a marked economy to the advantage of the State and the taxpayer, that economy may redound somewhat to the advantage of the firm as well as to our advantage.
In order that I may show that this is not a theoretical exposition let me give a practical example of how we are already working. I take an example from the Service for which I am responsible. The programme in aircraft which is now envisaged is considerably more in output than the regular aircraft industry can accomplish. I have already seen two great firms, the Austin Motor Company and Messrs. Rootes, who control, as your Lordships are probably aware, great undertakings like the Humber, the Hill-man and the Commer companies and I think the Sunbeam company. I asked them to establish two great factories on Government account, two great factories for the making of aircraft. They did not particularly want to do it. As a business proposition it was not attractive. They did not want to go into the business, nor does one want them to do so as an ordinary undertaking. But they said at once: "We will gladly do this thing. We do not want to enter the aircraft-making industry, but we realise that this is a planned scheme for national emergency and we will readily put our experience and our knowledge at your disposal." They will therefore erect these factories. They are already in touch; they have had allocated to them the two types of aircraft that they will produce; they are already at work on the planning of how their factories shall be built and laid out, and are in contact with the aircraft firms whose machines they will make.
Let me emphasise that this will be done, not by turning people off their ordinary civil work, but by creating, side by side with that work, great new factories, which are brought in as soon as they are ready for this emergency and which will be ready at any moment, should the emergency of war come, to produce on a large scale. I heard the suggestion made: What happens when that work is finished? When that work is finished, those factories remain the property of the Government. They have the plant and the equipment in them; you can turn the key in the door, keep the plant on a care-and-maintenance basis, and you have there a great factory ready to spring into immediate activity should the need for it ever arise again. I submit that that is a really practical way of dealing with that proposition; and the work is already being undertaken.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Lord would excuse me, might I ask whether any arrangement is made to keep the workpeople in being?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We had better wait and see about that. Obviously you are going, by creating this new demand for work, to create a new demand for labour; but as I see it—it is an important point—the great advantage of having what I might call your shadow factory established in connection with, and close by, some great undertaking which is itself in civil life a great employer of labour, means that there is a much better chance of the workmen getting re-employment if and when your extra production of munitions comes to an end.
LORD STRABOLGI: Thank you.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have spoken, my Lords, of the establishment of these new plants. There is, of course, an enormous amount of subcontracting going on in the aircraft industry and no doubt among firms which make for the Army as well. It would be quite a wrong conception to suppose that a firm which turns out aeroplanes is a self-contained unit turning out everything from start to finish. A great aircraft firm has a very-large number of sub-contracts for parts, bits and pieces with firms all over the country, and nobody knows as well as a skilled and experienced firm where best to place its own sub-contracts.
I want also to say that, in working out these plans for reinforcing the ordinary munitions industry, there is no overlapping and no cutting across what I might call the Committee of Imperial Defence plan of war supply. The orders for the programmes of the Services must be placed, and are being placed, by the Service Departments. They place them in the first instance with the ordinary munitions firms with whom they are in the habit of contracting. As I explained, we are placing orders and getting work done by firms like Austins. The Service Department, therefore, places a contract or gets work done on commission by a non-munition firm; but in all that each of the Service Departments will act strictly in accordance with the Committee of Imperial Defence plan of war allocation. Beyond that, beyond the actual placing of orders, the creation of the war potential is a matter for the Supply Organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

21
In war I take it as axiomatic that you will have two Ministries: you will have a Ministry of men and a Ministry of things; a Ministry of Man Power or National Service, dealing probably with all man power, and a Ministry of Munitions or a Ministry of Supply; and I assume that the recruiting and supply departments of the Services would merge in those two Ministries in time of war. But in peace the Service Departments rightly discharge their own supply responsibilities and place their own orders, but working all the time in strict accord with the broad plan of war allocation which the Committee of Imperial Defence organisation lays down. For example, in my dealings with non-munition firms I deal only with those firms which, under what I may call the war plan, I know have been allotted to aircraft production of one kind or another.
My Lords, I have dwelt on that industrial side, I am afraid, at some length, but I thought it was important that your Lordships should see exactly not only how this plan is intended to work but how it is actually being carried out in practice. I wanted to give your Lordships this assurance because I am sure, if I had not given and proved it, I should have been very promptly asked: "If you are placing your orders and the War Office are placing their orders with a number of different firms outside the ordinary armament field, how are you taking steps to see that you are not cutting across the proper war organisation?" I think I have shown your Lordships that enough work has been done to allocate the firms, and that everything which is being done, and being properly done, by the Services to meet their own requirements is being done strictly in accordance with the broad lines of the war production plan and the war allocations. I therefore think I can claim that, on the third test, and that is the most important, perhaps—the test of the organisation in peace of normal civil industry so that it can stand the strain of war and turn quickly to take up the stress of war—our plans are advancing, and that the action which is being taken is strictly in accordance with this plan. I submit that both in framing and carrying out the immediate programmes which the Services have had set to them; in the creation of what I have
22
called the war potential; that power to turn over the civil industry to war needs; and in using that war potential to reinforce and supply our present needs, the proposals that we make are thorough, comprehensive and well-conceived. They are certainly no panic measures, but they are certainly no more than our plain duty. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the defence proposals of His Majesty's Government which are outlined in Command Paper No. 5107 (Statement relating to Defence). —(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEhad given Notice of an Amendment, to leave out all words after "That" and insert "as the safety of this country and the peace of the world cannot be secured by reliance on armaments but only by the pursuit of a policy of international understanding, general disarmament and economic co-operation so as to remove the causes of war, this House cannot agree to the proposals for rearmament now adopted by His Majesty's Government; such a policy can be no guarantee of security, but by drawing this country into the disastrous international competition in armaments is calculated to inflame public opinion and increase the danger of war; and in depleting our national resources by a heavy expenditure for destruction, the urgent need for social and domestic reconstruction by which alone the well-being of the nation can be secured must be seriously and adversely affected."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I at the outset associate myself on behalf of my noble friends around me with the eloquent tribute which the noble Viscount, who has just resumed his seat, paid to the late Lord Beatty. His was a vigorous personality and he inspired confidence in all with whom he was associated. His record stands high, and his fine career will be handed down to the admiration of future generations.
I quite understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Monsell, was unable to move this Motion, to-day, but I am sure your Lordships are all in agreement in feeling that he was very adequately represented by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, whose skill at presenting a difficult technical case is very well known to

23
me in my former existence in another place, has put before your Lordships, with a wealth of detail, the whole process by which His Majesty's Government desire to bring forward a rearmament, or rather an expansion of armaments. In spite of the noble Viscount's eloquent exposition of the case, I must confess that his speech filled me with the deepest possible gloom. It was so terribly reminiscent of the debates, many of which I took part in, in the years before 1914. As usual, with a wealth of detail, with technical arguments, the underlying principle behind this White Paper is described in debate, and we shall have representatives of one Service after another claiming that more attention should be paid to this branch or that branch, and disputes will arise as to the cost of this and the cost of that and we shall lose sight of what all this is for. I do not intend to analyse the exact figure of expansion or the exact proportion of expenditure to be allocated to each of the Fighting Services, nor shall I attempt to differentiate the relative importance to be apportioned to personnel and engines of war. I am not competent to do so, and I have a misgiving that owing to recent inventions, and the darkness of the abyss into which it is contemplated we may have to plunge, no one is competent to judge which particular device will be most destructive and therefore the most effective.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount that, seeing my name on the Paper above the Amendment which I am now moving, he did not switch off your Lordships' attention by any reference to my individual views, and what is sometimes referred to as my policy, because that is not the question before the House to-day. I saw only last week that it was referred to while I was not here, in a debate on the League of Nations, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was good enough to say I was consistent, but he added: "although the Lord knows where the world would be if we followed him." Without referring to any higher power, I can tell him that the world would not be in such a parlous condition as it is to-day. My humble views are not, however, in question to-day. I am only concerned with the underlying and governing principle which induces the Government at this period of the world's history to spend a vast
24
amount of the country's resources in order to plunge us into war preparations on an extravagant scale, trusting that by describing imminent dangers it can induce the people to support it in adopting the age-old method of force outbidding force, and so bringing the conflict of these forces undoubtedly nearer.
What is the reason for it? I notice that the noble Viscount skated over the question of collective security very skilfully. I should like to get a collection of the utterances of His Majesty's present Government on the question of collective security. Is this brought forward to implement the Government's policy of collective security, and to enforce more effectively that policy? My Lords, I am going just to make one or two quotations, not of years past but of recent date, with a view of illustrating the Government's faith in collective security. The Prime Minister, a week or two ago, referring to former utterances of his, said:
" Though the organisation of a completely effective collective system is impracticable…."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer put it more explicitly. On the 10th of this month, he said:
" Quite apart from the fact that some of the most powerful and heavily armed countries of the world are not Members of the League at all, the countries who are Members of the League are by no means so strong, or so united in determination as to what they would do in given circumstances, that we can say that collective security has yet reached that point when our national safety is no longer a matter which we need consider."
I subscribe to that description of collective security as undertaken by His Majesty's Government recently.
I have said in this House on several occasions that without an all-inclusive League, and without complete unanimity and co-operation, and a sincere desire to carry out the full obligations laid down by the framers of the Covenant, you cannot have collective security, and to attempt it is dangerous. Now the Government know that you cannot get completely collective action, but they have never awakened to the fact that it is dangerous to attempt it if you cannot. Anyhow, I think they will admit, and I think the noble Viscount will admit, that the failure of collective action recently—and a complete failure it has been—was not lack of armaments

25
on our side. By adding armaments you would not have got any better collective security. It is not armaments that are wanted for collective security, it is unanimous co-operation, the faith of nations in one another, and their desire to maintain peace by being all resolutely determined to oppose any aggressor. That is what is wanted, not armaments. On the contrary, the parading of our Fleet in the Mediterranean has nothing to do with collective security. To my mind that was a very injudicious move and at one moment seemed to be having only the effect of singling us out as the one enemy of the Power against whom sanctions were being imposed. I do not want to go back on all that argument; because of present events and past history it all seems so remote that we do not discuss it. But I want to emphasise the fact that this expansion of armaments has no sort of connection with the implementing of the policy of collective security. Armaments are not wanted for that.
It is almost impossible in a debate on defence not to refer to the present situation. I should be reluctant to say anything that would endanger in any way, humble though my voice may be, the very delicate and difficult negotiations which are now proceeding. But again it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a most unfortunate phrase, as I think, when this subject was being discussed in another place, said:
" I think we are surely all agreed that the situation has not been relieved by anything that has happened in the last few days, and that there is no reason to suppose we ought to change our view that we should get on with these proposals as fast as ever we possibly can."
Now what connection is there between what is going on now in the League Council and armaments? I hope none. Do the Government pretend for a moment that if we were possessed of far greater armaments than we have at present it would ease the situation at St. James's Palace? On the contrary, it might make the whole situation very much darker.
I do not know how many people are going to sleep more peacefully in their beds because of the appointment of Sir Thomas Inskip as Minister for the Coordination of Defence, but I personally feel relieved that some of the other competitors
26
have not been chosen. I would say notably the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, to paraphrase the Bishop of London, I would say, the Lord alone knows where we should be led by him. I only desire in this very difficult situation to comment on the fact that British opinion and the British Press have shown the most exemplary moderation. It is our habit. A day or two ago, in a tremendous jam of traffic caused by a car which the driver had foolishly tried to turn in the middle of the road, I noticed a policeman. He did not shout at the man, he did not take his name and number, he did not blame him, he did not arrest him, but he went quietly and firmly up to him and simply said: "And what are you trying to do?" That is essentially British, and that is really the best method of diplomacy.
EARL STANHOPE: Were you driving the car?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, I never obstruct any traffic. And I believe that His Majesty's Government would not contemplate for one single moment plunging this country into a conflict which ultimately is based on the academic interpretation of clauses of treaties. The ultimate aim of a treaty, more especially of this particular Treaty, is peace—peace between nations; and that ultimate aim must override the minor considerations of the legal implications of certain clauses. Many clauses in treaties are observed by nations according to the dictates of expediency at the moment they are called into question, and several clauses of treaties have been entirely disregarded by all nations for the very same reason. The main purpose of the Treaty is the only thing which should be kept in view. The lawyers and the international jurists should be put in a room apart to have it out among themselves, but they should have no influence on the main principles of policy which are being followed by the Ministers themselves. The methods of Herr Hitler may have been clumsy, may have been brutal, may have been coarse, but who has taught him these methods? When Germany adopted the orthodox diplomatic method the Powers paid no attention to her at all. We have taught Herr Hitler this method.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not we.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Powers—I am not blaming this country especially. And unfortunate as it may be, it ought not to stand in the way of the Governments who are aware and must be aware throughout the world that the desire of their people is peace. They want to live in amity with one another, and they do not want these particular quarrels to interfere with the world's happiness. Anything that can be said in these days to encourage His Majesty's Government to take a sane view, not to lose their sense of proportion in this turmoil but to keep this country from any entanglement in an issue of this kind, will, I am sure, be welcomed by them. But the expansion of our armaments would do no good in a crucial position of this sort, and will be of no avail in any of those controversies that are likely to arise in the future. We may turn this corner as we have turned other corners. I am sure that the two Ministers—the noble Viscount the Leader of this House, Lord Halifax, and Mr. Eden—have the very best and most fervent wishes of the country that they will succeed. But it is not turning corners in diplomacy that really in the long run will pay. It is not turning the dangerous corners, however skilfully they may be turned, which is what matters. It is the adoption of a different road on which these dangerous corners do not exist.
So, my Lords, we come back to what the noble Viscount himself declared, that this is a matter of defence. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to say a few words on that threadbare, time-worn theme. There have never been any armaments manufactured by any country which have not been declared to be for defence. It is a very old story. It is always for defence that armaments are needed. I was frightened that the noble Viscount might use the argument, trotted out sometimes, which is just beyond the limit of what is acceptable, and that is the argument that when other nations rearm it is a danger to peace, but when we rearm the whole world knows that it is the way to secure peace. I have heard that in this House, and I am very glad it was not repeated to-day, because, as we know, other nations cannot adopt that point of view. This is a policy quite deliberately undertaken because other
28
nations are rearming. The White Paper gives nation after nation and tells us exactly, in the figures available, what the rearmament of the world has been within the last few years. Therefore we come forward and say we cannot be left behind; we have got to come in too; we have got to encourage this competition; we have got to make the world safe by rearming to the teeth; we must have adequate armaments.
What are "adequate armaments "? Is there a single expert that can tell us what are "adequate armaments" to-day? They do not know at all, they are all
working in the dark, they have not an idea. Is tremendous preparedness in armaments really security? Nobody would dispute that in 1914 Germany-was equipped, as magnificiently equipped as any Army has ever been, to face what proved to be practically the whole world. Of what avail was it to her? None whatever. At the end of the War France, with the backing of the Allied and Associated Powers and all the money, ingenuity, and invention of the world behind her, won the War. And what then? Ever since she has been crying out for security. No, my Lords. Security never will be won by armaments. Pile them up as much as you like, but you will never get the security of this country or any other country by that means. It is an old device to blame somebody else as being responsible. We blame Italy, we blame Japan, we blame Germany, and then we say the world is in a turmoil and we must join in too.
I do not think it really should require very great wisdom to abandon a policy of this sort. We are in fear of a conflagration and so the Government, in a state of panic—because it is that, it has been accepted as that—stoke up the smouldering embers and add fuel to the flames by way of stopping the conflagration. The people of this country and the people of all countries are far in advance of their Governments in this matter. If they could be articulate, if they could be listened to, I think we should see the Governments of the world taking a different course. As it is, the public mind and public attention are to be distracted by war preparations. Industry is to be organised on these lines. The noble Viscount very clearly described to us exactly what was to be done. The country is to be militarised

29
and even, according to the noble Viscount, each man's holiday is to be devoted to military, air, or naval exercises. Air centres, barracks, and munition centres are to be multiplied, and meanwhile the urgent need of the Social Services of housing and education will have to be neglected for want of money. We shall always be told, when propositions of that sort come forward, that there is not enough money to devote to them. The enemy has not yet been chosen, but, with the tremendous devices of publicity now at the Government's disposal, there will be no difficulty about inflaming public opinion against a criminal nation, whichever it may be, when the moment comes. Propaganda is just as necessary as munitions, but the Government know all about that.
I have felt depressed at the statement that has been made and at the White Paper that has been published, to find, so soon after the great tragedy, people actually contemplating the possibility of another one which will be ten times worse. It may not be an extravagant idea to suggest that we may be entering on one of those periodic cycles of which instances could be quoted in the past history of Europe, when such civilisation as had previously been gained was lost in the turmoil and conflict which continually distracted the minds of men from noble aims and high achievement, when the business of war became man's chief concern, when education was sacrificed and decadent generations arose careless of the great heritage left to them by the toil and genius of their predecessors—a time when conquerors and tyrants overran vast territories dominated by a civilisation which seemed lasting to those who created it, and this not once and not for a year or two, but for generations and for centuries, time after time.
The mechanical ingenuity on which we pride ourselves, and the enslavement of new scientific knowledge for base purposes, will hasten for us such a plunge into barbarism deeper, more cruel, and more rapid in its poison to the mind and soul than any of those terrible lapses which history records. I hope this is a gloomy prophecy, but there were those before 1914 who made the same prophecies and who were laughed at, derided, or disregarded. I
30
believe that this country, above all others, would seem to have the opportunity of staving off this evil day, not by going down the wrong road of war preparation, but by leading the nations in another direction to strengthen the methods of conciliation and of peace and concord between the peoples. At a critical juncture of this kind we find that His Majesty's Government have made the wrong choice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after (" That ") and insert (" as the safety of this country and the peace of the world cannot be secured by reliance on armaments but only by the pursuit of a policy of international understanding, general disarmament and economic co-operation so as to remove the causes of war, this House cannot agree to the proposals for rearmament now adopted by His Majesty's Government; such a policy can be no guarantee of security, but by drawing this country into the disastrous international competition in armaments is calculated, to inflame public opinion and increase the danger of war; and in depleting our national resources by a heavy expenditure for destruction, the urgent need for social and domestic reconstruction by which alone the well-being of the nation can be secured must be seriously and adversely affected)."—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before I touch on the; subjects raised in the two important speches to which we have listened, I should like to join in what both noble Lords said in expressing our deep regret for the loss of Lord Beatty. All his qualities have been appreciated and praised by many writers and speakers, but there is one point in which there has possibly been some excess. Lord Beatty has been sometimes spoken of as though he were a sort of Murat of the seas, thinking only of the charge and the attack. Those who knew Lord Beatty personally, as I am glad to think I did, know that, in addition to all those qualities of dash and courage, he was besides a very thoughtful and sensible man, and those who served with him at the Admiralty during the period when he was First Lord would, I am sure, bear that statement out in full.
The noble Lord who has just sat down touched for the first time on the existing political situation, not I think exactly on its bearing on the Motion made by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Air, but rather by way of illustration of the futility of the proposals made by His Majesty's Government. On the

31
situation I will only say this. It is generally recognised, and recognised as much by the noble Lord as by everybody else, that in sending troops into the demilitarised zone Herr Hitler committed a breach of public law. I think he has himself stated that the number of troops sent to the Rhineland was really symbolic. Well, I must say I think 30,000 troops, which is the lowest estimate which has been made, seems to me to be pushing symbolism rather far. It represents an army equal to the entire military force of an important country like Sweden. But be that as it may, it was also said, and I think truly said, that the sequel to Herr Hitler's action was the offer of an olive branch. To use a happy phrase of Cardinal Newman, that was of the nature of an olive branch shot from a catapult; and the missile caught the Locarno Powers full in the eye. But I agree, and I hope it may be the case, that when they have recovered their ordinary eyesight they will examine the olive branch very carefully to the utmost and see if it may not in fact prove to be a fruitful plant, and I trust that the negotiations which are going on may lead in due course to such a careful examination.
I come now to the Resolution moved from the Government Bench. I am not by any means one of those who consider that the Government have shown a kind of torpor in delaying so long in making these particular proposals. I think that the fact they have not moved before—and I know that in some quarters they have been blamed for not moving before; it was quite evident from the debate in another place—is due in the first place to the circumstance that there was a more or less tacit understanding that for a ten-year period there was no risk of a European war. I confess that I have never greatly appreciated the custom of naming terms of years within which no danger is to be feared. Such statements are apt to convey the implication that at the end of the period there is serious danger of war, and I think it would have been far better not to have mentioned any such period of years.
But in addition to that every Government that has existed since the War ended has encountered serious pressure to reduce taxation, and that pressure has proved in some cases almost irresistible.
32
A certain reduction of Income Tax and the restoration of all the cuts that had to be made after the crisis of 1931 might have been impossible if steady attention had been paid to keeping all the forces of the country in a position supposed to be adequate for a possible outbreak of war. Then there was a third inducement not to spend money on armaments, and that was the attitude taken up by the United States towards the settlement of the Debt due from us and, still more, from other countries in Europe. Your Lordships will all remember that the one charge brought against European countries by the American Government was that they were squandering money in continuing and even in increasing their expenditure on armaments, and it was asked: "Well, if they can do that why can't they pay their Debts?" That, I think, must have been a further reason actuating successive Governments in trying to keep expenditure on armaments as low as possible; and besides it is a fact that a hope was being expressed, a sadly baseless hope I fear it has proved to be, that a general disarmament would be undertaken by most of the heavily armed countries.
The noble Lord who has just spoken was eloquent on the word "defence," and I am afraid that we all have to agree with him up to this point, that it is very difficult if not impossible to draw a distinction between defensive and offensive armaments. I think he was correct in saying that there never has been a case in any country where armaments have been regarded as anything but defensive. The great fortifications which France has erected on her Eastern frontier are obviously regarded by the French as defensive armaments, but we may be equally sure that a number of Germans would look upon them as giving potentialities for a possible offensive against Germany. To go further, I have no doubt that hundreds and thousands of Italians at this moment honestly believe that their invasion of Abyssinia represents a necessary protection of their territory and commerce. Therefore always when we use the word "defence" we use it in the sense in which I think it is understood by everybody concerned.
Before I say a word about the White Paper I must say, without by any means agreeing in all the charges which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, brought

33
against His Majesty's Government, that I do think that in their general policy and in their action as displayed at Geneva they have given to many people, who do not regard these matters in a factious, spirit or merely in a spirit of pure opposition to the Government, an impression that they have not explained to the world what their real attitude has been during the past years towards the question of disarmament. They have not, some of us venture to think, drawn a real distinction between what is necessary for collective security and what is necessary for national security. I should be inclined to think that the quite legitimate boast which His Majesty's Government have made, that we have disarmed to a greater extent than any of the powerful European countries, may lead our friends on the Continent of Europe to think that in reducing our armaments, and perhaps also in not keeping up our forces to the requisite level, we have been more obviously and more fully-actuated by those four considerations which I mentioned just now—economy and the others—than by a serious wish to impress upon other countries the need for joint disarmament. And it is quite clear that if there is to be disarmament it must be joint disarmament. Probably the noble Lord who has just spoken does not think so. He would believe that we might go on reducing our forces without much reference to what other countries are doing, but I do not think that proposition would be accepted by all those who sit on the same Benches as the noble Lord.
I come now to the few points in the White Paper about which I wish to speak. The White Paper in paragraph 5 implies that we are the only Great Power that is obliged to keep large forces owing to its world-wide interests. That surely is not quite accurate. France has vast colonial possessions in many parts of the world, and the French military situation has been thereby very greatly complicated in precisely the same way that ours has been by the fact of our having to keep a large force in India. A point to which I wish to draw attention is with regard to the new Minister. I do not know whether the right honourable gentleman the Attorney-General ought to be congratulated or condoled with on his appointment, but I am quite sure we all wish him well, and I personally
34
have not a word of criticism to offer against his appointment. I hope for his own sake that even if he possesses it he will not show that he possesses any familiarity with either the literature or the science of any foreign country. In that case he might have to remember that, because the late noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, was a student of German philosophy, when it came to war with Germany his intelligent fellow countrymen—or, at any rate, a great many of them—seemed to think that his vast services to the Army and to the country, which cannot be overrated, were entirely obliterated by the fact that he had often visited Germany.
I quite see the very difficult dilemma in which the Government found themselves between the creation of a Minister of Defence governing all the Services, a Minister who was evidently not desired by the country or by Parliament, and on the other hand the creation of a Minister who might be almost a puppet and who would have no real power even of carrying out the blessed word "coordination." I wonder whether in setting forth the relations of the Minister with the three Chiefs of Staff the Government have not fallen into the danger of adopting the second alternative. It is stated in the White Paper, and was, I think, emphasised in one of the speeches in another place, that in the ordinary course the Minister would not attend the meeting of the Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, what in any ease would happen would be that the Chiefs of Staff would meet informally and discuss things without the presence of the Minister. But I should have thought that, if he did not always attend the formal meetings attended by the secretary or secretaries, of which minutes are kept, he would find it very difficult to keep himself in the position which the Minister ought to hold in relation to the three Services.
I think there is a certain analogy—of course, no analogies in politics or in anything else are absolutely complete—between the position of this Minister and that of the Secretary of State for India in relation to his Council. His Council are all experts; he is seldom or never an expert himself, and he depends upon them for a great deal of knowledge, advice and information; but he always presides when they meet. If it happened

35
to him that they held formal meetings and reached conclusions in his absence, he would find himself in a greatly weakened position for exercising the supreme power which has to belong in the last resort to the head of a Department. The co-ordinating Minister of Defence has, of course, to submit his conclusions to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet, but if he is not able to do so on his own authority I am afraid—though I have no doubt that the late Attorney-General is the last man likely to do this—that he will slide into a position of comparative impotence.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount said on the matter of munitions and supply. I am not at all sure that these paragraphs are not in fact the most important part of the whole Paper. Nobody, I am sure, has forgotten or can possibly forget, the remarkable services which, in this respect, Mr. Lloyd George performed in the early stages of the War. I happen to know something about that first-hand, and I think it is hardly possible to overstate those services. But nobody wants the country to be put into a position in which some deus ex machina has to do that again, and I hope, without attempting to criticise the Services, that the provisions for supply may prevent any possibility of such a thing happening again, and prevent it without producing the impression, either here or in other countries, that we are a country perpetually engaged in preparations for war. That would be an equally serious misfortune in the opposite direction.
The noble Viscount's Resolution invites us to approve the White Paper, but I find difficulty in doing that for two reasons. In the first place there is an implication that such approval means in fact approval of the Government policy in relation to defence and kindred subjects, an approval which some of us would not be able to give. But a reason further than that which actuates me is that, when I am invited to approve something, I like to know what it actually is that I am approving. In reading the White Paper, admirably drawn up as it is, and making every allowance for the fact that neither figures of expense nor precise modes of action can be laid down in a Paper of this kind, yet I feel that there is an atmosphere of
36
vagueness and uncertainty about the whole matter which makes it impossible for me to give it the unreserved approval which a vote for the Government would mean. I cannot help thinking, particularly as a great many of the details will, I imagine, never come before your Lordships' real consideration, because they are largely financial in character, that those who give a vote for the Government—when and if a vote is taken—will be understood to have approved a considerable number of the details in the Paper. Therefore I do not find myself in the position of being able to support His Majesty's Government on this occasion.
But I am equally unable to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite. He said a great many things in the course of his speech with which I agree, and some with which I profoundly disagree. But I observe in the terms of his Amendment that he makes no allusion to the League of Nations or to collective security. He only speaks of international understanding, which is a thing which people have been striving to get for hundreds of years. The general conclusions reached in the noble Lord's Amendment are not such as most of us who sit here can agree with. I have no doubt that both he and other noble Lords forming the Opposition in this House are quite firmly convinced that if only a Socialist Government had been in power during these last few years things would have been very different; there would have been far greater advances towards disarmament, and foreign countries would have taken a much more agreeable view of us and of the world in general than they take at present. I cannot agree with the noble Lord.
I cannot help feeling that, if such a Government had been in office, great consternation would have existed in many parts of the world. I think that consternation would have been felt in certain events by entirely different people, because taking the evidence from what has fallen from various speakers who hold the same, or similar, views to the noble Lord, we should either have been engaged in bombarding Genoa and Leghorn; or, on the other hand, troopships would be hastening home bringing soldiers in thousands from the Mediterranean or India with a view to their

37
being disbanded. In those circumstances, I cannot help feeling that the existence of such a Government would not have brought peace to Europe and the world but possibly a sword. I have explained why I cannot bring myself either to vote with the Government or with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I am sure, however, that all of your Lordships will agree that the debate, which I understand is to be continued on Thursday, will be a very valuable one and I am very glad to have been able to take part in it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I ask your indulgence to allow me to make a few observations on the debate to which we have listened this afternoon, and I would say at the outset with what regret I have heard the remarks made in the closing part of his speech by the noble Marquess, who has just sat down. I had hoped that he would have found himself able, and his friends also, to vote for the Resolution, and give that support to the Government which I think they are entitled to have in the very arduous duty which lies before them. I would like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Viscount, who has moved this Resolution in a very eloquent and very comprehensive manner. He has gone into many details of which we were not altogether aware, and I feel that all those of us who are anxious to support the White Paper, and do everything we can to see it brought into successful effect, will agree that he has made a useful contribution.
It seems to me that there is one great difficulty with which the Government are faced, and I have no doubt they will overcome that difficulty; it is that of trying to carry out a scheme of this description, which is certainly of a very comprehensive character, under institutions which we call democratic institutions. There are other countries in the world in which orders can be given, and orders have to be carried out, in a far smaller space of time than we can carry out those orders in this country; but I am sure that with the elasticity of our institutions we need have no doubt whatever that the whole nation will rise to the support of the Government and help them to carry out the policy which has been put before us in the White Paper. As I have said, I have no fault to find with the White Paper. I agree, perhaps, in a measure
38
with the noble Marquess, that we have no specific figures and other details which might have induced the noble Marquess to vote for the Resolution; but I think he must recognise, as the great majority of your Lordships must recognise, that to give an accurate figure would have been a very difficult thing to do, and it is much better, rather than give a speculative figure, to leave that item of the White Paper in the condition in which it is at the present moment.
This White Paper, it is very obvious, has been a very difficult document to draw up, and I certainly think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to members of the Cabinet who have formed themselves into a committee to produce this document. It is naturally the earnest endeavour of the Government, as I know it is of a great majority of your Lordships, that we should establish a position in this country of security as far as armaments are concerned, and it is idle to pretend that there is any school of thought of any great dimensions in this country which believes that by divesting ourselves of all armaments we are making a greater contribution to world peace, than if we place ourselves in that position of security which we believe is necessary to meet the situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment. The plans which are now in being carry out two objects. They maintain our security, and by that I mean they give us authority for making our voice heard in the Council of Nations, because, unfortunately, the measure of our strength goes a great way in these international discussions in which we engage, and it also makes a contribution to collective security. I will venture to make some observations about collective security in a few moments. The policy which is in being now, and which is so different from the policy pursued at no very distant date, has been due to several circumstances. Some people might perhaps say that the fact of the public becoming aware of the rearmament of Germany might have been the turning point, but I would not go so far as that. In fact I would say that it was only a point which had an influence on public opinion. I think gradually public opinion became aware that the whole world was arming, and that the world was beginning more and more to rely upon armaments,

39
by reason of the fear which existed in their minds.
As to collective security, I am not certain that that is not perhaps rather an unfortunate phrase. To my mind collective security is not a term by which a country can think it can reduce its own measure of security, by reason of its being supplemented by another country, because collective security connotes an atmosphere in which individual security is achieved. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that is really the essence of the League of Nations. That is really the reason why we support the League of Nations. I also think that, believing in that theory, we should do what we can to reconstruct the League of Nations. I would not trespass at the moment upon your Lordships' indulgence in order to consider that question of the reconstitution of the League, but I think we all agree that it is our desire to see the League of Nations comprise all the nations of the world. If every nation subscribed to a reconstituted League of Nations the power of the League would be of such an overwhelming character that collective security would be achieved.
The position in this country for the carrying out of the measure which the noble Viscount has in view is not a very easy one. The Government have to have due regard to every shade of political opinion, and those shades of opinion vary from complete disarmament to the state of a nation fully armed. I think that the White Paper steers the middle course, and that is why I am glad to support it. The noble Marquess referred to the ten-year plan, and as a phrase and indication such a plan has been followed. But the noble Marquess knows, I think, as well as I do that those are never concrete figures. The difficulty of all Ministers is as far as they can to give to their advisers and those with whom they work a concrete idea. The only concrete idea which could be put into any sort of
phraseology was that a major war should not be contemplated for the period of ten years. I think that was a very proper attitude to take up; but the period became longer than the ten years that was first contemplated. All this time our defences were being kept in being, but not at that level of strength which the country thinks should have been maintained during that period.
40
Speaking as an old Minister of Defence I think your Lordships will recognise that our position was never a very easy one. A Minister of Defence was criticised on all sides. The character of a Minister of Defence was also attacked on the assumption that, as he was a Minister of Defence, he must be a war-minded man, and that his main object was to make war on everybody. During that time it was the duty of the Ministers of Defence to keep the defensive forces in being as best they could, and I think I can say, speaking for my colleagues also, that we succeeded. I know that the noble Viscount has cause to feel gratified that the basis on which he is now working was a very good one. The credit for that is not due to me but to those able advisers who are now supporting him in the great work which he is doing. There was also the question of finance, which your Lordships will remember very well. After the advent of the present Government in 1931 its attention was concentrated on finance owing to the state in which the country then found itself, and that was no time to ask even for deficiencies to be made up or for the strengthening of the Defence Services. When we are criticised on different sides therefore for delay, I think there is a very full answer to the charge.
I am sure I may be allowed to express my good wishes to Sir Thomas Inskip. All the assistance that your Lordships can give him in his arduous duties will, I know, be given. I am glad to feel that we have in the late Attorney-General a man fully competent to deal with the great work of co-ordination of the three Services, which is now in being and increasing in efficiency every day, and I am sure that he will add to that improvement. He will also give his assistance to the Chiefs of Staff who have done so much to bring about that co-ordination. The noble Viscount in his speech spoke of the problems of supply. Whilst it is obvious that the machines of the Air Force, the ships of the Navy and the requirements of the Army are of the highest importance, still the question of supply, in my opinion, transcends all others. We know quite well that if we are called upon—and I most sincerely hope that that call will never be made—we shall find that the wheels of industry have been so adjusted by the arrangements which

41
are made now that we shall be able to switch over from our peace-time duties, peace time developments and commercial activities to the state in which we found ourselves, by the efforts of successive Ministers, before the end of the War.
The noble Lord who has moved an Amendment has widened the scope of the discussion, and in view of the latitude which is allowed in your Lordships' House I do not feel that he has infringed any of the rules of order, because rules of order in this House in connection with debate hardly seem to exist. The noble Lord and I have crossed swords before, and I am sorry to find from the speech which he has made this evening that I do not find myself in any greater agreement with him than I have on other occasions. The noble Lord seems to me to have jumped several stages of evolution. He has advanced to a time when the peaceful conditions shall have been brought into existence by the processes which he has in his mind, but he has given us no indication of the stages which we should pass through, nor has he indicated any remedy for the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day. The pathway to peace is a very arduous one, and I doubt if it is short. There is no magician's wand by which the noble Lord could achieve his purpose, and we have to try to reach the fruition of our hopes by pursuing those methods which we believe will eventually lead to success. I feel that, paradoxically as the noble Lord has put it—and he said that no one had ventured to make the claim, but with great audacity I venture to make it—by strengthening ourselves and at the same time giving our contribution to collective security we are following the right course at the present moment.
As the noble Lord has widened the debate, I should like to say a few words about what I believe to be the great problem with which we are faced at the present time. Many reasons are adduced for the dangerous state in which the world finds itself at the present moment. In my judgment the demand for security is the only point at this moment to study and settle. I believe that from the success of that study will flow an understanding of the economic problems to which the noble Lord attaches so much importance, and the question that arises therefrom of the distribution of the
42
world's raw materials. But the matter on which our attention is directed at this moment and to which the noble Marquess has alluded in his speech—though I wish he had been able to say more about it because there is no one more competent to deal with these questions or give your Lordships advice and information on these very important points—the whole problem to which I feel we are making a contribution by increasing our forces is the security of France. If we can induce France to realise that she is secure I believe we shall have taken a great step in the direction which the noble Lord has advocated. I shall not venture on this occasion to go through the history of the last few years, although it is pregnant with interest and has a tremendous bearing on what we are doing at the present moment; but I feel that the main point on which we should concentrate our efforts is the establishment of that security for France on which I believe the whole peace of Europe at the present moment depends. That is why I feel that in these negotiations which are in being at the present moment there is the germ of the success of the policy which we have in mind.
I should be the last to say anything at this moment that could exacerbate the feelings of either of those countries who are the main actors in the great drama which is being enacted before our eyes, but I do think that in this country we are inclined to judge other countries by the systems under which we fortunately exist here, and do not realise the great difficulties in which other countries find themselves We have seen Germany passing through different stages over a period of years and achieving nothing in the direction of peace or security in the way in which we want her to achieve it. Upon Germany's internal management of affairs I shall pass no criticism. It is no concern of mine. But we know quite well that after defeat, after approach to revolution, after passing through a period of chaos—in fact, after passing through periods which we in this country have never passed through in the memory of any one of us, or of our grandfathers before us—we find the country concentrated and united under the command of one man. I have visited Germany myself recently, but if I had any doubts in the matter I should have been convinced by the demonstration which took place at

43
Frankfort last night in which the one cry of those assembled people—and in these demonstrations the people are free, there is no coercion, no organising as to what they are to do—was to enable Herr Hitler to obtain an accommodation with France.
France has passed through a very difficult time. Sometimes we may have had occasion to feel she was intransigent and uncompromising, but for centuries past the one point in France's creed has been her own security. In these last few years France has had every reason to feel that her security is in danger, and I feel that the central point on which we should concentrate is that of ensuring the security of France. I am quite sure that in strengthening ourselves as one of the partners of the League of Nations in the quest for collective security, we are helping forward the object that we have in view of giving France the confidence to feel that the means are there to help her to achieve her object.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to intervene for any long period, but there are a few words I should like to say, especially with regard to the statement of the noble Viscount who spoke on behalf of the Government. This has been a very strange debate. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was not unexpected, but when a man finds it necessary to put his sentiments into 130 words for your Lordships to vote upon, that certainly does not look like the cast-iron objection which we might have expected from that quarter, or even a complete vindication of his own opinions. I would certainly like to have heard from the noble Lord what has been achieved in the last ten years by the extraordinary measures of disarmament which have been taken by this country. I do not think there was a word in his speech about the lead which this country carried, as I think, to a dangerous extent and which has met with practically no response in any quarter in Europe.
Then came the speech of the noble Marquess who speaks for the Liberal Party. I confess that, although he spoke with his wonted moderation with regard to the proposals of the Government, I hardly think there was anybody on this side of the House who was not astonished at his conclusion that, because he differs
44
from them on details, he would find himself unable to support them in the Lobby. I have a very grave doubt as to whether it is fully appreciated that in the last few years we have lost something besides merely the force which we expected to have. There has been an extraordinary want of appreciation of the dangers into which we were falling. I do not wish in the least to indict the Government for not being able to do, after the Great War, what the Duke of Wellington as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and subsequently as Prime Minister, was unable to do after the Napoleonic Wars when our Forces fell into a most dangerous condition of inefficiency, and the horrors of the Crimean War were largely the result. I feel that we have fallen into an almost equally dangerous position now. The effectives in the Army were reduced
in the period from 1914 to 1934 by 70,000 men. We all know the pressure there has been with regard to expenditure, but if it were the right time I would venture to prove that the Government have gone, not merely to the extreme limit of safety in regard to reducing both expenditure and efficiency, but beyond it.
Then there is what the noble Viscount said with regard to the Minister of Defence. I wish to make most serious representations to your Lordships on that subject. He told us, as I understood, that it was intended that the Minister of Defence should co-ordinate policy and also, in case of war, co-ordinate man power and munitions.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I said that when you came to war you would obviously have to have two Ministries, one a Ministry of Man Power, the other a Ministry of Munitions.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am quite sure that we mean the same thing. What I want to point out is that you are not going to run the Army, the Navy or, with all respect, for I know much less of that Service, the Air Force, unless you have a man who has the power and the status of a Secretary of State and who is able to use that power for the furtherance of the particular Service. I will take one instance, if your Lordships will pardon this one digression into figures. The cost of the Army has been reduced, I think, by £15,000,000 in the last seven years, but,

45
in addition, out of the reduced sum voted for the Army, I find that no less a sum than £3,750,000 had been returned to the Exchequer. The Army is short to a degree which we cannot help under the present conditions of recruiting, but what of the Anti-Aircraft Force in London? I wonder how many of your Lordships have read the letter to which The Times gave leader type a few days ago. I had intended to refer to this from my own knowledge, but I came to the conclusion that it might not be patriotic to do so. As, however, it has now appeared in The Times in leader type I think I have a right to mention it. It is pointed out in that letter that the Anti-Aircraft Forces are in the hands of Territorial organisations, and that these Territorial organisations are, neither in strength nor in practice, equal to serving the guns.
I cannot help asking the Government why, when they have been returning every year on an average between £500,000 and £600,000 to the Exchequer, the very simple plan which has now been adopted of giving a bonus to the Territorials has not been adopted before, and why this vital point in our defence has been allowed to continue in such a condition when money was being sent back to the Exchequer. An inefficiency has been allowed for which there is really no reason whatever in our finances or in our organisation. What is the reason? I find that one reason—and there are a number of other reasons—is this. With regard to the War Office, of which only I am speaking at this moment, the Government have not regarded the organisation of the Army during this period of disarmament as being of such first-rate importance as to give what has been most necessary to that Force.
I have not a word to say against the individuals of high character and of great ability who have filled the post of Secretary of State, but in the last ten years there have been seven Secretaries of State for War. Does anybody believe that any business in this country could proceed satisfactorily if the head of it was changed seven times in ten years? My complaint against the Government is not that they have made great reductions but that the whole organisation of defence has been treated as a secondary matter. However eminent the man you may put into the position of Secretary of
46
State for War, if he is to be changed "before his eye is in," that really must end in disaster. I think we have committed a terrible error from that point of view, and I do ask that we may have before this debate closes an assurance from the Government that the appointment of a Minister of Defence, desirable as it is from so many points of view, is not going to be allowed to interfere with the status and also with the authority of the heads of the three Services, the Army, Navy and Air Force.
There is one further point I might be allowed to put arising from my own experience. I have served under three chiefs at the War Office, and I was myself Secretary of State. I assure your Lordships that a great deal of the work of the Secretary of State consists in his having to umpire, as it were, between the divergent views of military men, and he alone can supply the stimulus which will induce the Government to take necessary action. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who gave great attention to the War Office when he was there, will bear me out in that. It would be perfectly futile, it would be wrong to the last degree, if it was supposed that the Minister of Defence is a post that somebody may occupy on the way to some further promotion.
With regard to our present position I can only say that I personally have felt, knowing what the result of the last War was, that we ought by every means in our power to take every avenue that is open by which we may obtain peace among the nations who are disposed to fall out with each other in Europe at this moment. But I did not hear a single word from the noble Lord opposite—and I doubt if we shall hear or can hear anything in this debate—which can lead us to suppose that a gesture is equal to the power of being able to give some effective support to our peace opinions. If we are to take part in agreements with foreign nations, we must in the last resort consider the weight that we can put into the common stock. From that point of view I cannot help feeling that the Government, even though a little late, have taken a wise course, and your Lordships will, I am sure, give them your support.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate

47
have paid tribute to the great seaman who was buried in St. Paul's yesterday. Perhaps I, as one who was privileged, I am glad to think, to serve under him both before the War and during the War, may be allowed to add my very humble tribute to his memory. The Navy has suffered a terrible loss during the last few months. The two foremost seamen of our age have been taken from us. The two men who at this very moment, at this crisis in our country's affairs, could have intervened with the greatest possible authority and would have been listened to by all, have both passed over. I am sure that the whole Navy feels a sense of personal regret and will ever remember and honour the memory of those two very great men.
The noble Viscount who introduced this debate said that he hoped that the White Paper would be judged as being wisely framed and adequate in purpose. I referred to those two great seamen whose loss we mourn to-day because many years ago Lord Jellicoe gave it as his opinion that the barest minimum in cruiser strength on which the British Fleet could rely was the minimum of 70 cruisers. We all of us remember that by the London Naval Treaty negotiated by the Socialist Government of the day this irreducible number was cut down from 70 to 50. I am glad to think that at long last the White Paper puts back the number to 70. It never should have been altered. But if one turns to the White Paper one sees from paragraph 26 that while 60 of those cruisers will be under age 10 will be over age. The facts with regard to our cruisers are well known. They have been referred to in your Lordships' House before. Some of them are of War-time construction and their replacement is long overdue. I am glad to think they are to be replaced.
At the same time I hope we shall not forget the lesson of the War. One of the first things that we learnt at the outset of the War was that there is great use for ships over age, and I earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government in the crisis of our country's affairs will consider the retention for a further period of ships that are out of date. They may not be capable of performing great service with the Battle Fleet, and they may not be capable of engaging the modem cruisers which are being commissioned in
48
foreign navies at present, but there is no doubt that in certain circumstances they would be extraordinarily useful for convoy duty and patrol duty. Therefore I hope that the cruisers which we are about to replace will not necessarily be scrapped or put up for sale.
The noble Viscount who introduced the debate this afternoon and invited support for the White Paper gave what I thought was a curious reason for supporting the construction of capital ships. The reason he gave was that you cannot annihilate enemy capital ships unless you have them. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but there is to my mind a far better way of justifying the Government's proposal. There are six or eight capital ships under construction for foreign navies, and that reason was advanced—I think with great wisdom—in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty when introducing the Navy Estimates yesterday. I hope we shall not lose sight of the fact that we must have in these days capital ships not only because the Admiralty thinks that their construction is necessary but because they are considered necessary by foreign countries.
I turn from that to the destroyer position. On page 8 of the White Paper, paragraph 23 says:
"…it will be necessary not only to proceed with new construction at a more rapid rate than in recent years, but also to make good existing deficiencies in ammunition and stores of all kinds."
Then, on the next page, paragraph 27 says:
" A steady replacement programme for destroyers and submarines is contemplated…."
One of the troubles in the last few years has been that when the Navy Estimates are introduced by the First Lord of the Admiralty the Votes passed in the House of Commons are very often only token Votes and the actual construction of the ships does not commence until the following year. Ships were voted by Parliament in the Navy Estimates for 1935 but construction did not in fact begin until 1936. It seems to me that a good deal might be done to accelerate construction if we could obviate that year's delay.
The destroyer position appears to me, and appears I think to most people who have studied the actual position, to be one of infinite seriousness. I

49
believe I am right in saying that when the Grand Fleet went to sea in the Great War it was almost invariably accompanied by over one hundred destroyers. I have tried to ascertain from the Return of Fleets published in December last year the actual number of destroyers we have at present and it would seem that we have only about 157. We have some seventy-two post-War destroyers, but we have no fewer than eight-five destroyers of War-time or pre-War construction. That is a dangerous position. Destroyers wear out more quickly than almost any other ships. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, coming to your Lordships' House and saying that there were certain destroyers in Malta Harbour which could not go to sea. I do not know whether the statement was correct or not, but it was not contradicted with very much assurance at the time. The United States at the present time have about 200 destroyers and Japan has over 100, and we have a little over 150 of all sorts. One of the things we did learn during the Great War was that you cannot work a Fleet without its necessary complement of destroyers, and I must confess I should be much more satisfied if His Majesty's Government were able to assure us that they would press ahead with destroyer construction to a far greater extent than is adumbrated in the White Paper.
There is another point in the White Paper which I find rather disturbing. Here I am afraid the noble Viscount who opened the debate this afternoon may not agree with me. The point has reference to the Fleet Air Arm. There-are certain proposals in the White Paper for increasing the strength of the Fleet Air Arm. I believe that when those proposals are carried into effect there will be 200 or 240 aeroplanes to go to sea with the Fleet. Every time the American Fleet goes to sea it takes with it between 500 and 600 aeroplanes. The Japanese Fleet, I believe, takes between 400 and 500 machines with it. When we have worked up to the strength contemplated by the White Paper I believe we shall have only from 200 to 240 machines. I do not bind myself to the exact figures, but they are approximately correct. Two aircraft carriers alone in the American Fleet take over 90 machines each. I do not contemplate war with the United
50
States or Japan or any other country, but how can a Fleet equipped with only 200 to 240 machines meet a Fleet with exactly twice the number of machines? Aeroplanes, it seems to me, are in a way merely a device for extending the range of a big gun when they are dropping bombs, but they can of course be used in other ways, for torpedo work, for observation and the rest of it, and at sea their use may be at times absolutely devastating. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government should press ahead with far more resolution than is contemplated in the White Paper with the provision for the Fleet Air Arm.
I do not want to revive, as the noble Lord said who introduced the debate to us this afternoon, the controversies of the past, but I feel, as I shall always feel, that so long as the present system of dual control in the Fleet Air Arm continues, we shall have there a situation which cannot last in war and which holds in itself the seeds of danger. There are several points about the Fleet Air Arm, and indeed about the White Paper, which I find disturbing. There seems to be nothing in the White Paper that I can find—and here I hope that the noble Viscount who introduced this debate will have something to say when he comes to reply—about the aerial defence of shipping. In the air we seem to contemplate, of course, defending the British Isles, providing for our Air Force overseas, and also for a Fleet Air Arm, but there seems to me nothing to provide for the aerial defence of shipping. I do not know whether that is an Admiralty preserve or an Air Force preserve, but it is vital to us.
The White Paper talks on page 8 about
"the overwhelming importance of the Navy in preserving our sea communications and thus ensuring to this country the supplies of seaborne food and raw materials on which its existence depends"—
and so on. Exactly, my Lords, but all those ocean routes bringing us all those vital necessities concentrate on certain focal points, which are very well known and are all within the range of hostile aircraft. How are those focal points to be defended? In case of war, no doubt, convoys will be employed, as they were in the last War, but supposing a convoy is attacked by hostile aircraft, what arrangements are going to be made to defend it? Are they to be made by the

51
Navy or by the Air Force? I hope that, when the Government come to reply, they will be able to deal with this point, which I regard as one of infinite seriousness.
I need hardly say that, in common with the large majority of your Lordships' House, I shall do everything I can to support the policy of the Government as outlined in the White Paper. I feel that it is a policy which will help collective security—though I must confess that I do not know what collective security is, and I must confess that to me it sounds rather like distributive danger. But whichever it may be, I am certain that this strengthening of our forces is entirely necessary and that, even if belated, it is better late than never. I hope that the few points that I have mentioned, and with which I should have liked to deal at greater length if it had not been for the lateness of the hour, may receive the attention of His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, the late Lord Beatty, my noble friend on my right (Viscount Trenchard) and I were the first triumvirate of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee, and I am sure that my noble friend on my right will agree with me when I say how greatly we deplore the loss of Lord Beatty's counsels at this juncture of our affairs. During my term as Chief of Staff it was my unenviable task to have to reduce the Army Estimates by £2,000,000 a year for the first three years and by £1,500,000 in the fourth year. I need not say, therefore, how heartily I welcome the White Paper and also the appointment of Sir Thomas Inskip. I hope and believe that, owing to the co-ordinating influence of the Imperial Defence College, he will find in practice that he has very little to co-ordinate, so excellent now is the spirit, referred to by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Air, of co-operation between the three Services. I am quite sure that they all feel that each is absolutely indispensable to the other and to the nation's safety.
I am very glad to note the increase in the Vote for scientific research, because I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that there is no defence against air attacks. That may be true at this moment, but I am quite convinced that, given sufficient money, the great brains that can enable me to turn a knob and listen to
52
Moscow and Berlin will in due course evolve something which may render an area of the ether impassable, or so highly dangerous that it cannot be entered. Thirty years ago it would have been thought fantastic that one could listen to any part of Europe without wires. Why, thirty years hence or even less, should my dream not come true? Secondly, in turning to home protection on land, I want to speak of purely passive defence. I have no desire to attack anybody, and indeed the whole of this debate is on defence. It is, in my view, little use moving your factories or arsenals from east to west of England. It is only 230 miles, as the aeroplane flies, from Woolwich to Carmarthen. The speed of up-to-date bombers, as I understand from the Press, is 250 miles an hour. I want, of course, to avoid congestion of arsenals and important factories in any one particular spot; dispersion is the first rule of defence against aeroplanes, but it seems to me that we must get away from the doctrine I see preached in some parts of the Press that everything will have to be moved over to the other side of the country.
My next point is that there are two very old-fashioned but good means of defence: the first is camouflage and the second is digging. It makes me positively ill to see at most of the old naval ports of this country and most of the great ports of the Empire, as the first thing which catches my eye, the large, round, silver turrets ranged in line, all bearing that commodity which is absolutely essential to us—oil. I cannot imagine a greater "jolly" for a hostile airman in the air than to buzz along those lines dropping bombs or shooting his machine-gun at them. To my mind it is absolutely essential that they should be effectively camouflaged or dug in. By camouflage I do not mean a coating of various-coloured paints. In the Great War, Royal Academicians were called in to assist, and they made some perfectly admirable forms of camouflage. We should call them in again, and also, now, the great film industry, who could, I believe, disguise the whole of the oil tanks into something that would deceive any airman.
With regard to defence in the great cities, I have had the privilege, owing to the courtesy of the French General Staff, of visiting some portion of the

53
French Eastern defences, and I was enormously impressed there by the arrangements for defence in respect of gas, supply of water, and sanitation. Those are three things that must not be lost sight of. It always seems to me that, when the London Transport Board want to change from lifts to escalators, they put up enormous erections in Knightsbridge, Piccadilly or Leicester Square. Nobody minds; they are there for two years, and large acreages of vacancy are made, at a cost which, I presume, the London Passenger Transport Board can afford. If it is ever thought desirable to make underground refuges, surely it would not be beyond the powers of the Government to form some sort of definite refuge in all the big cities, to which women and children could be allowed to go. I hope that, if that is done, some study may be made of the system in France which I have mentioned.
One word before I finish about recruiting. The only really disquieting thing to me in the whole of the White Paper is the shortage of fit men. There is apparently no shortage of gallant young-boys and men who offer themselves for enlistment, but, as I read the reports, I see that roughly 50 per cent. are rejected. That is a national reproach. It is my sincere belief that this can be remedied, not by lowering the standards of acceptance, but by paying much more attention to the physical well-being of our youth—more food and more open-air games. I
54
have for the last seven years worked as an officer of the National Playing Fields Association. We are now just beginning to work side by side with the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training. We are to work in the same office, and our joint object is the welfare and fitness of youth. We have had wonderful assistance from the Carnegie Trustees and the public, and we go through all the various methods of balls and banquets to try to extract cheques from the rich. We are delighted to go on doing the work, but we cannot do it alone, and I really feel that if measures were taken now seriously to try to improve the physical welfare of the youth of this country, your recruiting problems would very shortly be solved. Lastly, may I send one more shiver down the spines of my noble friends on my right? It is my earnest belief that if you put your Army back into full dress you would get at least another 30 per cent. of recruits, and in that way your most serious problem, which is to find men for the expansion, may come very nearly to solution.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned till Thursday next.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

TRING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 13th of February last and 4th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.
GRAVESEND AND MILTON WATER- WORKS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 20th of February last and the 4th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.
WREXHAM AND EAST DENBIGHSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 26th of February last and the 4th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CORNWALL ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the
Birmingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the
Cheltenham and Gloucester Joint Water Board, &c., Bill
ought to be dispensed with: Read, and agreed to.

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

HASSOCKS AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Hassocks and District Gas Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
DARLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
NORTH MIDDLESEX GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.