I have some doubt as to the first New Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton)—( Air Council not to Order or Conduct Warlike Operations ). That is the very object of the Bill I should think, and this seems to be a negative of the whole Bill.

On a point of Order. The matter has been raised and .discussed on previous occasions. As no doubt you are aware, the Air Council has many functions, and it may be—and, as I understand, probably is—intended that, under certain circumstances, it will undertake warlike operations. I therefore submit it is in order. It is to transfer what the Air Board is doing to the Air Council, with increased powers, and the question is in what direction those powers are to be increased.

I should like to hear what the hon. and gallant Member says, but it is very doubtful.

I beg to move the Clause. I wish to explain to the Committee that the two Clauses standing in my name are part of the same subject. Very late on the Committee stage it was explained to the Committee that the duty of the Air Council will be to supply and hand over to the command of the Army and Navy, as the case may be, all the aircraft which is required for the conduct of naval and military operations, but there is a third question still remains which has not been definitely explained to the House. The Air Board has hitherto been a Board of Supply only, but the Army Council is to provide machinery and undertake the training of personnel as well as the supply of apparatus. So far there has been no criticism offered on that principle. The Air Council under this Bill, as it now stands, will have power to order warlike operations and undertake them independently either of the Army or the Navy, and it is a matter upon which I desire, if possible, to obtain some information from the Government. I put before the Committee arguments which I think will not be refuted and cannot be, that one of the main principles which leads to success in war is unity of command, and that violation of that principle always leads to weakness in the conduct of war, if not to disaster.

I am not going to discuss strategy or tactics, but so far as the principle of command is involved in naval and military operations, that is provided for by the explanation given by the Government. It will be the duty of the Army Council to provide all that the Army and Navy require. The Government have not yet explained whether the whole of the Air Service in every part, including the Antiaircraft Service is to be handed over to the Air Council. No doubt some explanation will be given on that point before we part with the Bill in this House. The point which arouses apprehension is that a third command is intended to be established by this Bill. We already have the Army Council, and we have a separate command in the Navy acting under the Lords of the Admiralty and the officers appointed by that Board. Even this division of command has great difficulties, and may lead to still further difficulties in the future, but this Bill proposes to set up a third War Council, and it opens up new problems and difficulties which will cause considerable apprehension. It would appear that the naval force, when acting in conjunction with land operations, should be in command of the military officer, and the same would appear to apply to the officer, commanding the naval forces dealing with .a large area of the sea. The problems involved in the unity of command are very great. We suffer in this country from the fact that we have no supreme War Staff manned by men whose whole training and career have been spent in the study of problems of war and how to conduct war successfully. In this country the War Cabinet is a civilian body.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now wandering all over the place, and he is not confining himself to the subject-matter of this Clause at all.

Then I will bring nay remarks directly back to the point. It will be difficult to combine the warlike operations of the Air Council with the warlike operations ordered by the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty. That is the difficulty I am anxious should be avoided. The difficulty of a third command which this Bill apparently proposes to set up is bound to create this difficulty, and there is no machinery to overcome it. Unless a strong reason is given to the contrary, it would appear that the Air Forces should be at the disposal of the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty, and that this new Air Council should be a board of training and supply, and the actual operations of war should be entrusted to either the military or naval authorities. Those are the considerations I wish to place before the attention of the House.

I beg to second the Amendment. If this proposal were carried out it would defeat those purposes of the Bill which are beneficial to the Service.

The hon. Member has just given a very good reason why this Amendment is out of order, and I must decline to put it. The other new Clauses, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing), should come as Amendments, but not as new Clauses.

I beg to move, after the word "the," to insert the word "Imperial."

I am encouraged to move this Amendment by the remarks of an hon. Member which indicated that there is an idea in the mind of the Government to eventually include on the Council of the Air Service representatives from overseas. There are people in this country who resent the word "Imperial," but I am suggesting it in connection with this Bill in the sense of the unity of the Empire and quite distinct from any other meaning which may have been attached to it. I consider that if the Air Service is to develop on such lines as will render it of value to the Empire it is essential that they should have co-operation, assistance, and guidance of those men who are guiding the forces and destinies of the Dominions generally. If that is the case it is quite possible and reasonable that this word should be embodied in the very title of the Bill itself. It would be a graceful compliment to our men from overseas, because, whatever critics may say, they have certainly not failed us in this War. They have come forward not only in the trenches and on the seas, but more particularly in our Air Services. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member (Major Baird) on the Front Bench will echo what I say when I tell the House that a very considerable number of our pilots, numbering some of the most gallant among them, men who have attained great prominence as expert pilots and fighting airmen, have been drawn from the Colonies themselves.

When this Air Service develops as it must, it will be absolutely essential that we should have bases throughout the Empire. It may be suggested that these bases should be organised by the Dominions themselves, but we shall have to use them not only for our fighting forces but also in peace time, because it will be impossible to keep up the establishment of a vast number of airmen in peace time unless they are given something to do. There are no facilities in the Air Service like there are in the Army and the Navy for keeping the men in training. The question of materiel is even more important. The life of an aeroplane is so short that it is quite feasible, unless the machines are employed for something more than mere flying from aerodrome to aerodrome, that it will be impossible to keep them up to date. That is why I think it would be an excellent thing if this. name were embodied in the Bill so as to throw out the suggestion to the Dominions that it is the wish of the Government eventually, if not at the present time, to make this Air Service a comprehensive unit for the whole Empire, and by so doing to encourage the formation of bases throughout the Empire to be used in times of peace for mail carrying and various other Imperial duties of an Imperial Government. I strongly recommend this Amendment, not in any sense of Jingoism, but purely as a means, and a very simple means, of paying a graceful compliment to the Colonies, which I am sure they will appreciate, and of putting the hall-mark on the statement of the hon. and gallant Member in Committee, that the only reason they did not wish to limit the numbers on the Council was that they might have the opportunity of having representatives from the Colonies and the Dominions upon it. Surely there can be no reasonable excuse or justification for refusing to accept this Amendment, and I hope there will be Members who are sufficiently interested in our Imperial destiny to second the Motion.

I beg to second the Amendment, and it is so seldom that I find myself in accord with the hon. Member that I do with special pleasure. I second it primarily because the Air Service is, in fact, an Imperial Air Service. Australia has its own Air Service, but Canada has not. The British Government have already circularised the Canadian Forces to supply airmen and officers for the Air Service. That at once makes it, as a matter of fact, the Imperial Air Force, and it is a misnomer to describe it as an Air Force. I think the word "Imperial" is more akin in this connection than the word "Royal," used in connection with the Navy, and I hope that the Government will adopt the term, which has a significance, outside this country, of a great national import.

This Amendment obviously commands the greatest possible sympathy; but there is this difficulty, that, in order to accept it, it will be necessary to consult the Dominion authorities, and we have not been able to do so.

What! In order to use the word "Imperial"?

Yes, the military forces of Canada and Australia are practically autonomous. Australia has got its own pilots. Canada, it is true, has not; but I. know, from personal experience, that there is a great desire for a Canadian squadron. It is quite easy to understand that the men of those great Dominions would like the deeds of their fellow citizens to be identified with the Dominion from which they come. That does not in. the least dispose of the very desirable view put forward by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, that we should. unify the whole of that Service just as we desire to unify the Service as it applies to Great Britain, by abolishing the imaginary high-water mark which at present unnecessarily divides the airmen operating with the naval and military forces. It is impossible to controvert the desirability of including the Dominions, but I hope the Amendment will not be carried, because, although we are entirely sympathetic, we are really not in a position to take them over, and if it were pressed it might lead to misunderstanding.

I can hardly support the elaborations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Billing), in moving to insert in this Bill the word "Imperial." I am surprised to find that a man so up to date should by some mental hiatus seem to be about ten years behind hand in this regard. In the course of his excellent speech he kept referring to these Dominions as "colonies." Nothing could be more behind-hand than to dub them as "colonists." They are not colonists; they are self-substantial men, who, I hope, have a great future before them, and my hon. Friend seems to miss the very A, B, C of the question, when he falls into such an elementary pitfall. If he had been in this House a few years ago he would have known that I introduced the question of the title "Dominions," but, with the usual supercilious style of the Front Bench, I was sneered at for months until the so-called "Colonies" and Dominions backed up my demand, and they were forced at last with bad grace to give way. The word "Imperial" should stink in the nostrils of history and of all except those who are saturated with pro-German sentiments. There is one, and only one, great example of an Empire since the Roman Empire which, under the word "Empire," has fallen into rottenness and corruption, and that is the German Empire. The word "Imperial" reeks of a sentiment which was prevalent here before the War, especially in Tory circles, and it found voice at the beginning of the War. It was said, "No; it is not the German Empire which will rule the world with their Germanic ideas and their German Kaiser; it is we, the great English people, who will dominate the world and set our heel on other nations and trample them down under the great spirit of Imperialism."

I am afraid the hon. Member is wandering from the Amendment. This is a very small Amendment, and lies within a very small compass. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to it.

All this arises from the word "Imperial." If I am wrong in wandering, my hon. Friend (Mr. Billing) was also wrong in introducing this word, and his speech wandered as far from the mark as you, Sir, say I am wandering now. I intend to continue to protest against the use of the word "Colonies," preferring to call them Dominions until we can proceed to a word of greater glory as opposed to this miserable and imitative idea of Imperialism, which is unworthy of us and certainly unworthy of the Dominions, whose destiny it is to be a federation of free republics.

May I take this opportunity—

The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.

Amendment negatived.

Am I not in order in rising to withdraw an Amendment?

The hon. Member did not say that.

I said I would take this opportunity and then you called me to order.

I took the opportunity of putting the Question.

Can I withdraw the Amendment?

The Amendment has been negatived.

I beg to move to leave out the word "Force," and to insert .instead thereof the word "Service."

The term "Air Force" is an unhappy one, because it does not roll easily off the lips and its initials do not help in any way. I should like to qualify the suggestion that this body is to be purely a force. It is rather more a service than a force. It is a service which, I hope, is going to bring victory to our arms. I do not know of any other means of getting it in the present condition of the world. After the War I trust it is going to be a force in a punitive sense only, and that it will be more of a service to mankind than a force for the purpose of making war. Although the aeroplane itself is the most punitive weapon that has ever been placed in the hands of man to wield, it is also, from that very cause, most likely to bring to this world universal peace, because the only way to keep people quiet, whether it is an individual or a collection of individuals, or a collection of nations, is to have in one's hand a punitive weapon by which to exert authority in the interests of justice and peace. [An HON. MEMBER: "In other words, force!"] This country, whether it be an Empire or purely a country, is not going in times of peace to spend the vast sums of money which are and will be necessary to keep up the establishment of any force worthy of the name, and one likely to keep us on even terms with potential enemies, without turning it to some other use in peace time. The life of an aeroplane is only about four days in war. In peace time possibly it becomes obsolescent in from six to twelve months. We are passing through stages of development in aviation, and shall be for the next ten years, which render that certain. It is necessary that whatever force or service we have shall keep up with the very latest types of machine in ever respect.

Despite the fact that this War has been going on for three and a half years, I hope the future will bring more years of peace than of war. Therefore, it would be better to call this a Service, because we look to it in times of peace to serve mankind in a constructive capacity and in times of war to serve the nation in a destructive capacity. Before very long the aeroplane, in the hands of capable men, with a nation or nations united behind it, will make war so terrible that no statesman or body of statesmen will dare to commit any country to a state of war. Its effect will be at once so sudden and so complete, its powers of destruction so enormous, that it will be able to lay cities in ashes in a night. Although the aeroplane comes to us as a weapon of force, we shall live to regard it as a winged messenger of peace. Great developments will take place, but they will be developments in the interest of humanity, and the function of the aeroplane will be, in the first place, to serve mankind, and, in the last resort, it will be used for punitive measures. I hope that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment. We have used it in the Navy as the Royal Naval Air Service. It is never called the Royal Naval Air Force. The Royal Flying Corps was never called a force. The destinies of these two great Services, which have rendered such extraordinarily valuable assistance, are going to be merged in this new force. I trust it will be called by a name which will fall kindly from the lips and which will suggest that it will work for the service of mankind rather than its destruction.

I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend has often good ideas, and in this deserves encouragement.

The next two Amendments on Clause 2, standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Billing), dealing

I did not feel sufficiently impressed by the Amendment to think. it worth while to change the Title of the Bill. This is essentially a force that we propose to raise. We hope it will be a very formidable force. The hon. Member (Mr. Billing) referred to the existing Royal Naval Air Service and the Flying Corps. Both these are very good. names. Now that we have taken over both of them, either would have just cause to resent it if you gave the united force the name of the other. These are little things which people have to pay attention to. It appeared more reasonable to adopt a name which is not in use by either branch of the Air Force at present and to call it what it really is, an Air Force. I trust the Amendment will not be pressed.

I do press it.

Question put, "That the word 'Force' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 0.

with distinctive uniform and designation, of rank, are covered by the Bill.

So far as my Amendment, is concerned for the institution of a distinctive uniform, there is nothing in the Bill. which states that this is going to be done, and the Amendment is put down purely for the purpose of endeavouring to elicit from the Front Bench an undertaking that this will be done.

I have already ruled that out of order, as it is covered by the Bill.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "may, with his consent and subject to the approval of the Admiralty or Army Council (as the case may be), be transferred by the Air Council to the Air Force, or attached by the Air Council to the Air Force for the period of the present War or for a period not exceeding four years," and to insert instead thereof the words "who was not serving as a member of His Majesty's forces prior to the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, may be transferred or attached by the Air Minister to the Air Force for the period of the present War. Any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man who was so serving His Majesty before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, may be attached but shall only be transferred to the Air Service at his own request."

This is a most important Amendment. As the Bill stands, it provides that any officer or man may be taken from the present Air Services with his consent and transferred into the new Air Service. In this matter I feel more particularly for the officers concerned, because this is a force where officers are employed to a far greater extent than in any other force, in view of the fact that at the present time practically all the pilots are officers. There are a few exceptions in the Royal Flying Corps, but I believe I am right in saying that there are no exceptions made in the Royal Naval Air Service; therefore, if we are going to transfer these men under the Bill as it stands now, it means that it is within the power of the Air Minister to take any man from the Air Service, no matter whether he be a naval officer of ten years' experience, and transfer him into the Air Service. The Bill gives the officer or man the opportunity, within a period of three months, if he is not satisfied with his transfer, to apply to be sent back. I think it is absolutely essential that this matter, which was discussed fairly fully in Committee, should be dealt with now by the Government. If the members of the Government will read the Official Debates—for that is the only way in which they can get the information, because they were mostly absent—they will appreciate how strongly this particular Clause was dealt with in the Committee stage. The right hon. and gallant Member (Major-General Sir Ivor Philipps) pointed out quite clearly that in the event of this Clause standing as it does it would put any man in the position within three months of calmly informing the Government that he did not want to stay in the Air Service any longer.

The Air Service, above all the other things that we are forming, is a permanent institution, and the fewer officers we have attached to it the better for its efficiency and the better for its subsequent work. If we are going to fill all the important posts by attaching officers from the respective Services to those posts we shall have, and quite rightly, a very considerable feeling of dissatisfaction among those other officers who, instead of being attached, have decided definitely to transfer. I do not consider that it is either in the interests of efficiency or in the interests of the Air Service or the interests of the War itself that the question of attachment should be considered. I think it is a most unfortunate thing in forming a new force to lend for a certain period officers from another Service. They naturally take all the superior posts—otherwise why attach them?—and in that case there is no feeling of security, and there is no feeling that there will be any continuity in the position of any man in that force. If, on the other hand, we had no men with whom to form the nucleus of this force, if there were no volunteers and nobody anxious to create a force of its own with its own esprit de corps, with its own individuality, I think it is a mistake to trouble the House. The object of the Bill is to create a new Service with its own uniform, and with its own distinctive institution, quite apart from either the naval or military forces. To that end we want men who will throw in their fortunes in this new Service, for better or worse, and who will not always have operating in their minds the question, "Shall I like it? If not, I will go back." That is so far as the question of attachment is concerned, and it is dealt with in my Amendment by a provision that a man may be so attached but only at his own request, not forcibly as in this Bill. As the Bill stands, it is possible to transfer or attach men to the Air Service for the period of the War against their will or without their consent, giving them three months to make up their minds whether they will stay or not.

If there are any hon. Members who have had anything to do with the Air Service, which is a very gallant service, they will know that because of its gallantry and of the constant risks, not only war risks but peace risks, it attracts a temperamental type of man, like every walk of life which is exceedingly risky. Without saying anything detrimental of these men, it is a fact that the temperamental type of man is a very difficult type to deal with when it comes to running a service. and when it comes to discipline. Temperamental men have more grievances, as a rule, than the ordinary stolid type of individual, who does not mind very much what happens. We are wedding the two Air Forces, and sending them on a honeymoon for three months, and telling them that at the end of that period, if they do not like each other, or if any of them do not like each other, they can fall out. That aeronautical honeymoon is going to be a very trying time for both Services. There will be officers who have been waiting, like many I know, and very anxiously waiting, for justifiable promotion for the last two or three years in the Navy, but whose promotion has been held back simply and solely on account of the claims of the deep seamen or the Blue Sea Fleet crew. They have been told, "It is impossible to advance you to-day because you have no seniority in the Service. You are a very capable pilot, or officer, and understand aviation thoroughly, but in view of the fact that you have only got about two years' seniority it is impossible to advance you in the Navy." That has not been quite so much the case in the Army. There are many cases in the Army of men anxiously awaiting the formation of the new force to come into what they consider their own, to be given the opportunity with which the restrictions of the old force have not provided them. You are going to amalgamate those two forces, you are going to create new ranks, and I am glad to say that you are going to institute a new uniform. Do not hon. Members apprecite that there is certain to be considerable friction when this amalgamation takes place? The respective ranks themselves of the two Services are quite sufficient to occasion a considerable amount of friction.

You have in the Royal Flying Corps a lieutenant who ranks as lieutenant; is he going to be transferred as a lieutenant or how is he going to be transferred? If you are going to take these men over en masse, you can only take them over at their present rank and then shake them up and readjust them. You must take them over individually if you are going to make any change in rank. You cannot transfer the whole body of naval officers and Army officers to the new Service en masse without making some arrangements for their respective ranks in the new Service. Compare a lieutenant in the Royal Flying Corps with a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Air Service. A lieutenant in the Royal Naval Air Service ranks with and senior to a captain in the Royal Flying Corps. A captain in the Royal Naval Air Service ranks with and senior to, I think, a brigadier-general in the Army. A major in the Royal Flying Corps ranks with and junior to a commander in the Royal Naval Air Service. This Clause in its present form provides the seeds of endless dissatisfaction. I would suggest that the only possible way of overcoming this trouble as to confusion of ranks and seniority is to let all those members of the old forces respectively who are anxious to come into the new force, come in. Let them resign their commissions and be for twenty-four hours civilians, and the next day let the Ministry of the Air enrol them without any reference to their sea service, and their land service, but purely having regard to their value to the Air Service as organisers, pilots, observers, or on the military staff, and then you would have perfect unity in your new force. There may be many members of the old force who will think that they have been treated very badly, but they will not leave the old force.

I am not speaking of the men because nearly all the men in the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service are direct entrants. I know very few cases to the contrary. There are something like 30,000 men to-day in the Royal Naval Air Service, of whom I do not think there are 2 per cent. who are old naval men. They are all direct entrants and it matters very little to such a man whether he serves as an air mechanic in the Royal Naval Air Service or in the new Service. But when you come to officers you find that direct-entry officers are in most cases in a minority, because a majority of the flying officers and observers are men who have transferred from the old Army or Navy itself, and these men have behind them seniority in the Service, in the naval branches of the Service. How are you going to treat these men when they come into this new Service? If they transfer presumably they throw it up, which it is essential they should do, because now is the parting of the ways, and the man who takes up aviation must give way to the man who is prepared to devote his life to it, and now is the time to say to the naval and military officers who have taken up aviation as a hobby, "You have seen what aviation is. Now is the time to decide; will you make this your career in life or will you remain in the Navy or the Army respectively?" I cannot too forcibly press this Amendment on the House of Commons. It is possibly the most important Clause with which we have to deal in the whole Bill, because if it is allowed to stand as it is not only is it likely to cause unnecessary friction, but it is likely to destroy the very ideal to accomplish which this Bill has been framed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter his very careful consideration, and to give his reason for retaining this Clause in the Bill, if he has one. He promised on the Committee stage to give this matter his serious consideration, and see if something could not be done to overcome it.

Another important point. The Bill as it is framed gives the Army and Navy respectively the right to refuse to the Air Service any man whom they do not want to lose. In my opinion, neither the Army nor the Navy has a right to refuse to the Air Service to allow any man who is a direct entry man to transfer to the new Air Service. The very fact that he was a direct entry man proves that he entered the Air Service and not the Army or Navy, and for the Army or Navy to refuse to allow him to go to the Air Service, if it is taken from the Army or Navy, is going to produce endless confusion and delay. Why should this Bill provide that the permission must be obtained before men can transfer? My right hon. Friend may say that the Army and Navy are agreeable in this matter. It is not only that. What I have been trying to impress on this House for nearly two years is that every man in both Services, of twenty-five years of age, who feels that he has in himself the makings of a pilot, or that he will be of value to this country as an airman, ought to be encouraged anyway to transfer and become an airman. I have pressed the right hon. Gentleman, and he has promised me many times that every consideration will be given to these men. Hardly a day goes by on which I do not receive at least half a dozen letters from these men, who say, "I have knowledge of mechanics; I am very keen to fly, but my superiors refuse to forward my application, or I am told my application has been turned down. What can I do?" I know the hon. Gentleman cannot take up every case, and if he took up every case that comes to me he would have time for nothing else; but now is his opportunity to save time in future, and he would not be bothered any more, because the Bill would provide that every man who wants to be transferred shall be transferred. So far as the naval officers are concerned, I do not think you will find that many deep-sea men wish to transfer to the Air Service, and a number will be guided to a very large extent in their decision by the governing consideration of the possibilities of success in the new Service, and as to whether or not they would be likely to receive promotion in that Service or are going to be transferred to another rank. That was one of the reasons why I put down a large number of Amendments asking the hon. Gentleman what ranks it was proposed to create in the new Service.

The hon. Gentleman is now arguing Amendments which I have already ruled out of order.

I accept your ruling, Sir, though I find it difficult to deal with the three Services and the respective ranks without somewhat transgressing the Rules of Order. I have, however, practically finished my observations on this Amendment. My experience in framing Amendments to Bills is of a very recent character, and if any other Member, seeing my point, can suggest an Amendment which better accomplishes its purpose and is more acceptable, and if it attains the object I have in view, then I should be most happy to give such an Amendment the best. support I could. There is not a man in either Service to-day who is not anxiously awaiting the passage of this Bill, and they are as interested as I am to see this Bill become law. I know also that they are anxious that, if it does become law, it will convey something to them which it does not possess now. It has been suggested that this Bill is a skeleton Bill. It is; but it may yet be the skeleton of the forces. It is a most unfortunate Bill as it is now framed; we have looked to this Report stage for some very interesting and definite news from the Front Bench, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not now going to tell us, in the accustomed phraseology of the Front Bench, that he has nothing to add to what has already been said in the Committee stage, for that would be a very poor compliment to the House of Commons, and in that event it would be almost better to accomplish this work by Order in Council than to occupy the time of the House on a measure of this kind.

I beg to second the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend is right.

A large number of the Amendments of my hon. Friend who has just spoken have been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, and we have now had a lengthy discussion on a comparison of ranks as between both Services. The whole point of this Amendment is to introduce a system of compulsion, because it makes an express difference between men who have enlisted in the Service since 1914, namely, the men of the New Army, and the men of the Old Army, who enlisted before 1914. Since the beginning of the War, however, the Army has been effectively one, and it is rather late in the day to introduce a distinction between the New Army men and the Old Army men. I was struck by one remark of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that the men of both Services were anxiously awaiting the passage of this Bill. If his words be true, why is it necessary to have this discussion? The hon. Gentleman believes that the men in the Services are awaiting the passage of this Bill so that they may transfer at their own request.

The Amendment does not provide for compulsory service. There is the three months' option.

My hon. Friend knows that comes later. In view of the fact that this Amendment is seeking to introduce compulsion, I ask the hon. Member not to press it.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in paragraph ( a ), to leave out the words "designated by the Admiralty or Army Council for the purpose," and to insert instead thereof the words, "considered by the Air Council to be necessary for the purpose of leaving a unified and properly co-ordinated service in that respect."

After listening to the whole of these Debates, I decided that I would raise specifically the question of anti-aircraft units. We have so far received no word of explanation as to the extent to which the Air Force proposes to control and administer personnel, to make itself responsible for supply of material, and to perform the necessary staff work in a highly specialised department of artillery, as novel in its way as aircraft. If the Air Service has suffered from divided control, I believe their difficulties have been mild in comparison with those of the gunner units. You must unify the personnel, you must have a common pool of trained officers and gunners from which the different units can draw their drafts, irrespective of their uniform. You must have a centralised and co-ordinated staff, so that your latest, material, your latest information on fire control and war experience, is instantly available for units, by whomsoever they are locally controlled, and wherever they are situated. In Committee I said that life in these units was one long change of uniform. Take my own case. I started, under the direct control of the Admiralty; I subsequently came under the control of the War Office. I then came under the Royal Naval Air Service. If I had continued, I think it would have been essential that I should have become an officer in the Royal Marines, and reverted to Army control.

I do not want to be thought a hostile critic, or as introducing opposition in the matter. You have so constantly altered these purely paper classifications of officers and ratings that very often the Departments themselves do not understand them. I once had one of my best gunlayers taken away and turned into an officer's cook because, having been entered as an A.B., he was rated as an A.C., and owing to that alphabetical inequability nobody could understand what he really was. There were most distressing scenes about it. I said pathetically that he was a seaman gunner, but I was told, more in sorrow than in anger, that I really must be mistaken, and that there was his, description in black and white as an aircraft man, and there was no such thing as a seaman gunner in the Royal Naval Air Service. But that did not prevent my having trained the boy as a recruit a couple of years before, or his having earned his badge at Chatham. I give that as an illustration. A gunlayer in the Royal Naval Air Service means a man who fires a machine gun in an aeroplane. That is the only kind of gunlayer they recognise and rate as a skilled man. Consequently if the Royal Naval Air Service comes across any other kind of gunlayer they cannot make him out, he worries, them, and does not fit into the scheme in spite of that necessary flexibility which my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the other day. He loses his 3d. a day, and because he is not a photographer or a storekeeper, or something equally bloodthirsty, he is written down in the unskilled grade of aircraft men. I do not blame the Royal Naval Air Service. Artillery is not their job, but if they will have Artillery under their own direct command they must make provision for the proper supply and grading and promotion of drafts, or otherwise it is not fair on the men. You must also recognise that you will get units where you will have a whole vulnerable area, ships in harbour or off the coast, or camps and dumps in the Army, and you will also have aerodromes under the Air Service. Those may be under three separate distinct controls, and yet they require a unified anti-aircraft defence. Obviously you do not want always to be transferring units, and sometimes from the nature of things they must be separate and distinct. Ships sail and camps move, but you do want most essentially to unify control and supply and staff work of every kind. The thing which matters is the character of the gun and not the uniform of the detachments. I would ask one or two specific questions so far as in the public interest they can be answered. Do you propose to take over all or any substantial part of the general defence of the United Kingdom? Secondly, do you propose that the Air Force should take over specifically the defence of their own aerodromes, or leave that to the local military and naval authorities to provide such material and personnel as they may be able to spare? I do not doubt for a moment that all these points have been considered, but have they been decided? I hope they have. We have not been told so, and the Bill does not say so. It is like all the rest of the Bill, purely permissive. Any units which the Navy and the Army designate may be taken over if the unit does not mind. That is what the Bill says, and that is all it says. I do not presume to advise the Government, but I do say if you are taking a great new branch like Anti-aircraft do take it over in a big way and take the proper staff and supply services, but whatever you do do not leave isolated units lying about like nobody's children controlled by anybody and everybody. Work them into your scheme, think them out, and keep up their esprit de corps. I am not wedded to the precise form of the Amendment, but I do wish to insist as a matter of principle that if the new Air Council are going to touch the subject they should take the initiative, and should not merely accept what is given to them. They are such very diffident war lords that I want to give them a little more confidence in themselves. They should take what they consider "necessary for the purpose of securing a unified and properly co-ordinated Service," in the words of the Amendment, and I think that embodies the right attitude and right principle.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think it is a matter of the very greatest importance that we should know how we are situated as regards Anti-aircraft organisation. Nobody looking round this House this afternoon would think it possible that so few Members would be here to discuss this very important matter. The other day, when the enemy were chucking half a dozen bombs on London, and this very Anti-aircraft organisation which we are now discussing was hurling tons of steel into the Heavens, down came all the London Members, weeping and gnashing their teeth because they were not being protected, and they were not satisfied with this organisation. Where are they to-day? I do hope that London will notice the London Members that are present here to-day, there is one, and that is greatly to his credit. Here is a matter which this great city looks on as one of the greatest importance, and yet there is nobody here to get a definite statement of what the Government intend. I am not here to interfere with what the Government intend, I only rise to support this Amendment exactly in the spirit in which the hon. Member who moved it put it to the House. He simply put it forward, as I understand, in order to get information out of the Government. I do not think myself that the actual words of the Amendment could be adopted because, of course, there is a large quantity of anti-aircraft guns which are at sea on battleships and cruisers and which would naturally have to remain now and for all time under the control of the Admiralty. There are also many anti-aircraft batteries which must for all time remain with the Royal Artillery. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with me in thinking that what we are discussing now is the anti-aircraft defence of our own country. Whether it should be taken over by the new Air Council is a matter that wants very great consideration, but I do think when a Bill of this great importance, on which the safety of our own country depends, is brought to this House, that the Government should tell us, and I do not ask for anything definite, as to the future, and give us some general idea of what their intention is. In war everything changes. What is suitable for to-day may be wrong for to-morrow. May I ask what the Government mean about these proposals for to-day only?

Let me examine the Bill and see exactly what it is, because, frankly, I am not satisfied with it. There is a battery, say, in Hyde Park. The Air Council, the Army Council, and the Admiralty decide that that battery is to be taken over by the Air Council. Of course, I do not know whether they will or will not so decide. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the battery is to be handed over to the Air Council, what happens? There are two distinct things, the personnel and the materiel. They transfer the materiel. We have word for it that the materiel will be transferred. But the officers and men can only be transferred for three months. At the end of three months all the men can go back, or on any day within the three months. So that if this Bill passes into law next week, number X Battery in Hyde Park is transferred to the Air Council. The Air Council take over the materiel. What happens? Some of the men, and the officers, say, "Oh, I am not going over until they tell me what my position will be under the new arrangement." Others will not transfer at all. It seems to me that as the Bill stands it is almost bound to lead to the utmost military confusion. I myself cannot see anything else for it. The Air Council ought to have the courage of their conviction. I am quite certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who so ably and courteously pilots this Bill through the House cannot himself believe that this is a good arrangement to make in time of war. In fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General told us frankly that it was not, but they could not use any compulsion with these great war lords—the Army Council and the Admiralty. I say that in time of war the Government ought to settle what they want to do, and do it! They cannot do it under this Bill and that is what I complain of. They are not taking powers in this Bill to do what they may require to do. Suppose it is best for the safety of the country that a certain anti-aircraft battery should be transferred to the Air Council. They cannot do it under this Bill. Because they have not the courage of their convictions, and ask Parliament for full powers, they have this namby-pamby production which gives them no powers, and unless they are very careful they will have the defences of London and of the country thrown entirely into the melting-pot. I cannot see or think what they can do. They must either leave the anti-aircraft battery in the hotch-pot command of both the Army and Navy or they must transfer the materiel to the Air Council, and leave the men as they are. The position is so absurd that I cannot believe it has been thought out with care, in view of the great importance of the matter at the present time.

The hon. Member who proposed, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded this Amendment, are undoubtedly as well qualified as anybody in this House possibly can be to speak to the Amendment. The anxiety which they feel is, perhaps, natural, in view of the knowledge—particularly of my hon. Friend behind me—of the present position in regard to anti-aircraft. I will not say the present position, perhaps, but the development of anti-aircraft. But there are two things to which I think attention should be drawn. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said he wanted the Government to say what they required to do and to do it. The Government in this case is undoubtedly the War Council.

The War Cabinet?

I beg pardon—the War Cabinet. We are all apt to think in terms of matters prior to the War, when a Minister or a Secretary of State or the First Lord of the Admiralty were members of the Cabinet, and, therefore, judges in their own case. Under the present system if any question arises of difference of opinion between the two Departments. that difference has to be submitted to the War Cabinet, and their judgment is supreme. I think that is much the better way to deal with so complex a matter as the question of anti-aircraft. In the first place, may I draw the attention of the House to this: The anti-aircraft gunners are not at present members of the Flying Corps of either branch. They are essentially gunners. Flying is no part of their business. The man who is going to deal with hostile aeroplanes in this way will have considerable advantage if he has some knowledge of aeroplanes, their speed, and so on. But the hard and fast rule that has been .drawn in the past between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and the Anti-aircraft gunnery branch both of the Navy and of the Army does, I think, require modification. That modification, hon. Members will agree, must be the result of experience in War. Developments are going on constantly at home and on the front in connection with anti-aircraft guns. It is on that experience that we must base the system to be applied to the defence of the country by anti-aircraft. It is quite certain, and everybody, I think, must admit it, that anti-aircraft gunnery and defence by aeroplanes must go together; but it does not follow that wherever you have anti-aircraft men you must also have an aeroplane station. I do not think it is necessary that isolated detachments of anti-aircraft gunners should be under the control of the body which controls the aeroplanes. Nobody would contend that the men on board His Majesty's ships who man the Anti-aircraft guns should be under the Air Council. The difficulty is to avoid drawing hard and fast rules. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend opposite quite appreciates the powers which the Bill does confer. So far as Clause (3) is concerned, it is quite clear that the Admiralty and the Army Council may designate units of the naval or military forces for defence against air, craft, and they may be transferred or attached to the air forces.

That is material?

No, that is as regards the men. But Clause (8), Sub-section (4) states: (4) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer from the Admiralty or from the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council such property, right and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council, or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council as the case may be. Property undoubtedly must include the guns, so that I think that is watertight. My hon. Friends are not satisfied, I gather, that the Air Council has adequate powers to take over what they think they ought to have.

Yes, what "they" think.

I do not think the words proposed—my hon. Friend has said that he is not wedded to these words—can be inserted in the Bill. The difficulty of taking over after consideration—and we do not propose to take anything over without consideration—any portion of the Navy or Army which underlies the whole principle of this Bill makes it necessary in the event of any disagreement as to whether any particular force should be taken over or not should be left to be settled by the War Cabinet. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with my assurance that we are determined only to take over those sections of the Anti-aircraft force which we think ought to be controlled in conjunction with the Air Forces of the Crown. But we do not wish to saddle ourselves with the control of a largo number of anti-aircraft gun people who certainly belong to the Artillery. I am afraid I must ask the House to leave it to the Air Council when they have been able to go into this matter to decide who shall be taken over. I would like the House to leave the Bill as it stands with the assurance that it is our intention to ask for such control of the Anti-aircraft forces of the Crown as may appear to the Air Council to be desirable. They would take over such portions as they deem necessary, by attachment or transfer, whether they belong now to the Royal Artillery or whether they are naval gunners.

May I interrupt for one moment. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware there are a certain number of ratings who are actually in the Royal Naval Air Service and employed on anti-aircraft guns?

I think my hon. Friend refers to some men who joined very early in the War and are now employed on these guns. There will be no more difficulty in taking them over with the consent of the Admiralty than there will be in our taking over anybody else, but the fact that there are a small number of men so engaged in anti-aircraft gunnery shows the difficulty of laying down here a hard and fast rule as to who shall or shall not be taken over. I hope the House will realise the danger of even discussing details and will be content with the indication I have given of the intentions of the Government and of the Air Council to take such measures as may be considered necessary with the approval of the War Cabinet which will decide any disagreement that may arise between the Air Council and the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty. The House will realise how difficult it is for us to discuss this question satisfactorily, but I hope I have made it clear that we do not want to be tied down to take over or to refuse to take over any particular unit; we want these matters to be left open to be decided by the experience and knowledge of the officers themselves. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

I have listened with some interest to the whole of this Debate, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is piloting this Bill through the House should have indicated a fear of free speech in dealing with this measure. If it is absolutely the fact that the only defence the Government can put up against giving us free and frank discussion of our future air policy is the fear of heartening our enemies, then I think it would have been much better if the Bill had never been introduced at all and if the objects aimed at had been secured in some other way. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that it would hearten our enemies or that the joy-bells will ring in Berlin if it is announced from the Treasury Bench that one man is to be placed in supreme command of the Air Service? I should think it would be rather the reverse. This House has a perfect right to know whether there is going to be any unification or not of the air defences of this country, and that is practically all that this Amendment aims at. We have a right to know whether there is going to be one man responsible for defending this country or whether there are going to be in charge all sorts of representatives of the respective Services, each working on his own and without co-ordination with the others, some giving orders to send up aeroplanes, other giving orders to fire the guns, and others still giving orders to lower the lights in certain districts. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman who supported this Amendment (Sir Ivor Philipps) has pointed out, the position as it is to-day is really an impossible position.

London is concerned in this matter, and it is a standing disgrace to the London Members that they are not in the House at the present moment. I hope, should I have time at the next General Election, to pay a visit to their constituencies to point out what has occurred to-day. It is, I say, an honourable obligation which the London Members owe to their constituency to be present to support an Amendment such as this, and the mover of the Amendment has a right to claim their support. They might possibly decline to take part in any other discussion so far as the defences of this country are concerned, but on this Amendment they are subject to an honourable obligation and they ought to have been here to-day giving it their support. We are not content with promises from the Front Bench; we want definite statements to which we can pin them down at some future day. We want to know whether it is proposed to appoint a man in supreme command of the air defences of England. We want to know what the position of that man will be and if anyone will be able to challenge his authority, and on what grounds.

It is necessary for the efficient defence of this country that one man should have supreme control over the aeroplanes which are to go up by night or day, for the defence of this country, and over even the guns which are fired either on the coast or inland, and over the rockets which may be sent up for the assistance of the night aircraft so as to enable our men to see at night with some degree of accuracy. It is absolutely essential that one man should have complete control over all the lighting regulations in the country, that he should be able to frame the regulations to be laid down for lighting or darkening any part of England, that he should have it in his power to darken districts or to give instructions for resuming normal conditions, and that from the very moment an air attack is anticipated until the moment that it has been driven off no man shall be able to challenge his decision. He should be really supreme, and if be hears that aeroplanes are coming on the North-East coast he should be able to order the darkening of that coast and there should be no question whether the Home Office have arranged for special constables to go round and warn the firemen or whether the firemen have done their share of the work, because if all that routine is to be gone through, by the time it is finished the district may be blown up. This is what has happened not once, but dozens of times. The whole air defence of this country is a criminal farce. It reflects the utmost discredit on every- one concerned, and yet all the time there are men who are nightly being sacrificed on the altar of national inefficiency.

Here is an opportunity for the Government to make a plain case, and for them to say, "We admit that the defence of England is a one man's job, and that in the past it has left much to be desired." To say it is in the interests of the enemy for anyone to get up from that Front Bench and say, "Now we are going to do this; now we are going to put the supreme defence of this country in the hands of one capable man, and we are looking to him to make it so hot for the invaders of this country that in all probability the invasion will stop" —is that heartening our enemies? When there is no argument, no answer to a straight question in this House—which there very rarely is from the Front Bench—they take shelter behind, "It is not in the interests of the country." It is in the interests of the country, and I am going to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman before we pass from this Amendment to state clearly these points: Is there going to be one man, with a seat on the War Council, appointed to the supreme command of England; is he to have the control of all the aeroplanes, and of the aerodromes used for the purpose? Is he to have control—I hope the hon. and gallant Member is listening to this, because I certainly shall require an answer—of all the lighting arrangements throughout England; is his word to be law if he wishes the whole of a large munition area to be shut down at any given time, or has he to write to the Ministry of Munitions when he wants it shut down in the middle of the night and await an answer? On top of that, is this man to have a seat on the Air Council, and is he to be in supreme control of all the ammunition which he wants and of all the anti-aircraft guns and gunners that he wants to make an effective defence of this country? That is perfectly clear. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment was a further one which we might have cleared up. He asked whether anti-aircraft defence corps were to be lent for service. Take it in France. What about the kite-balloons? Are they to be in the Air Service? The Air Service have them. I believe they are lent. What about the anti-aircraft guns that serve with the kite-balloons to protect them? Are they going over to the Air Service or are they going to be left to the Army? There is another point. Who is going to supply anti-aircraft guns, and who is going to conduct experiments in anti-aircraft shells, because that is a thing that is constantly developing? A man comes with a new invention. He has a fine anti-aircraft shell which may ignite a Zeppelin. To whom is he to take his invention?

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to seize the opportunity of this Amendment to go into the whole of matters arising on the Second Reading. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

I would point out that this Amendment is an Amendment on whether or not it is going to be within the power of the Air Ministry to control anti-aircragt guns, supplies, and operations, and I am asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman now whether that is so, and if he will give us the exceptions to the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer from that box on Committee stage made the dramatic announcement that the Air Service was going to take over everything, lock, stock, and barrel, en masse, but now we get qualifications from his assistant. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here to stand by his statement.

He ought to be.

Certainly he ought to be. It is an insult to the country that he is not. His assistant has qualified the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has said that these are not going to be handed over.

2.0 P.M.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to stop him at once misrepresenting what my right hon. Friend said? What he said was perfectly clear, namely, that the whole of the two Air Services of the country were going to be absorbed into the new Air Service. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that anti-aircraft gunnery does not either belong to the Royal Flying Corps or to the Royal Naval Air Service, except a small part. There is no modification whatever that has fallen from me or from anybody else on this bench of any statement made by my right hon. Friend. None whatever.

I am speaking, certainly, without my book—

Yes, you are.

But hon. Members will help me if I am wrong—they generally do. Perhaps I may hope that I am right on this occasion. There was the question of anti-aircraft defences raised, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He is perfectly entitled to make any speech that the Chair will allow, but as regards myself I do not want to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird), or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was good enough to come down and make an interesting statement. I particularly said, in moving the Amendment, that the question of anti-aircraft defences had not as yet been considered in Debate at all, and therefore the only statement by the Government on the subject is the statement in reply to this Amendment now before the House which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I think if the hon. Gentleman refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that on Second Reading and in the Committee stage, considerable reference was made to anti-aircraft defences.

It was never said that we were going to take them over en bloc. Really, nobody ought to know better than the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) of what the Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service consist, and it is not fair to represent to the country that the Government is not straightforward when it says it is going to take over the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. It is not fair to imply that that includes taking over all anti-aircraft services.

I am not interested, if I may say so to the hon. and gallant Member, in what the Government is going to do as regards the Royal Naval Air Service or the Royal Flying Corps. What I am interested in is what it is necessary for the Government to do. and therefore I wish to hear from him before this Amendment is passed whether it is the intention of the Air Service—it is no good nudging the hon. Member and telling him not to speak; if you think that is helping the Bill through, by all means do it, but I do not think it is—whether we are to have a Director of Defence of this country and whether that Director is to have under his supreme control the Air Service, and the necessary anti-aircraft guns and lighting restrictions of the country? Perhaps he will answer that very clear point now.

It seems to me that the House is leaving this matter still in some obscurity. I recollect that on the Committee stage my lion. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt) brought forward this Amendment.

The same principle.

He brought forward a similar Amendment with the object of raising the same question, and it is true that the Leader of the House was good enough then to come down and offer a reply to the observations which my hon. Friend then made.

Not on this question.

It was on the general question.

It was not on this subject.

I do not wish constantly to intervene, but the previous Amendment I moved, which gave rise to considerable debate—the question, as I called it, of contracting-out—was on the general question of whether the Government would exercise compulsion by taking over the Air Services. This is a specific Amendment, confined exclusively to the anti-aircraft gun units.

I understood the situation to be very much as my bon. Friend has described it, but my point was that when he raised the general question there were certain details in obscurity, and the object of this Amendment was to throw some light on the matters then left obscure. It is a matter of very considerable importance to hear from the Government whether it has any intentions in this matter, and, if so, what those intentions are. My hon. Friend has pointed out that this is a matter of very great importance from the point of view of the defence of this country, particularly for the defence of London, and he was entitled to point out what a slender interest the representatives of this great City take in that matter. But we are fortunate now to have one representative of London present who will doubtless put his views before the House. As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill takes the view that if definite statements were made on this question it would give information and comfort to the enemy. That seems to me a most remarkable statement coming from any man sitting on the Front Bench at the present time, especially in view of what has recently been said by the head of the Government. After the speech which the Prime Minister made in Paris, when the hon. and gallant Member says that some statement on a comparatively trivial matter—at least, a matter of detail in the defence of the country—could be a matter which would give information and comfort to the enemy, I think the House is entitled to laugh at it.

It does laugh at it.

So far as the House is represented here at the present time. If there had been a larger representation of Members present, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen would have ventured to make such a statement. When you leave matters of this kind in dispute, or at least in doubt, you are leaving open what is likely to be a convenient source of dispute and difference between the Services. In the past there has been a kind of duel between the Admiralty and the War Office on many matters, and, unless you make things clear, instead of having a duel, you will have a three-cornered fight. Instead of simplification and co-ordination, and more harmonious co-operation and better organisation, you will have all sorts of misunderstandings and a great increase in friction, which will certainly detract from the efficiency of the Service and tend to diminish the effectiveness of the whole Force. I think those considerations by this time might have led the Government to endeavour to make up their mind. They have had long enough to make up their mind. It was one of the last raids, about three weeks ago, that decided them to set up this Air Service. In order to prevent t motion for the Adjournment, we had an announcement from the Front Bench that there was to be a new Air Ministry, and that the functions of this Air Ministry were to be very considerably magnified beyond those of the Air Board. I think at least three weeks have passed since that announcement, and only this week has the Bill been introduced. Yet, during that long interval of time, the Govern- ment have not been able to make up their mind on these very important matters, which go to the essence of the powers of this Ministry. I hoped in the interval between the Committee stage and the Report some decision might have been arrived at on this point of detail. I can well understand why Lord Northcliffe has refused this Ministry. He has intimated, in quite clear terms in the Press this morning, how hopeless the position would be; and I quite sympathise with him in intimating to the Prime Minister that he declines to accept the post of Air Minister, and will in future accept nothing less than the Premiership.

It seems to me the only way to obtain simplicity and avoid friction is for the new Air Ministry to avoid taking over any antiaircraft guns whatever. For one argument that can be adduced in favour of those guns being taken over by the Air Ministry, ten arguments can be adduced in favour of their remaining in charge of the Army and the Navy. There can be no doubt whatever with regard to the controversy between my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Member behind me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred only to the Air Services. Here are his exact words: As regards the first point, the determination that the whole of the Air Services must be treated as one and transferred to the new Department and become a new Service independent of either the Admiralty or the Army Council— Sir I. Philipps: The whole of it? Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole of it—that is the first consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1917, col. 446.] That referred to the controversy which immediately preceded, which dealt absolutely and entirely with the Air Service as an Air Service, and had nothing whatever to do with the anti-aircraft guns.

It appears to me that this Amendment is a very useful one, and I should have imagined that anyone acting on behalf of the Air Board would agree to have it inserted. It is most important that the new Air Council, if they considered it necessary, ought to take over any of these men, and also have command of the anti-aircraft guns. I know what has happened in the past where there has been dual control, and fighting men have been shot down by their own guns. If those guns had been under the control of the Royal Flying Corps at the time those men would not have been shot down. Therefore, I think that is most important, and I cannot understand how the New Air Council can really carry out the business properly unless it has the power, if it thinks fit, to take over any of these men, and to command them, so that they know really where they stand. In the past, undoubtedly, owing to there being three, four, or five different authorities, many of these young men have been brought to their death simply because of the lack of unification of the Anti-Aircraft Service and the Royal Flying Corps. Therefore, I think it would only be right that if the new Air Council should require the command of whatever they think necessary, they ought to have the power to take it over.

I should like to ask the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt) if he is going to stand that? His Amendment seems to me good and vital, and I would invite him to pursue it to its logical conclusion. I regard this matter as so vital that if this very point is carried I should vote against the Third Reading, not because I do not desire an Act which will defeat the Germans, but because I regard this matter as the most essential point of the defence and of the attack to-day against the Central Powers. For years I have been trying to force upon the attention of this House the necessity for a Bill of a much wider scope than this and greater power, and after many months of consideration we have this lame measure which may satisfy a Parliamentary situation, but it will be totally inadequate for the main object of the Bill—that is, to defeat the Germans in the air. It is argued from the Front Opposition Bench that if it be permissible to the officers to enter into this new Service you may have a certain number from one battery and certain others may be reluctant, and you may have a whole unit destroyed.

It is also argued that if there be an anti-aircraft gun on board ship it is absolute madness to take away from that gun the men who are serving it. If the whole control was transferred to the Army Council nobody would dream of taking away that gun or the men who serve it. Too much play is being made of the word "compulsion." What is suggested is rather an automatic transfer which will give unity of control. That does not necessarily mean that the Council would immediately proceed to do preposterous things. Unity of control would give great driving power where it is necessary, and the building up of a great Air Force rapidly is the essence of the contract in this case. If you give unity of control to anyone who has intellectual power enough to be the Secretary of State for this new Air Ministry, it is absurd to suppose that he would immediately proceed to disorganise the Services whim are now doing such good work. Unity of control is necessary to enable him to have the necessary driving power, and to realise the conceptions which may be in his own mind. I ask my hon. Friend opposite to make his words good.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).

I think it would have been much better if the whole Clause had been left out. If this Sub-section is carried it will be a most unfortunate thing, for the simple reason that since the friction first started between these two forces at the beginning of the War both of them have been endeavouring to expand, and so establish an overlapping that when it came to amalgamation the Royal Flying Corps would be large enough to absorb the Royal Naval Air Service, while on the other hand the latter service have all been working to be in a position to absorb the Royal Flying Corps. Neither of these things have happened, but in the effort to accomplish this —I do not want to give away any secrets which I have acquired while I was in the Royal Naval Air Service for twenty months—certain action was taken by both these forces. The Royal Flying Corps proceeded to promote its officers with a rapidity which has only been excelled by the efforts of one of the leading Members of the Opposition. The Royal Naval Air Service, instead of promoting those who should have been promoted who were honest, intelligent and efficient members of the Service, proceeded to co-opt or add to its numbers a number of what are regarded as "naval dug-outs," who have never had even a nodding acquaintance with an aeroplane. The result is that you are now in a position which, if this Clause passes, you would prevent the transference of certain men without giving them a seniority commensurate with their experience. It would also mean that it would be out of the power of the Air Council to transfer a man and allow him his seniority and give no reason for it.

Does any hon. Member suggest that it would be fair to reduce a captain or a colonel to a lieutenant and not give him the slightest reason for doing it. You would not explain to him why it is being done or give him an opportunity of stating his case before an inquiry or a court-martial, that is what this proposal amounts to. That is what it amounts to. If this Sub-section stands part of the Bill the Air Council can say to a man, "You have six years' seniority in the Naval Air Service. We transfer you into the Air Service, and we make you start at zero." Hon. Members may say that it will not be done, but if the world were so perfect that no one ever did malicious, spiteful, or dishonest things, why have laws at all? if you are going to have laws, see that they provide that these things cannot be done. This Bill provides that it can be done. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to the well-being of the men who are transferred that they should all start from the word "Go" with no seniority at all or that the people who come into the Service and carry the burden of their seniority in the old Service with them. I do not know why fifteen years at sea should qualify one man to come into the new Service with fifteen years' seniority whilst another man who has got five years' air service should come in with no seniority at all. A naval man who perhaps has not made a complete success of naval commanding may have decided to come into the Royal Naval Air Service with fifteen years' service. He will now be transferred into this new Service with fifteen years' seniority, whilst a young lieutenant who may have; done admirable work all through this War and possibly before it—I am talking about pukka naval officers—may only come in with seven years' seniority or half the seniority of the other men. Again, a direct entry man who may have had considerable experience and made flying his profession may come in with only two or one year's seniority, and it is even possible to give him no seniority at all.

The whole thing is preposterous. I am so sick of the word "seniority" in the Service that if this Air Service could start with a nice clean sweep, wiping it right out, it would be all the better. I know from personal experience in the Service how, if you happen to be Number 1 on the station, someone who happened to join the Service two days before you may come down, with the result that everything on the station is upset because he is your senior. I do not propose to suggest any cure for seniority. I do not know whether any cure for seniority in the Service could possibly be introduced other than actual rank, but I do not want to accentuate it, and this Bill does so. It makes it even worse than ever. Look at the Front Bench at the present time. There is no one there who knows anything at all about aviation. It really is an insult to the House of Commons and to those Members who are sufficiently interested in the wellbeing of this Service and who come here at great personal inconvenience to comply with the threat of the Leader of the House that he would make us come down here on Friday if we refused to gallop through the measure in half an hour. When we do we address ourselves to empty benches, not that it makes any great difference, but it would be a graceful compliment to have somebody sitting here keeping the bench warm. The hon. Gentleman (Major Baird) having returned, I will address myself to him, or rather to the Chair, in the hope that in passing he may hear me. The Clause under discussion is Clause 2, and the Amendment is to leave out the whole of Sub-section (2). The reason—

The hon. Member is not entitled to repeat his remarks.

Surely it is necessary to. call the attention of a Member on the Front Bench who has just added himself to our number to the Amendment before the House !

The Minister in charge of the Bill was in. the House when the hon. Member moved his Amendment, and I must ask him not to persist with remarks which are obviously trifling with the House. There are Amendments of substance on the Paper.

Certainly. Possibly you may appreciate how hurtful it is when a measure of this importance, a measure which is going either to prove the salvation or otherwise of this War, is under discussion to find that we cannot get a. Member on the Front Bench to listen to us, and I think I am more or less in order in calling the attention of the House to the fact. I ask the Government to give this matter their serious consideration and either to say that there shall be no seniority in the Service or that all shall be treated alike. It has been suggested that this Sub-section is necessary to enable members to sit on courts-martial. Are we to have the whole fabric of rank wrecked purely and simply to enable members to sit on courts-martial? I should have thought it would have been quite conceivable to provide by Order in Council that any officer joining the new Air Service should by reason thereof be qualified to sit on courts-martial. It is, indeed, questionable whether any officer who sits on courts-martial should not have to pass some preliminary legal examination to qualify him to do so. I do not know why it should be purely a question of seniority. Perhaps in his reply the hon. Member will give his reasons for it. If he cannot say that a man shall not carry his seniority on the sea or in the land Service into the new Air Service, will he say that every man shall carry whatever seniority he has managed to get, and that there shall be no exceptions? Either every man must lose his service when he leaves one Service to join the other or no man should do so. When you are taking over the whole Service, what is a man to do? He has seven years' seniority in the Air Service, and because of his "C.O." it is in the power of the new Council to wipe out five years of service without any court-martial or inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman will say that in the event of a man losing his seniority there shall be a court-martial or an inquiry, I am quite willing, but it is a great injustice, and will not in any way help the frictionless progress of the Service to rob him of his seniority without a court-martial or inquiry. I trust he will do either one of these two things—either make it apply to all men or to none.

I formally second the Amendment.

I would express my regret that during a part of the Debate there was no one on the Front Bench. At other times when Amendments of substance have been put forward, there has been, if not absence, studied contempt.

If this Sub-section were left out, very great injustice would be done. If the hon. Member studies the provisions of what will be known as the Air Force Act, which provides for the discipline of the force, he will see that Section 48 provides that an officer cannot serve on a general court-martial unless he has held a commission for three years, or on a districe court-martial unless he has held a commission for two years. Under the hon. Member's proposal an officer might have had ten years' service before being transferred and yet could not serve on a court-martial, and it might not be possible to hold a court-martial.

That is only a formality. It could be adjusted.

I do not know whether you can call a court-martial a trivial matter?

The question of seniority is a trifling matter.

You have to safeguard the rights of men who are tried by court-martial. One qualification of an officer to sit on the court-martial is that he has done a certain amount of service. If you exclude this Sub-section you may not be able to get officers who have that amount of service. This Sub-section enables a man to be tried by a properly constituted Court. Therefore, if the hon. Member's Amendment is carried, a great deal of injustice will be done, and the effect of eliminating the Sub-section would not in any way have the effect he anticipates.

Amendment negatived.

That disposes of the next Amendment.

On a point of Order. I am afraid it does not, because that Amendment seeks to amend the Sub-section. Having failed in my Amendment to omit the Sub-section, I now move to amend it. Although the hon. Member in charge of the Bill may show reasons why the Subsection should not be omitted, he did not show reasons why it should not be amended, especially having regard to the fact that the only reason he has put forward for retaining the Sub-section is the question of courts-martial. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman is willing to say that this provision shall apply to all men and not to a chosen few. Is he prepared to say that seniority shall apply in all cases?

It is for the Chair to decide whether the previous discussion has sufficiently covered a succeeding Amendment, and I so decide.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["officers and men of any unit"], to insert the words "the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve or of."

Why should any differentiation be made between a Territorial officer before the War and a Royal Naval Volunteer officer before the War? This Bill proposes to graciously recognise the services of men who enlisted prior to the War and who were trained prior to the War for the defence of this country. It proposes to give them certain advantages if they transfer to the Air Service. I contend that that should apply equally to Naval Volunteers as to Volunteers in the Army. I am quite willing to forego any arguments in support of the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman would intimate that he is prepared to consider it favourably. If he is, there is nothing more to be said; but if there is no intimation to that effect, I must press the case of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve on the House. Perhaps I may mention, as it is possible that you, Sir, may rule them out as having been embodied in this Amendment, that I have put down two other Amendments, one in the next line to insert the words "the Royal Naval Air Service or of," and in the last line of the Sub-section to add the words "as the case may be." It would be necessary to put both those Amendments in if the one I am now moving were carried. I propose to save the time of the House by treating them together. Wily should the Royal Flying Corps have advantages, which are not extended to the Royal Naval Air Service? Why should Army Volunteers be given advantages under this Bill which are not extended to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve? The position is one that is likely to create an impossible state of affairs in practice. A man of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, having joined, the Royal Flying Corps, would not be eligible for the advantages under this Clause, while his friends who might have been Territorial officers before the War and who joined the Royal Flying Corps would be eligible. A Territorial officer who joined the Royal Naval Air Service would be eligible for the advantages under the Clause, yet a Royal Naval Volunteer who joined the Service would not.

When I have the attention of the Government, I would ask the very simple question whether or not they have any particular reason for making this distinction between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, and for making the distinction between the Territorial Force and the Royal Naval Volunteer. Reserve? Surely this Bill has to be catholic and comprehensive. If we suggest that it is vulnerable and vague it is for the Government to amend it. Here is, an opportunity for making it less vulnerable and more catholic. I fail to see what possible objection there can be to this proposal. If in moving these Amendments I seem to deal with them fully, the only reason is that there seems to be such a lack of any desire to do justice to the Service on the part of Members of this House, and that if I do not carry every point it is not even mentioned. Surely there must be some hon. Member in this House who is interested in the well-being of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. and the Royal Naval Air Service. I have never known Members so reticent with so much opportunity to speak in my life. Certainly, it is not an encouraging audience, but that should not affect it. It is a duty for us to press this matter. It is not a pleasure—far from it. I trust hon. Members will support this in so far as it is an endeavour to obtain justice and equality of treatment for members of His Majesty's Forces, irrespective of what they joined before the War and what they are in now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) will tell us why this distinction has been made in favour of the corps under his control, the Royal Flying Corps, and if there were a representative of the Navy here we might get a reason why they are let. down, but I trust there will be some statement from the Front Bench, no matter how trivial or short.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I feel bound to respond to the hon. Member's appeal, at any rate to the extent of seconding his Amendment, because I have myself been an officer of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve for close on three years. I do not know that I agree with all his arguments, and I am not fully convinced that the Amendment is essential; but we are entitled to some clear explanation from the Government in the matter, if only because I believe there is a substantial number of capable officers and men in the corps whom we should desire to get, who are anxious to transfer, and who are not certain of their position under the Admiralty at present. Royal Naval Volunteer Reservists have been attached to the Royal Naval Air Service in considerable numbers, and recently they have been given commissions in the Royal Navy. I should be very much obliged if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give some definite assurance to the people who are concerned either that he is prepared to accept the Amendment or that it is not really required, because the Bill is already watertight.

I rise in order to invite the Government to make a statement on this subject. I believe they undertook to make a change in the House of Lords, but that was when they contemplated taking the Report stage on the same day as the Committee stage. I regard this somewhat as a test case. All through this Debate, and all through the Committee stage, we have had the impression that the Front Bench are not free agents in this matter, and that there has been some sort of compromise with the War Office and the Admiralty, and they have to go hat in hand to the War Office or the Admiralty to get what they want. In this case, apparently, the War Office has conceded a great deal more than the Admiralty. I hope that in the interval which has occurred since the last Debate my hon. and gallant Friend has been able to get something out of the Admiralty.

We are quite innocent in regard to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. I endeavoured to make that clear to the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) in the Committee stage. I pointed out to him then, and I repeat it now, that this Clause refers to a unit of the Territorial Force. There is no unit of the Royal Naval Volunteers serving in the Air Service.

There may be many individuals serving.

The hon. Member seeks to move an Amendment to include a unit, and then he wants to shift it on to individual members. Individual members are included under Clause 3, which says, "any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man of any of His Majesty's Naval or Military forces may." That completely covers the ground of individuals, without any question. May I appeal to the hon. Member, who asserted at the start, when the Bill was introduced, that he desired to see it on the Statute Book, imperfect though he considered it. If there is one way more than another to secure that a Bill shall not get on to the Statute Book it is to make a long speech on a point which has been completely disposed of in Committee stage and to bring it up again on Report stage.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman point out what is the relevance between Clause 6 and Clause 3? Clause 6 refers, so far as I can read it, purely and simply to the Auxiliary Air Force, and as such it gives certain privileges to Territorial officers. If he will point out why I am so stupid in the matter, it will equally apply to the Under-Secretary for War, who is going to help me out in the House of Lords with it.

It is perfectly clear. In time of war there is no question of a reserve or an auxiliary force. In time of peace there will be. There is at present in Hampshire a unit of the Territorial force which is now a part of the forces in the sense of being a reserve. Officers and men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are engaged in the War.

Not at all. The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve were engaged long before this War was thought of.

But their period of service now is for the War. If they transfer it is certain it is for the War. If they transfer to the Air Force anyone who thinks we do not want to have them must be very slightly acquainted with the situation. Of course we want these men.

Why do you not say so?

We do in Clause 3, which makes it perfectly clear that we get these men. This Clause is designed to deal with a unit of the Territorial Force and include it in the Reserve. There is only one unit of the kind existing to-day. The rest of the Auxiliary Force will obviously have to be created when the War stops. It does not affect the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in any shape or form. They are not included.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should not bear so hardly on the hon. Member (Mr. Billing), because he does not happen to share with him the gift of brevity. This discussion need not have arisen at all if on the Committee stage the Government spokesmen had understood their Bill.

I have repeated exactly what I said in Committee.

My recollection of what occurred in Committee is that this was a matter which was to be considered before the Bill was to be dealt with in another place. It was because of that that my hon. Friend put down his Amendment, and it was also on that account that the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Mr. Harcourt) stated that the matter required elucidation. If this point had been made clear this discussion would have been unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) as to carrying His Majesty's mails is either not necessary or has already been disposed of by the decision of the House on the question of service.

On a point of Order. The question of carrying mails was purely and simply introduced by me as an illustration of the necessity of changing the name. There may have been hon. Members who may not have wished to change the name in the title of the Bill but who would have been in favour of supporting an Amendment providing some work of utility in time of peace. Therefore, I ask whether I cannot be allowed to move this Amendment because there has been some passing reference made in an earlier Amendment. I trust you will allow me to move the Amendment, as I consider it, and other hon. Members also consider it, of considerable importance.

I have already said that this Amendment is either not necessary or it has already been provided for. I do not think it is necessary. There is nothing in this Bill which is to prevent the Air Force from carrying mails.

Perhaps you would be good enough to allow this question to be confirmed by the Government. In this Bill will the Air Service have power to enter into contracts to carry mails throughout the world and to give officers and pilots instructions to fly their machines as well as to carry mails?

May I suggest that it is perfectly possible for the Air Force to carry mails under this Bill. The Navy carry mails and the War Office maybe called upon to protect trains or run trains with mails or to do anything of that kind.

This is not a question of carrying mails in war time. This is a question of a mail service in peace time, which is a different proposition altogether to the carrying of mails in war time.

There is nothing to prevent His Majesty's ship's carrying mails in peace time, and the same applies in this case.

With respect to the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member, providing that the President of the Air Council shall also be appointed a member of His Majesty's War Cabinet, I would point out that the War Cabinet is not a statutory body, and you cannot have a statute to put someone on the War Cabinet.

I beg to move, at the, end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "It shall be lawful for the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council respectively to nominate an associate member for the Air. Council, which members shall have the right to take part in all, discussion and vote on all measures."

It has not been made very clear exactly what are the powers of the Air Service. It has not been made very clear whether the Air Council will retain control, either direct or indirect, of the members of the Air Service who are attached to the Grand Fleet or to the Army respectively; and it has not been made clear at all whether the guns and machines and the flying officers of the Navy who decide not to avail themselves of transfers or attachment are to be permitted by or under the Admiralty to carry out the functions of gun-spotting or scouting for the Grand Fleet. There is nothing in this Bill, so far as I can see, to prevent the Lords of the Admiralty building an aeroplane and asking one, of their officers to fly it in the interests of the Grand Fleet. This Amendment is down to provide that on the Air Council which it is proposed shall have control over, or at least a certain right of interference with, the aeronautical impedimenta, on sea or land, with the Army in the field or the Grand Fleet respectively, the Army and the Navy shall have a representative on that Council to make representations to the Council in the interests of the Grand Fleet and the Army respectively. I utterly fail to see if this Amendment is not accepted on what grounds it is rejected. Surely, on the ground of common sense, in starting a new Service such as this, it would be as well to have the service in an advisory capacity of a senior officer of the Army and Navy respectively on all matters of strategy and on all matters of the ordinary conduct of their force, because—so far as I can see nothing that has been stated from the Front Bench has led us to consider the contrary—anybody may be a member of this Air Council. It is even suggested and advocated by the representative of the Government that certain tradesmen shall form part of this Council, and shall busily continue their work of directors of a firm who are trading with the Council. Tradesmen are very fine fellows in their way, but when it comes to strategy or the administration of affairs of a great new Service, I should not recommend tradesmen only; I should say that we must have the advice and assistance, as associate members, if you wish —I distinctly provide in my Amendment that they should be associate members and not permanent members—of high officials of considerable experience from the two Services respectively.

One hon. Member referred this afternoon to the attitude of Lord Northcliffe so far as this Air Council is concerned. Hon. Members may have varying opinions as to the ability And methods of Lord Northcliffe, but one thing I am perfectly certain about is that he possesses energy and enterprise. He may have good reasons for refusing the position, but I am confident that if he had accepted it he would have been most anxious to have had naval and military associates on that Council. The fact that he has refused the position suggests to me that they have refused to give him a free hand. I am in favour of seeing the Air Minister, for better or worse, with a free hand, subject always to such advice as the Council could render to them. Nothing can be said against having associate members attached to this Council. To suggest that it would cause friction is nonsense. I say that it will defeat friction, intrigue, and inefficiency in their early stages. Let us assume that the Admiralty are anxious for another squadron of machines or for the development of one particular type of machine in the interests of the Grand Fleet. The Grand Fleet have suffered at the hands of German airships. Up to recently they have been blind. We are proposing to take all that away from the Grand Fleet again, to transfer it all to the Air Service, and we leave it to the new Air Minister to blind the Grand Fleet. He will not do it, of course, but he will have his own ideas. There are two schools in the Air Service, the lighter-than-air school and the heavier-than-air school. A lot of confusion will arise. I can almost hear now the arguments that will be put forward by the airship experts of the Admiralty, when the Air Service is transferred, to show that the Air Council should supply the Navy with lighter than air machines. I can equally hear the arguments put forward for heavier than air machines.

I suggest that this Council should have upon it one naval representative who can attend the deliberations of the Council and put forward the views of the Admiralty, while the consultation is taking place and before a definite decision is come to, because the tragedy of officials is that, having decided, rightly or wrongly, they think that they are becoming smaller men instead of greater men in the opinion of others if they withdraw their opinion in face of evidence which justifies that withdrawal. The Army and the Fleet will require extraordinary assistance from the Air Service. They will actually constitute the Air Service during the first few months, if not the first year of its career, because, despite the transfer and calling it by a different name, of the men, officers, machines and materials employed under the direction of the Air Service about 75, or, at any rate, 60 per cent. will be in the hands of the Army until such period as all these delicate questions of control, distribution, machines, the use

to which they are to be put, and the development experiments which are necessary for a complete understanding of the possibility of the employment of aeroplanes in connection with naval and military forces are settled. It would be a tragedy if all these things are placed in the hands of a Council which had no naval or military adviser upon it. If it were purely and simply in the hands of the Council to have the direction of a great raiding squadron, possibly this Amendment would not be so important, but as it is proposed that this Council shall affect and is requested to work in harmony with the two great Services the Army and Navy, I consider that it will be a very serious matter if this Amendment is lost.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot accept this Amendment. The Government are fully alive to the necessity of keeping the closest possible touch between the Army and Navy and the Air Forces. It has been stated quite clearly that the main business of the Air Council would be to co-ordinate the Air Forces of the two Services. The hon. Member did not appreciate the competition of the Air Council as it is now proposed. This Council will discharge its duties in relation to the Army and Navy, and obviously means will have to be taken to keep the closest possible touch between all three Services. I do not think that the method suggested by the hon. Member is necessarily the best method. There is nothing whatever to stop the Air Council inviting the Admiralty and the War Office to send representatives to consult with them. Undoubtedly consultations will be of daily, indeed, hourly occurrence, but it is essential in the interests of efficiency to leave it to the Air Council to decide the best methods to adopt.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 0; Noes, 143.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that no member of the Air Council shall be financially, interested in any undertaking which supplies aeroplanes, aeroplane engines, or parts thereof to the Government."

I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). It was moved in the Committee stage, and gave rise to an interesting discussion. The result of that discussion was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, seeing the strong support his proposal received in Committee, said the matter would be considered before the Report stage. I do not desire to recapitulate what was put forward in support of the proposal in the course of that Debate, but I think it is to the advantage of the House that I should very briefly indicate what the main arguments were. Nobody, of course, seeks to disparage the value of services rendered to the country during the War by business men who have given their services to various Government Depart- ments. There have been instances in which valuable help has been received, not only by the Air Service, but by the Ministry of Munitions and by the War Office, from business men, and consequently nobody wishes to prevent the best business and technical skill being at the disposal of the Government. Nor is it intended to discourage in any way those men who have served on the existing Air Board, or to suggest that their action has, in any degree been improper. The reason for putting forward this proposal in connection with the Air Service is that the Air Service is in that stage which places a man who has business interests in a position of peculiar difficulty when he accepts a post in the Government. In the first place, the Air Service, more than any other, is in the experimental stage. You have continuously a series of improvements being brought into operation, and all sorts of questions arise in respect of royalties which may be payable for patents for improvements,. and other matters. It is of the utmost importance that there should be no sugges- tion of financial interest on the part of those who make decisions in respect of royalties that may be payable. But the further question arises as to the likelihood of trials being given to new inventions, where those connected with the Air Board might happen to be financially interested in machines which at the present time are being turned out for the Government. That, I think, is a matter of extreme importance. It is obviously essential that in our Air Service we should have an open door to every possible improvement. It is necessary that our airmen may have the best possible machines at their service. I mentioned in Committee a case where an inventor was dissatisfied. I do not suggest that there was substance in his complaint, but, rightly or wrongly, he attributed the decision to the preference, as it were, or want of impartiality, of a competitor of his who happened to be a member of the Air Board. There might be perfectly sound technical grounds for rejecting his invention, but the very fact that the person responsible for the decision was a man who had been involved in long patent litigation with the inventor was not one calculated to create a feeling of confidence in the decision when it was given. You had anyhow a situation which led to suspicion, and it is a matter of the utmost importance that you should not have a situation in which such suspicion can possibly arise.

There is a further matter which was not referred to previously. We know that in respect of the production of munitions we have had a national shell factory and national munitions factories, and we know that the Board of Admiralty, whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say, has decided to establish national shipyards. There is no national aeroplane engine factory. It has been found very useful from the national point of view in respect of the production of guns and shells and now in the matter of ships that you should have the nation going into business to compete with those who are already engaged in it. We have in the matter of aeroplane engine construction no national factory, and that decision influenced by those who at the present time are greatly interested in existing engine factories. I do not think it is right that a decision on an important matter of policy of that kind should be influenced by men who are interested in the trade. I think it is right that the services of those men should be obtained in an advisory capacity, but to make them members of your Air Council responsible for administration and for decisions in matters of policy such as those I have referred to is, I think, a principle which should not be adopted. It is true it has been already in force in regard to the Air Board, but now that we are setting up an Air Ministry I think it is our duty to make it clear in respect of this Ministry that a different course should be taken and that the new Ministry should be entirely unfettered by private interests, and that there should not be the slightest shadow of suspicion possible to arise with regard to decisions as to inventions, for example. In the second place, when you come to a large issue of policy, such as that of having a national aeroplance engine factory, that decision of policy should not be in the hands of those who are interested in private firms. We hear many accounts of possible developments of this industry, and undoubtedly there will be great developments in the future. In developing industry of this kind I think it is a matter of national policy that nothing should be done which might possibly lead to a monopoly of interests in the industry in the future, but that the nation itself should always be in the position to check any such monopoly. While you have private manufacturers represented on your Board which takes decisions of policy I do not think you have a safeguard against decisions of that kind. It is for these reasons I have raised this question. I hope that the Government will be able to make some statement that, at least so far as the larger matters of policy are concerned, there will be no danger whatever of private interests interfering with decisions which ought to be taken solely in the national interest.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the House on some previous Amendments has been somewhat restive by reason of the character of the Amendments moved and the verbosity of the speeches. I hope that all of us who take an interest in this Bill will limit our remarks so far as we possibly can. My hon. Friend has raised what I think is a point of substance and a point which, although it was argued in Committee, is a point which it is essential should be raised again on the Report stage. I am glad also that the Leader of the House, who came down the other afternoon and made a most interesting, important, and vital statement, is present during the discussion now, because when the Amendment was previously moved, although I do not desire to criticise them, certain obiter dicta fell from the representatives of the Government which impelled me for one, though I had no intention of taking part in that Debate, to rise and protest against the doctrine then enunciated. I quite agree that there is a distinction in matters of this kind between a time of war and a time of peace. In a time of peace it would have been impossible for the Air Council to take any person who was actually interested in the material of warfare. At the same time I wish to be clearly understood that I for one, and I am most deeply interested in the great Service with which this Bill is concerned, should not desire to deprive the Executive Government of the services, especially the advisory services, of any man who from the nature of the case owing to the technical character and novelty of the matter had from his profession acquired special knowledge. I also say that we have to recognise that the Government is passing through a very special time. But there has been so much talk throughout the country, loose talk but still talk, to which great importance is attached in the trade union world and the Labour and Socialist world about profiteering and the like, that I think it would not be unworthy of the time of the Leader of the House that he should make quite clear what is the case for the Government. I understand it is that this is an entirely exceptional case which is borne in upon them by the necessities of the War. In the hope that a statement will be made, I beg to second.

I certainly can find no fault either with the length or the tone of the speeches which have been made in support of this Amendment. But the Government cannot accept it—most emphatically cannot accept it—and, indeed, I am of the opinion that those who support it, support it without any clear idea of the conditions, or knowledge, of those industries which are now being carried on. This proposal really goes very much further than the rule which was laid down by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as to directorships, which has since been adopted. The rule in regard to these appointments was that members of the Government were not to he directors of companies; but it was clearly understood that that rule did not apply to the private businesses of the gentlemen themselves. It must be obvious to the House that that is a right distinction, otherwise it would mean that no, business man could ever become a member of the Government until he had absolutely given up his business. This proposal really goes to this length, not that a man has to give up directorships, but if he should have a business of his own, which, by any possibility, may come in contact with the kind of matter with which he is dealing for the Government, he must either cease to serve the Government or must give up his business. That is a curious suggestion to be entertained by the House of Commons. I know that from the very beginning of the War I myself have taken up the view, and have. expressed it often—and every time I have expressed it I have had the approval, so far as I could judge, of the whole House—that this country possesses in our business men a mine of capacity, and especially of organising ability, which it was the first duty of the Government to bring into its service in the conduct of the War.

Personally, I believe that the tremendous effort which has been made in this country in organising peaceful institutions for the purpose of war is one of the most wonderful things that has ever happened in the history of the world. I believe that that would have been absolutely impossible but for the assistance which the Government has gradually got more and. more from practical business men who have been carrying on organisations in this country. When you say you want business men, you mean you want business men with special knowledge of particular things, and it is almost impossible to get men with that special knowledge unless they have been engaged in businesses which are more or less connected with manufactures. The idea that a man should be asked to give up his business, or else cease to serve the State, seems to me to be quite absurd. Obviously, however, if he is giving his whole time—and most of these Gentlemen are—to the service of the State, they cannot be engaged in conducting their own businesses. To say that they have to give up their businesses means that when the War is over they will have lost not merely their profit, whatever that means, but have lost the whole occupation which has been made the business and work of their life.

A most improper suggestion!

The hon. Member is not very quick to understand what I said. I did not state that after the War they would not merely lose their profits if they gave up their businesses, but lose the occupation which is part of their lives. Nobody could ask anyone to come under any such obligations.

Conscription has done it!

I put that as a general proposition. I venture, however, to say something more. I thoroughly sympathise with the feeling of the House, that, so far as possible, any suspicion of private interest should be avoided. I am perfectly in favour of any plan that you can lay down which will secure that result, and which does not have one or two effects: which does not suggest suspicion on the part of this House as to the motives of these men—of whom I myself can name scores—who are not only giving their service, but suffering great financial loss in order to help the country at this time. Therefore, I approve any restriction which does not suggest that suspicion. I approve any suggestion which does not deprive the country of men who are specially needed at a time like this. Within these lines I shall be perfectly ready to go. It is the custom, I know, as regards the Ministry of Munitions—I am not sure about other Departments, but it is a very good custom—that every business man should make a declaration to the Secretary of the Department of what are his interests. That is a good arrangement. It is good from the point of view of the Minister; he knows exactly the position. It is good from the point of view of the business man: he shows that he is concealing nothing, that everything is open, and everybody knows exactly what they are going to do. While I say that, I do not myself rely upon that as a protection. I have said many times in this House, and I repeat it now, that my own opinion is, if Government Departments are dealing with business men in the way of bargaining, in nine cases out of ten the business man will get the best of it. I have spent the better part of my life in business. For seventeen years I have been associated with the House of Commons. I know what are the standards of honour, and all the rest of it, of business men. With my matured experience I venture to say this, that though the point of view is a different view, in my belief the standard of honour of business men is not lower than the standard here. What I rely upon in these matters is this: If you go to a business man, not to bargain but to say to him, "We ask you to act for the State, and we trust you," I venture to state here that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred that trust will never be abused. What is more, that is not merely what one might expect from one's peace-time experience, but we have had an immense experience of it in this War. I know of no case where that trust has been abused. I know scores of cases where men have given not merely of their time, but given of their money, in order to have the privilege of helping the country at a time when the country needed their service. So much for the general situation.

I wish the House to consider this particular case. This Amendment is concerned not merely with this Board. If the principle of this Amendment be adopted it would have to be adopted all round. The result would be that I do not know how many men serving us in the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions would be compelled to give up what they are doing. I wish the House to consider the matter as regards this particular case. It applies only to one man. There is only one man who can be affected by this particular Amendment. The only man who can be affected is Sir William Weir.

No, no !

Absolutely. Only one man who is on the Air Board. If this Amendment be passed, what is the position? As it happens, I have, ever since I have been a member of the Government, taken the keenest interest in the Air Service. What I am saying now is not something got up in order to make this speech. It is the knowledge of over two years. Sir William Weir is the life and soul of the Supply Department of the Air Service. I do not know anyone who is indispensable. I do not believe in that doctrine. But I do say this: If he were to leave his present post it would be a calamity to the Air Service. What is his position? Before the War he had nothing to do with aeroplanes in any shape or form. The Director-General at that time went down to Glasgow, where he had personal connections, to try and get people as servants of the Government to undertake the work required to be done. Sir William Weir's firm undertook that work. The work which they undertook was on the basis of actual cost with 5 per cent. added. Anyone connected with manufacturing knows that if an estimate were made at an ordinary time more than 5 per cent. would be put on to the actual cost, so that I may say that practically this work is being done for nothing by this firm. I really wish this House to consider the effect of this kind of discussion when it falls upon one man alone, and in this case it only affects one man.

I raised this discussion quite impersonally. While I knew Sir William Weir was connected with the Board, I made no reflection whatever on him.

I quite realise that, and I do not suggest that there is anything of the kind.

I should like to associate myself with that. I made no personal imputation.

I do not in the least think that this is a personal attack on Sir William Weir. That was not the point I was dealing with, but we all know he was the only man concerned for the moment, and therefore it seemed to me, as he seemed to be directly concerned, right to ask him to come and see me yesterday. He did so, and I talked it over with him. I found that he looked upon this as something affecting his position, and his first feeling was that he would like to be done with Government contracts altogether. I explained to him the position, but it is not easy for an outsider to understand these things. I explained to him that these questions are raised not on personal grounds, but in order to maintain what we consider to be a right principle, and that there was nothing personal about it. But it is not so easy to make people who do not understand our methods realise that these points are raised, not always to maintain a principle but sometimes to annoy the Government.

That is not so.

Not in your case, I agree.

I think that suggestion ought never to have been made—that this was done purely to annoy the Government.

I made no such suggestion. What I said was that sometimes that was the motive for raising these questions.

A most improper thing to say.

I explained the position as well as I could to Sir William Weir. I said it was a matter of principle. He accepted that. I said also that the Government would support me. He replied —and I think I should have taken the same view—"I am not serving the Government; I am trying, as far as I can, to help my country. This question has been raised in the House of Commons. It does not satisfy me that the Government supports me. Since it has been raised, I want to be sure that the House of Commons also is willing for me to go on." That is not unreasonable. With regard to all these questions I recognise as fully as any Member of the House that there is great danger of laxity growing up in regard to this kind of thing, but in these times we have to take war conditions. I am sure no one in the House would think that what we approve of now is to be regarded as a precedent as to what shall be done in time of peace. I would venture to ask the House of Commons as a whole, not merely with regard to this particular Amendment, but in regard to all these matters, that they should adopt the principle recommended by Lord Salisbury in another connection, that they should use large-scale maps and that they should consider not merely the principle, but, if necessary, go a little outside. I venture to make this appeal to the House. Let them show by their vote—or, better still, by having no vote—that not merely in the case of this particular gentleman, but in the case of all men who are giving their services in this kind of work, that we are not suspicious of them, but are grateful to them for the services rendered.

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an attempt in any way in this Amendment to bring in personal considerations, which for the first time he has introduced into this Debate. We are fighting for a principle, and we do not want to drag into the fight on that principle the name of any person. I submit that this is a very important principle. We may be able to abandon the principle for the sake of securing the services of one individual—

Not one, but many.

In this case let us frankly admit that we are abandoning a principle for a consideration which may be worth while. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that if the Secretary of the Air Board had a financial interest in a firm he would be able to make a contract with that firm? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would go as far as that. The rule now in operation prevents any such thing taking place, because Parliament is anxious that there should be no conflict, and indeed no appearance of conflict, between the public and private interests of men who serve the State. I venture to think that that is a right view to take. It is not merely efficiency in administration; it is also confidence in administration that counts; and I submit for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that this merely does not affect one person. We do not know how many members of the Council it may affect—

There is only one.

One in this case, and I am quite sure we are all very anxious to secure a continuation of his services. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, we are legislating for the future as well as for the present, and it might be most harmful if it were thought that in any Government Department there were men in receipt of Government salaries—I do not know whether Sir William Weir is or is not in receipt of a Government salary—it would be most harmful if it were thought that such men could come to a decision with regard to anything affecting the things they manufacture and affecting also their rivals in that industry. I am quite sure the House of Commons would not sanction or allow such a state of affairs as that. I do not want, after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, to dwell upon this matter, but there is considerable difficulty in it, and I would have suggested, if a gentleman were financially interested in the manufacture of some particular engine or part of an aeroplane or some other form of construction, that when the matter came before the Air Council he should leave the decision to his colleagues.

I am sure he would.

No doubt as it affects him personally he would rather take no, part in the discussion.

I am afraid I have been misunderstood. I must have put my point rather badly. What I said was that we have to trust these men to act in a reasonable way, and I am perfectly certain. that no one would do otherwise.

I am quite sure he would leave the matters to the other members of the Air Board, and would not in any way attempt to influence their judgment. But I think it must be made perfectly clear that the principle is art important one. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the present arrangement is not intended to apply to peace time, and we are only to depart from the principle I have referred to in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman, I take it, agrees with the view I am trying rather haltingly to put before the House of Commons, that in time of peace, as I understand the argument, it is all very well, but that those considerations that apply so cogently in time of peace cannot be applied in time of war, because we should lose services which are very important to the State. Put in that way, I am prepared to accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Although I am prepared to follow the Leader of the House, I should be extremely loth to keep my seat without, as a Member of the House of Commons, entering some respectful protest against the introduction of personalities and of the personal aspect in the discussion of a matter which is really one of very great principle. I am probably not alone, but represent the majority of those who have listened to this Debate, in having up to the time of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention been absolutely ignorant of who were to be on the Air Council, and whether even one was professionally or commercially interested in the trade. I think the right hen. Gentleman on reflection will see that if we are to have this innovation become one of the established practices of debate, of intervening in the discussion of a great principle by the introduction of names and of individualities, it will practically put a muzzle on any thinking Member of the House of Commons, as no one with an instinct of honour, or even an instinct of gentlemanly feeling, could, continue the discussion on this most important principle if it were once associated with a definite personality. I think, on the merits, this proposal is one that ought to have the gravest possible consideration from the House of Commons. As has been pointed out, the whole defence of this particular arrangement rests upon the assumption that we are now dealing with war emergency conditions and legislating for war emergency conditions. That is not the intention or the scope of this particular Bill at all. We are actually establishing a permanent new Service of the country, and we have no sort of information as to whether or not the present personnel of the Air Board, or the proposed personnel of the Air Council, will comprise the membership of that Council in three, five, or ten years. Certainly when we are embarking on a new departure of this great importance we should be a little alive to the principles to which we pay homage in the case of corporations or councils. I made a proposal of this kind in connection with a much less important matter, because it did not happen to be a Government proposal. I ventured to make a protest on the same kind of principle in connection with the Trade Corporation Charter a few months ago. That was not a direct Government measure, or direct Government proposal, but was one to which the Government were giving a certain sponsorship. With regard to this Ministry, I think there is the greatest possible objection to the neglect of a most important principle without any safeguard whatever, and if there were some sort of qualifying condition by which the matter should be reconsidered or reviewed after the termination of hostilities, and the Air Council in its permanent form should not have upon it persons financially interested in or directly connected with any trade concerned with that Department I should be reassured. I was startled when the Leader of the House drew a distinction, which I should find it difficult to accept, between the directors of companies and the heads of private firms financially interested in these trades. I hope we shall not have that principle pressed too far, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished Member of the House who is very sensitive of its traditions, not to allow the innovation of this afternoon to be followed up in a discussion of these important questions.

4.0 P.M.

I think everyone will agree that it is very desirable to maintain the general principle in normal times that there should never be a conflict of private interests with official duties. The hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) has spoken of my right hon. Friend having introduced the subject, and of his having raised a new principle, but that is a mistake. The Bill as it stands is in a normal form. What is proposed is to make a special restriction applying only to this particular council which would, of course, establish a new Statutory system which you would have to extend as a matter of logic to every Department of the Government. But in this particular case it only applies to the Air Council. The innovation, if there be any, is in the Amendment, and not in the Bill. Everyone, I suppose, assents to the general proposition that you want to keep private interests and public duty absolutely distinct, but, as my right hon. Friend has explained, in this particular case, and I believe in many other cases, urgent public necessity has obliged the Department to depart from the normal course. It would be quite impossible to conduct the business of the country in time of war without having recourse to eminent business men who may be interested in the articles which the Government desire to use. In this particular case, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, there is only one individual who would be affected by this proposed Amendment. It is a perfectly plain case. A distinguished business firm is asked on public grounds to undertake the manufacture of aeroplanes. The principal member of the firm, being an extraordinarily able man, having administrative capacity in addition to his business capacity of the very highest order, adds to his service to the country by undertaking the functions of controlling the supply. Obviously, it would be madness to put obstacles in the way of, much less to throw slurs upon, anyone who took that course.

It is not at all an exaggeration to say that Sir William Weir's services to the supply of aircraft are at this moment of the highest possible value, and could not be dispensed with without inflicting the most serious damage on the public advantage. He is a man who is most profoundly respected by everyone who has to deal with him, both for his great tact and his most remarkable capacity. He conducts the most important section of the work, the supply of aeroplanes, with conspicuous success, and with an admirable tact and flexibility which makes him the friend of every Department with which he has to work. The only direct effect of this Amendment illustrates how mischievous it is in time of war to lay down a rigid constitutional rule of this kind. Unquestionably, innovations introduced in time of war, whether they be invasions of the normal liberty of the subject or of the practice of Parliament in matters of this kind, must be most carefully watched in time of peace to prevent them developing into abuses, but it would be a most serious public mischief if we adopted this Amendment which could have no immediate effect except to drive out of office a most valuable, and indeed almost indispensable, public servant, and which would add nothing to the protection which we can perfectly well erect in time of peace for the principle we are all anxious to maintain. I am certain that there is not anyone who is familiar with the needs of the Air Service at this time who would not most earnestly join in the appeal my right hon. Friend has made at this moment, and in the great crisis in which we are living, not to put an obstacle to the public service by making a rigid rule which would exclude from that service a man whose position in the Air Service is the most invaluable and indispensable of all.

I must say the arguments used by the Noble Lord have almost, if not quite, convinced me that any Rule or Regulation of this sort should not be embodied in any Act of Parliament, but should be an understood matter in the future as it has been in the past. When I came into the Debate this afternoon I did not know that the case of Sir William Weir or anyone else was in question. From what I know I should think he was an ideal member of the Board, and if a vote were to be taken I hope he would understand it did not affect our regard for him. This is a question of bold legislation, and this is an opportunity of laying down the principles upon which absolutely unimpeachable public work ought to be carried out. I remember very well one Secretary of State who seems to me to have adopted the ideal method. When he came into office he submitted his list of investments to his Permanent Secretary of State, and asked him to mark any he thought that he should sell. The Secretary of State marked the P. and 0. shares, and he sold those shares. That seems to me to be an admirable example. I will not give his name. That is a case in point, but I remember a case which is almost directly applicable to this particular Bill before us. An uncle of mine, Sir George Rendel, was made Civil Lord of the Admiralty when that post was. originally formed in the early eighties. He was then a director of Armstrong. When the post was formed the Admiralty wanted to get in civilian advice. He took the office, and he was forced, I think, in that case by an Act, or by the wish of the Government, to realise all his Armstrong shares, with the result that he lost a considerable fortune in doing so.

That has been the practice in the past, and I hope it will be, in times of peace, the practice in the future also; because we politicians are open to far more criticism, to far more antagonism, from the public of this country than any private body of traders, and therefore it behoves us to be far more careful, particularly those who accept posts intimately connected with the manufacturing trade. It would be far better that no one should be able to point the finger of scorn at us. Our Government in the past—and I think in the present day—has been far more on a pinnacle in respect of honesty than any other Government in the world; and I should dislike enormously any suggestion, by Amendment in an Act of Parliament, or any practice which led the public to suppose that in future Members directly connected with businesses were in charge of Departments which had connection with those businesses. It is not a question of their impeccable honesty, or of their preferring their own trade to that of their rivals. I should say in most of those cases they prefer that of their rivals in their excessive desire to be on the right side. It is extremely important that none of the sub-ordinate officials, the staff, the inspectors, the draughtsmen, and the hundred and. one people in their Departments, who have to do with all the different manufactures, should be suspected, any more than the heads of the Departments, of unduly favouring the firms with which their chiefs are connected. All these are things which must be con- sidered when we are making arrangements of a permanent character. In war all these safeguards must go. We have got along so far singularly well without any grave scandals, and I believe we shall do so for the rest of the War. But even if scandals do come, if we see the best man in the field, we must take him, whatever the risks may be. Whether a Division is taken or not upon this question, I trust that Sir William Weir will realise that we are discussing as a debating society a principle of administration, and disregarding entirely the individual who may imagine that he is being pointed at in this Amendment.

I should not have intervened in this Debate only I feel strongly on this matter, and I spoke strongly upon it when an Amendment of a similar kind was brought up in Committee. I had no idea that Sir William Weir or any other individual was aimed at, and I do not think there was any such intention on the part of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I do, however, think that we really have some right to find fault with the Government for not telling us the composition of this Air Council. We have asked about it, but we have not got any reply, but when we go on discussing principles for the formation of this great force we are suddenly told that we are treading upon somebody's toes. I think the Government ought to tell us straight away who is going to be on the Air Council. It appears to be assumed that we know already. We do know that there are certain gentlemen on the Air Board, but we have not the faintest idea whether they are going to be on the Air Council or not. In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that it would be wrong for this Amendment to be pressed to a Division, I sincerely trust that the Mover will withdraw it.

I only wish to have an opportunity for Debate, and I intend to withdraw the Amendment.

I am glad that the Proposer intends to withdraw this proposal. All I wish to add is that I have personal acquaintance as to the valuable work of Sir William Weir. I have worked with him at the Ministry of Munitions, and I know his sterling qualities. I can quite appreciate why the Government are most reluctant to lose his services, and I should look upon that as a national mis- fortune. I am sure that Sir William Weir, by his continuance in office, will satisfy not only the Government and the House of Commons, but the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked for a relaxation of this rule only for the purposes of the War, and we are assured that present arrangements will not continue in peace time. Under these circumstances I think we should be satisfied, and that it would be wrong for any of us to take any step which would in any way hamper the Government in carrying on the War.

I should like to make what is almost a personal explanation. I quite realise the force of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has said about giving names. I did not do it purposely. The reason was that all the business people know that Sir William Weir was the only person who could be affected, and he seemed to be so much upset by it that I desired that the House of Commons itself should show by its own action that the House, as well as the Government, appreciated his services.

As to the personal matter which has been raised, I desire to say nothing. I was quite unaware that Sir William Weir was implicated in this matter. I do not even know what precisely is Sir William Weir's connection. I really desire to protest against the extraordinary statement made by the Leader of the House, and apparently accepted by, generally that purity, is less important in war than in time of peace. That seems to me an astonishing proposition. Surely at a time when the whole fate of the War may depend upon the success of our Air Service, and when the whole success of our Air Service may depend upon the right kind of engine, it is not less important but far more important, that no possible suspicion should attach to any person on the Air Board. The Leader of the House told us that a gentleman in this sort of position, having a particular interest in a machine or part of a machine, would probably, when the matter came up for discussion, withdraw and take no part in it. I think that is probably perfectly true, but suppose Sir William Weir—I do not know what his position is—were interested in the very engine most wanted, he would, under those principles, be precluded from taking part in the discussion. This man who, we are told, is the life and soul of the air industry—I believe it is probably true—would be precluded from pressing it. The more honourable the man, the more inclined he would be to withdraw at the very moment when it might be most desirable that his vigour, his energy, and his enthusiasm should be directed to getting the right type of engine. He would feel himself precluded by his own personal connection from taking any action whatsoever. That would be a very unfortunate thing, and I should have thought that it would have been very much better that it should be generally understood that no man should have any personal interest in any matter likely to come up for his consideration in his official capacity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "If it should be found necessary, owing to the exigencies of the present War, to countenance the appointment to the Air Council of individuals who are members of trading concerns directly or indirectly interested in the output of aeronautical material or the tendering for, or accepting of, orders from such Air Council all such persons shall automatically retire from such Council immediately on the cessation of hostilities."

This Amendment falls well within the scope of the statement made by the Leader of the House. If it is not carried, any Members on the Air Council who are also members of trading concerns will in time of peace be able to continue to remain on that Council. The Leader of the House has stated that the only reason for rejecting the previous Amendment or not considering it seriously, was because of the position of one man. His statement reminded me of a certain Sarah who, finding an excuse for her illegitimate child, said "It is only a little one." While we may be obliged to waive this principle in time of war, surely the Government cannot give any excuse for not undertaking to restore it in time of peace. I sincerely trust it will be restored not only in the case of the Air Council, but also in the case of this House itself. It places hon. Members in a very difficult position indeed, when we, of our own volition, by the Courts Emergency Act, took power to vote on matters in which we were financially interested. When quite recently hon. Members were showing such extraordinary surprise that we should permit it in the case of the Air Council, I do not know whether they were aware that we passed a special Act to permit it in our our cases. It is very difficult for us to sit in judgment on the Air Council as to whether they shall have members on that body who are also financially interested in its work, when we have foregone the principle in the womb of public opinion. There can be no doubt that if the Government do net accept this Amendment it is their intention not only to continue to break this principle but to accentuate its breaking.

There can be no possible excuse for this Amendment not being accepted. The Leader of the House, having committed what is possibly the greatest political it indiscretion in his life, which is saying a good deal, has left the House. If he had remained, I should have liked to ask him whether he would give the House an undertaking that this should be the only case. He says it is only one case. Will he undertake that it shall be the only case? It is a very unfortunate thing that one gentleman's name should have been mentioned in this Debate. That places all those who speak on the Question in a very invidious position, because it makes them feel that to a certain extent their duty is guiding them into unpleasant paths. However unpleasant I may consider it to be, I still conceive it to be my duty to say that it is against the best interests of the public service that private interests should ever be allowed to clash with them. In view of the fact that we are fighting this War on a question of principle, it would be just as well if we gave serious consideration to the breaking of principles in order to bring victory a little nearer. Hon. Members must know how extra-ordinarily difficult ft is to dissociate private and public measures in their own minds. For example, we have been debating this afternoon matters of grave public urgency on the formation of this great air fleet with only half a dozen Members present. Would that have occurred if we were discussing a financial measure or a question of coal or ships or anything else that might have a financial bearing on the private affairs of hon. Members? Directly this Amendment came up on a question affecting not only the gentleman whose name has been unfortunately mentioned, but which may affect hundreds of other men—the Leader of the House said it would affect hundreds of other men—then we get a full House. It is very unfortunate that the House should become more populous when we are discussing a matter of that description than when we are discussing the fate of the Air Service itself. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give this Amendment his most serious consideration. Not only are we to forego these principles in time of war, but if the Amendment is not carried it must be accepted that we are to forego them in times of peace. The Noble Lord, in a speech which might have appealed to some sections of the House, suggests that because we have never embodied a proviso of this kind in a Bill before, it would be a terrible and a shocking thing to do it now. Is it not equally terrible and shocking that the exigencies of war have necessitated our breaking a principle? It is a far more serious thing to break a principle than to adjust a Bill, and if it has caused us to break our principle, surely we ought so to frame the law, the principle of which is being broken, as to see that when the War is over this thing is not carried on to any extent.

I should like to say, also, that any gentleman who is added to this Council, will find himself in a very difficult position indeed. The minute peace comes there will be cancellations of orders right, left, and centre. The Air Council will be called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut its loss. He will say to the Air Council, "What do your contracts involve you in?" They will say, "Million pounds." All this stuff which is being manufactured now on war orders is no good because the War is over, and it is not reasonable to believe that we shall have war again in twelve months, and as all the machines you are now building are specially for war within the next twelve months, and in twelve months after that they will be obsolete, it is best to cancel. What is the proprietor of a large firm to say to that? Presumably he will be obliged to cancel all the orders of his firm, and it is a very difficult position for a man to be in. Not only that, but he will naturally know all the future plans. He will be the first to know as to the possibilities of mail carriers, and other duties to which aeroplanes may be put, and it is putting a man in an impossible position to give him this information and ask him not even to give his attention outside the Council to such a matter. These things pass through his mind, and if he was consulted as to designs and so on it would be very difficult for him to erase from his mind the information that he had heard in the Council Chamber. When the Leader of the House referred to the great sacrifices which are being made I wish that no name had been mentioned, and that he had dealt more generally with that aspect of it. But there are men in this country, not in ones or twos but in hundreds and thousands, who are making far bigger sacrifices than giving up, even for the period of the War, attention to their business. In the question of sacrifices property does not occur. Property must not be allowed to occur. There are thousands in this country with one-man businesses who have shut them up and ruined themselves.

That is not relevant to the matter which the hon. Member is discussing.

I will leave that, because the mere inference is enough to carry to the mind of any thinking man the equality respecting sacrifice of men in this country. Although we are obliged, through circumstances which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly enunciated but has not made very clear, to make this special exception in our principles purely in the case of one man, I trust it will not be carried to any extent, and I trust it will not be perpetuated when peace comes. Therefore I look forward to the hon. Member giving us that assurance. If that assurance is not forthcoming, it means that the Leader of the House made a statement which he is not prepared to substantiate. He promised us it should not be done; therefore why is there any objection to embodying that promise in the Bill? When the time comes the right hon. Gentleman may not be leading the House—there are more impossible and more likely things—and it may be said from that bench, as I have heard it said before, that they did not personally give that assurance. Therefore, I think in the interest of purity in the conduct of our public affairs, this Amendment should be accepted, and I appeal to some hon. Member who views it in the same way, though he may not see eye to eye with me on many subjects, to come forward and second this Amendment if he sees eye to eye with me as to the desirability of cleansing our public life in times of peace. If this Amendment is carried it is no reflection upon the gentlemen whose names have been mentioned, or upon any member of the Air Council or any other public officer. I hope that when peace comes we shall be able to draw front the Government some Motion in this House to upset the Courts (Emergency) Bill which puts it into the power of Members of this House to vote public money—

That does not arise.

Then I beg to move this Amendment.

The Amendment is not seconded.

The next three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member are all out of order, as they are covered in the Bill; but the Amendment as to the decision of the Air Council being final in certain matters is in order.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words,

"If any conflict should arise between the Admiralty Board and the Air Council or the Army Council and the Air Council as to the development or the disposition of any Air Service personnel or material which is not peculiar to the requirements of the Grand Fleet or the Army in the field, then the decision of the Air Council shall prevail."

This is a very necessary Amendment in order to prevent the delays which would occur in the event of the Air Council wishing to perform any act or to do any of the things which they have powers to do under the Bill while the Army and the Navy make up their minds whether they agree or not. This Amendment would not have been necessary had we carried the previous Amendment standing in my name to attach to the Air Council representatives of the Army and Navy respectively. As it is not proposed that these representatives should be there it is the more important that in all purely aeronautical matters—if hon. Members will consult the Amendment they will see that it is only in case of matters which do not in any way refer to the Grand Fleet or the Army in the field—the will of the Air Council shall prevail without reference to the War Cabinet. Any hon. Member who knows anything of the inside workings of Government Departments will appreciate how trifling are some of the details which hold up the work of those Departments, and those details cannot be settled without going to the War Cabinet. I think that is most unfortunate, and my Amendment provides that in all matters that are purely air matters the Air Council should have the right to have its way without having to refer to the War Cabinet. If this Amendment is carried, it will not in any way prevent an appeal to the War Cabinet in any case in which the Army or Navy could claim to have the slightest interest. So far as I can see, if the Air Council decided to draft fifty aeroplanes to the Fiji Islands, it is purely an air matter, as we have no Army and Navy there, and the Army or Navy should not object. That is altogether a matter for the decision of the Air Council, and in such a matter they should be supreme. I do not know whether hon. Members will appreciate the saving in time and trouble which would be effected if this Amendment were carried, but those who have service experience I am sure will appreciate it.

Amendment not seconded.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).

In addition to the Secretary of State, this Bill provides for the Under-Secretary and that a second Under-Secretary, who may be a Member of this House, may be appointed by the Government or the Minister. The general feeling in this House and of the public outside is that it is very undesirable to have any more additions to the number of His Majesty's Government. When the Bill for the Ministry of Reconstruction was under discussion, a very strong opinion was expressed that the limit of numbers had been reached, and according to my recollection, the result of that representation was that an Amendment to that Bill, similar to this Amendment, was accepted by the Government. I do not know the total number of Ministers at the present time.

At the present moment?

At the present moment they are conspicuous by their absence. But the total number of Members of the Government who are Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords had, it. was suggested when the matter was last discussed, about reached the century. If the Household appointments are added there is not much doubt the century has been reached. Nothing undermines confidence in this House more than the existence of too large a number of Members who are Ministers and who owe direct allegiance to the Government. The main function of this House is to criticise the Government. If a very considerable percentage of the House of Commons are Ministers, the power of criticism largely disappears. I quite concede that this important Department, with its large spending powers, should have a Financial Secretary. I see no necessity for the Financial Secretary being a Minister or a member of the Government. That principle was accepted by the Government when it was first constructed, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not a Member of this House, and it was considered possible for him to discharge his important duties without his holding a seat in the House of Commons. They recognised that principle. But there is another and more serious

point of view. The Government have great influence by patronage, and by influencing votes and opinion through their power, to make appointments to Ministerial posts. Every additional official appointed and added to the number of appointments does give the Cabinet and the Prime Minister an undue power of influencing public opinion. I do not suggest for a moment that any Member of this House would be in any way influenced by the fact that a post is becoming vacant, or that a new post is to be created, and so long as the appointments were limited there were always enough, Members in the House of Commons to provide effective criticism, and, if necessary, a proper opposition. This matter has become accentuated, and is more important owing to the absence of the official Opposition, and it cannot be organised, because it has accepted the position that it does not work as .an organised whole, but only through individual members of it, according to their individual judgment. I hope that the Government will not resist this Amendment, and will not press for this extra secretary. There is still another point of view. There is a feeling growing up throughout the country that the Government is extravagant, and that its expenditure is going up—

The Government is quite willing to accept this Amendment, and as it is the fact that this financial secretary would not be appointed for some time, they do not press the matter further.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: In Part I., leave out the words "or authorities," and insert instead thereof the words "whether such words are used in the singular or the plural."

After "163 (1) ( d )," insert "and 181 (5)."

After the word "necessaries," insert the. words, "except in Section 156 (7)."— [Major Baird.]

Notice had been given of the following Amendment by Sir I. PHILIPPS:

In Part II., after paragraph on Section 39 of the Army Act, insert: 42. At end add ( b ) Where any officer, after his complaint has been inquired into under this Section and the decision thereon has been communicated to him, and where such officer still considers that he has not had the redress to which he is entitled, such officer may appeal to an Air Court of Appeal, and such Court shall investigate such complaint in such manner as it shall think fit, and shall issue its findings accordingly, and forward the same to the Air Council, who shall communicate such finding to the complainant and shall take such steps as are necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the matter complained of, in so far as the finding of the Air Court of Appeal is concerned, provided that nothing in this Section gives any officer any additional right of appeal from the finding or sentence of a court - martial beyond that already allowed by this Act and the King's Regulations; (c) An Air Court of Appeal consisting of five members shall be appointed by His Majesty the King, of whom any three shall form a quorum; two of such members shall be air officers, two shall be persons not holding any official position under the Crown, and one shall be one of His Majesty's judges of the High Court of Justice."

This Amendment is not in order. The matter is provided for in the Army Act, which is adapted to this Bill.

I should like to submit that the Amendment is in order, because owing to its being a new organisation the Air Council have not got the experience and knowledge of the Army Council, and the Admiralty. Therefore I contend that it is within order to adapt the Act and make it suitable to the Air Force.

The Schedule is governed by the Clauses, save that the Army Act is to be adapted to this Bill. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would set up new conditions.

Three entirely new crimes are brought within this Bill which: are not mentioned in the Army Act. If it is in order to bring in a Clause including new crimes, I submit respectfully it is in order to bring in a new Court to try those. crimes, and that is really what I am, seeking to do.

I think not. The crimes to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, refers are matters peculiar to the service in which the men will be engaged, and that brings them within the purview of the Army Act.

Further Amendments made: After paragraph on Section 122 (6) of Army Act. insert the words,

"130 (5). At end shall be inserted:

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to a person imprisoned in England."

In paragraph on Section 163, after the word "In," insert the words "paragraph ( a ), 'any of ' shall be omitted in.

"In paragraph on Section 175, after the word "troops," insert the words "and 'any of ' shall be omitted."

After the words "a force" insert the words "for 'such force' there shall be. substituted 'such part.'"

In paragraph on Section 176, after (1) ( a ), insert the words "In Sub-section (2), 'any of' shall be omitted."

After the word "force" [" Militia Reserve force"], insert the words "and, paragraph ( b )."

In paragraph on Section 181, after the word "For" ["For the following expressions"], insert the words "any of His-Majesty's Auxiliary Forces, and His Majesty's Auxiliary Forces there shall be submitted 'the Auxiliary Air Force,' and for."

In paragraph on Section 183, after the word "to" rand in India to"], insert the words "in Council."

After the words "general or flag officer," insert the words "and after 'in the field,' there shall be inserted '(whether such officer is an officer of the Air Force, Army, or Navy).'"

After the words "shall be omitted," insert the words "and 'Air Force' shall be substituted for 'Army.'"

Leave out the paragraph on Section 186.

In paragraph on Section 190, after the word "omitted," insert the words,

"In Sub-section (4) for 'His Majesty's Forces,' wherever those words occur, and for 'His Majesty's said Forces,' there shall be substituted 'the Air Force'; and in Sub-section (5), for 'Army' there shall be substituted 'Air Force'; and in Subsection (8) the words 'from and including' to 'Royal Malta Artillery' (both inclusive) shall be omitted."—[ Major Baird. ]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

I desire to place myself deliberately on record as saying that this Bill has failure stamped on its face. Even now I would advise the Government to take that view, tear it to shreds, and bring in a new and an effective Bill. The majority of the few Members who have been present during this Debate are prospective or possible office-holders under the Bill. I know of no occasion during the last three years or more that have elapsed since the beginning of this terrible War—which, remember, up to date the Allies are not winning—I know of no measure presented by the Government, no matter how futile it has proved, which has not met the approval of the majority of the House, and which has not been presented by the member of the Government with that same air of unctuous rectitude with which they have ushered in this Bill.

I have a right to speak upon this subject, because years ago, and for many months absolutely alone, I have asked, implored, demanded again and again from the Government that they should produce a Bill which would constitute an Air Ministry. I have been received even with derision.

Counted out !

5.0 P.M.