had given notice of the following question:

I should be obliged if these questions which have been put down could be postponed until Monday.

May I ask why it is that neither the Minister of Labour nor his Parliamentary representative is here to answer these questions?

Ministers are not obliged to be here on Friday to answer questions.

But that decision was only arrived at yesterday, or, at least, the announcement was only made by the Leader of the House yesterday, and I must protest that this is a growing scandal in the House of Commons.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The Rule of the House has always been that there should be no questions on Friday. That has been the case as long as I have been a Member of the House. During the War, by reason of special circumstances, it happened frequently that questions were asked, but that was done nearly always by arrangement between the Member asking the question and the hon. or right hon. Gentleman who had to reply.

In view of the circumstances, perhaps I may be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the business of the House for the coming week?

On Monday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill.

On Tuesday we shall take Votes A and 1 of the Air Ministry.

Perhaps the business for the remaining portion of the week may be asked on Monday.

I beg to move to leave out the words "Provided that" ["Provided that such"], and to insert instead thereof the words "and if."

I beg to move to leave out the words

"less than nine months from the declaration of the polls at a General Election,"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"within nine months after the issue of a Proclamation summoning a new Parliament."

"Less than nine months" is a somewhat awkward way of saying "within nine months." "Less than nine months from" does not say whether the nine months are to be calculated before or after. The intention of the House is that they should be calculated after, and after only. The date from which the period was to be calculated was the date of the declaration of the polls at a General Election. Unfortunately, that will not be in future a day certain. It is quite true that at the recent election, because of the difficulty arising in connection with absent soldiers, the votes were all counted on one day and the declaration of the polls took place on one day. That will not be so hereafter. Hereafter the polls will take place on one and the same day, and the declaration of the polls will take place as soon as practicable after that. They will not take place on the one day. For example, the declaration in the case of the Orkney and Shetland Islands will take place on a different day from that on which the declaration in English boroughs or counties takes place. The effect of this Amendment will be that the period will be calculated from a certain day, the date of the issue of a Proclamation summoning a new Parliament. The effect is slightly to diminish the period of nine months.

I beg to move, at the end, to add as a new Sub-section,

"Where by virtue of this Section a Member of the Commons House of Parliament does not vacate his seat by reason of his acceptance of any of the offices mentioned in Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and Schedule H of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Schedule E of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, as amended by any subsequent enactment, he shall, for the purposes of Section 52, Section 51 and Section 11 of those Acts respectively, be treated as if he had been returned as a Member to serve in Parliament since the acceptance by him of such office."

The object of this Sub-section is to prevent what I am quite satisfied was never the intention of the House, the requirement of Ministers to submit themselves for re-election, if they had accepted office before election and afterwards accepted another office, as to which it was provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1867,and the corresponding Scottish and Irish Acts that Ministers may thereafter without further re-election pass from one office to another. I am quite certain that it was never the intention of the House when it inserted this time limit to place Ministers to whom these Acts refer in a worse position than that in which they were already under the existing law. Therefore I propose to insert this consequential Sub-section in the Bill. It happens that a similar Subsection was inserted in the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1916. It is a consequential Amendment designed to give effect to what I am quite satisfied was the intention of the House.

I do not know if I should be in order in saying a few words on the question of the reduction of the period to nine months from a General Election.

That does not arise on this Amendment.

I beg to move, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words,

"and the office of such Minister shall be deemed to be an office included in the above-mentioned Schedules."

I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has added these words, because it relieves a number of his colleagues of a difficulty with which otherwise they might be faced. The present Lord Chancellor had to be protected by a special Act of Indemnity in this House because of the omission of a similar provision from previous Acts.

In my opinion the Bill has come out of Committee in an aspect less useful than it was when it was introduced. The main difference between the Bill as it stands now and as it stood when introduced is the fact that whereas originally this Bill was to protect Ministers on accepting an office of profit under the Crown from the necessity of submitting themselves to re-election, with no definite period stated, and therefore to operate during the whole course of Parliament, we have now substituted an Amendment that only for nine months after a General Election is a Minister to be protected in that way. In my opinion that is an Amendment which does not improve the Bill. The Leader of the House remarked in the Committee stage that the feeling of the House on Second Reading was entirely in favour of a time limit. He also stated that there was often a very quiet body of opinion in the House amongst Members who thought that the best way they could help on a Government Bill was by saying nothing about it. That was my own view, and I purposely did not speak on Second Reading for that reason. The original object of this old Statute of Queen Anne was, firstly, to protect the House of Commons from undue influence of the Crown. That, of course, has completely disappeared. We know that the Crown no longer has the power, had it the desire, to interfere with this House in the way in which no doubt it did in the days of Queen Anne. But I think there was another reason for introducing this provision into the Act of Succession, and that was what may seem an obvious reason perhaps, in order that a man who was going to be paid by the people should submit himself to them to let them see him and see whether they thought he was a man suitable to be paid by them. That also has surely disappeared, because the payment of Members has changed the position to the extent that every Member of Parliament is now paid by the people. Consequently it seems to me that that is not a measure with which to-day we are concerned as they were in the old days when this Statute was introduced. The only argument that now remains in favour of this provision in the old Statute is that it is desirable for Ministers periodically to go to the constituencies and to ask their electors whether they approve of them, and, inferentially, whether they approve of the policy of the Government of the day. I agree that that is an argument, but how much really does a by-election reflect the opinion of the country at any particular time? I think it is extremely doubtful as to what extent it does so. We know that there are a hundred and one local issues introduced into by-elections and that people flock to them from all over the country and set up all sorts of questions and bewilder and "flummox" the electors in such a way as that they constantly do not know what they are voting for. But even admitting for the moment that a by-election is an expression of the opinion of the country, then surely in the natural course of events, by deaths of Members and resignations, you have a constant series of them going on during the course of the Parliament. I cannot for the life of me see why you want to add to them, in the way in which the old Statute did, by compelling Ministers upon appointment to an office of profit under the Crown, to go down once again and submit themselves to their constituents.

If you admit the argument that it is desirable at certain periods after the General Election to re-submit the policy of the Government to the constituencies, it seems to me that this is not the proper way to do it. You might introduce the machinery of a referendum in big issues. I heard the speech on the Second Reading from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He held up his hands in horror at what he called the appalling prospect of the severance of the direct connection between the constituencies and this House which this Bill would bring about, and he declaimed in favour of a perpetual and constant touch being kept between the electorate and this House. I agree with him, but what would that hon. Member have said in the year 1912 or 1913, when it was proposed that a referendum should be taken upon the question of the Parliament Act and on the question of Home Rule? Would he then have been so keen upon that close and direct touch being kept between the constituencies and this House? I very much doubt it. I think there is a lot to be said for a referendum if there is a necessity for submitting questions to the electorate, but I pass that by. There is another alternative, surely. Admit if you like, which I think is very doubtful, that a by-election does give a real expression of the country's opinion, would it not be much better, if you wished Ministers to be subjected to these by- elections, to select certain Ministers, we will say by ballot or in some other way, from among those who have been longest in office to go down to the constituencies at stated intervals and submit themselves for re-election? I say that, because it seems to me, on the face of it, absurd that a man who has just joined the Government, and who is in no way responsible for the policy of the Government, should be the one selected and mulcted in the expenses of an election to test the feeling of the country as regards the policy of a Government to which he never even belonged. I think that would have been a more sensible suggestion, and that immediately introduces the question of expense, which was referred to also by the Leader of the House.

In my opinion, this question of expense is a real question. I did agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said, "Why should you submit Ministers at the very moment when they first get their appointment to what is the great expense of an election?" "Well," somebody said, "they will recover it in their first year's salary," but sometimes that first year's salary never materialises. The Government may go out of office within a month, and, in my opinion, the question of expense is really a question which does deserve proper consideration; and if you are going to make it a necessity for Ministers to seek re-election in this way, then you ought to select those who have been in office longest, and who have got some salary out of which they can pay for their election, and select them if you like by ballot. I merely wish to express my views, and I think they are the views of a large section of this House. It has not been a vociferous section, but I believe there are a considerable number of Members in this House who wish, as I do, that the Government had not given way in response to a few hon. Members who raised this point on the Second Reading. Then we have heard about the question that this Bill places good men at a discount. Of course it does. We know from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House himself that on a certain occasion he might have been a member of the Cabinet had it not been for the fact that his seat was considered an unsafe seat, and, consequently, under this system a Government can only select for rearrangements of its Ministry during the course of Parliament men who have got safe seats. That is putting good men absolutely at a discount, and I think it is a most undesirable policy. I happened to be looking the other day at what is, I suppose, the best known and the widest read book upon our constitutional law. I refer to the book of the late Sir William Anson. He deals with this point, and Sir William Anson takes entirely the view that the Government took when they introduced this measure. I have not got his exact words by me, but he said something of this sort. This part of the Act of Succession operates now merely as an inconvenience and a hindrance to public business. I think Sir William Anson was not a man who would have been in favour at all of separating this House from the opinion of the electorate, and yet he takes the view that this Section of this old Statute is nothing but an inconvenience and an anachronism. In my opinion it is an absurd anachronism, and I think it would have been well if this Section of the old Statute of Queen Anne had a long time ago become as dead as is the gracious lady whose name it bears.

Emboldened by what has been said by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, I rise as one of those older Members who voluntarily preserved a discreet silence when this Bill was going through its Second Reading. We did so, apart from our natural modesty, out of a desire, first, to expedite business, and, secondly, to give new Members the opportunity that they are always entitled to in this House, but the result has been, in my opinion, disastrous. I entirely and thoroughly agree with what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said about this practice. The scythe of death has already started on this House, and amongst 707 Members before the end of the Parliament it may have many victims. Those are the opportunties for by-elections to take place. To my mind, the duty and responsibility of choosing Ministers should be on the Prime Minister, as it is at the present time. I may be stating what at first sight may seem rather an unpopular theory, but I hold that the responsibility of choosing Ministers and of a Government is not directly to the country, but to this House. Therefore it is essential, in my opinion, that the Prime Minister should take upon himself—and he does take upon himself—the responsibility of choosing Ministers. Consequently, he should have the widest choice possible, and it should be in his power to choose the man he thinks best fitted for the job with- out any reference to whether he had a small majority at the previous election. That is what does guide and must influence the choice of Ministers in this House. If you want to test the policy of the Government, there is a recognised method of doing it either by the natural one which I have indicated, that of the death of a Member, or on the other hand, if the Opposition desire to question the policy of the Government at any moment of the Session all they have to do is to give notice of a Vote of Censure and the opportunity is afforded to them. That is the right way, and not by these adventitious opportunities. I cordially agree with the hon. and gallant Member and I hope that in future, if we ever have the opportunity again, we shall get rid of this section of the law.

I am sure my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not make a long speech in reply. Both speeches, the reasoned arguments of my hon. Friend (Major O'Neill) and of my hon. Friend (Colonel Greig) were extremely good, and I think that all the more, because I believe every word they say. The position of Leader of the House is not an easy one. He must always, I think, be guided in his actions by weighing the advantages or the disadvantages of any particular course. I have not the smallest doubt that if we had adhered to our original proposal, we should have had an immense majority in support of it. Beyond that I have the opinion that if I had carried out my first suggestion, to leave the matter to the free vote of the House, probably the majority would have gone in our favour. I thought by a compromise we should get rid of a large part of the opposition, and we did so. I did not wish, at the very beginning of the Session, to have a large number of Members left with the impression that the Government were forcing through a measure which they would think was primarily in the interests of the present Government. We did get rid of a large part of the opposition, but not the whole of it, and certainly if we had pressed the matter, it would have given the impression that we were acting solely for the advantage of ourselves. I do think, in addition to that, that there was some force in the arguments that were used.

The composition of the present House shows possibilities of value, perhaps more than at an ordinary time. There is a possibility—I do not put it any higher—of some regrouping of parties in this House which would give a majority quite different from that at the General Election. These considerations led me to take the view I did that on the whole it was far better not to press this matter further at that time. Very likely I have made a mistake, and I shall make many more, but that was my view. Of course, nobody knows what the position will be when the time comes. I think the best way of getting rid of this Statute altogether would be, if possible, just at the end of a Parliament, when, it is quite obvious that the Government that proposes it is not doing it for the benefit of themselves, but in the general interest, and if I had an opportunity I would try to get the change effected in such circumstances, so that nobody would think that it was being done in the interests merely of the Government.

With a sincere desire to assist the Leader of the House in his difficult task of taking the sense of the House, I hope he will not adopt the method suggested, that he will be guided by the silvern though, sometimes defective speeches of those who speak, and not by the golden and intelligent silence of those who do not. Should he adopt the method suggested to-day, I am afraid the reputation of this House, which many have pointed out has not advanced of late, will suffer a further blow. I hope he will accept the assurance that we do not intend to hinder, but, as far as possible, to assist in making measures better, but if speeches are to be disregarded and only the artistic and intelligent silence of Members is to be the guiding factor in the decisions of the Government, an unfortunate impression will be created after the rather peculiar circumstances which obtained during the last General Election, which suggested the formation of a majority which is going to have an undue advantage. There are signs, however, that that majority is being interspersed with intelligent criticism. The right hon. Gentleman leads the House, as I am sure all will agree, with great skill and consideration. We trust he will not allow himself to be unduly impressed by the appeal made to him to-day, and that he will not only look round to study the facial expression of this the large and intelligent majority, but that he will give due heed to observations made by Members of the House.

No Leader of the House could fail to pay atention to those who speak, but, on the other hand, he would be a very foolish Leader of the House if he thought that those who spoke alone represented the opinion of the House. He must judge.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "aerial" ["regulate aerial navigation"], and to insert instead thereof the word "air."

I have adopted the proposal of an hon. Friend of mine which, I hope, will be accepted by the House, that instead of the word "aerial," we should use the word "air" throughout. It is simpler and easier to say.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, a), to insert the words

"for the conveyance of passengers, goods, or mail, for hire or reward."

It will be seen from this and subsequent Amendments that they class themselves generally under matters relating to personnel and material, and that generally speaking they aim at lightening the very stringent restrictions which this Bill introduces. In moving this Amendment, I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give some indication of the basic principles which are at the back of his mind in putting forward this Bill. First of all from the military point of view. At the beginning of the War—

That would not be in order on the Amendment. It is suitable for a Second Reading discussion. On an Amendment the Debate must be confined to the subject matter of the Amendment, and the issues raised by the Amendment.

The issue of the Amendment is the restriction of individual right in experiments in flying. We think the restriction of individuals in experimenting and carrying out private trials of their own if they are limited to Act of Parliament will severely handicap enterprise and individual effort. When this Bill comes into force it will mean a lot to aerial commerce. I do ask my right hon. Friend, in its initial stages, to give the very greatest scope he can to individual enterprise and energy.

While I do not wish to accept this and the consequential Amendments, for reasons which I will presently give, I am entirely at one with my hon. and gallant Friend and his Seconder. I agree with most of those who are specially interested in aviation in thinking that we ought to give the fullest possible latitude to experiment and to freeing it completely from State inspection and control. The reason we do not accept these Amendments is that we might defeat our own object. The actual words would limit inspection by the State to those who carry goods, passengers, or mails—it might be presumed for hire, as stated in this and other Amendments. It would be possible—I do not say it is probable—that some company or some eccentric person could evade the Regulation by not charging for their flights, and incurring severe accidents by people with, unsuitable types of machines might retard the progress of aviation to a very great degree. I would suggest, if I may, to my hon. and gallant Friend that if I give him my assurance, as the responsible Minister in charge of the Bill, that we have no intention of using this power for the inspection or registration of experimental craft or other craft built by those who are interested in aviation, and who intend to use them for their own experiments in their own flying, we need not pass these Amendments, or agree to Amendments suggested later, with this added safeguard that, as he knows, this is only an interim Bill and that a bigger Bill will come on later. In the meantime, on my personal assurance as the Minister responsible, I may repeat that we have no intention whatever of inspecting either the men or the pilots who are building machines for experimental purposes and for their own private flying. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept this assurance, as it will enable us to agree to the deletion of the proposed Amendments with a view to their consideration in the proper wording of the bigger Bill later.

In view of the definite pledges given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "registration" ["the registration, identification, inspection"], to insert the word "and."

This and two subsequent Amendments can, I think, be taken together. These Amendments deal with personnel and material. I simply want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the conditions which existed in the country under the two systems. Under the War Office system the development of aircraft was very much restricted. I think it can be generally accepted that the system adopted by the Admiralty allowed us, at the beginning of the War, to have a complete predominance of the air. There is one other point on which I should like him to inform us in connection with this Amendment. Major-General Sykes is to be Controller-General of Civil Aviation. What does that mean? The term "aviation" generally includes only heavier-than-air craft.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It may be convenient if I now answer the question put to me. I am asked whether the Controller-General of Aviation (Major-General Sykes) will be concerned with lighter-than-air as well as heavier-than-air craft. The answer is "Most certainly." For the moment, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Admiralty are principally concerned in the construction of lighter-than-air craft. However that may be, the Controller-General of Civil Aviation will be charged with the mapping out of air routes, with securing landing grounds, the supervision of Rules and Regulations for air travel; with the arrangements being made to link up this country, not only with the Continent, but with our Overseas Dominions, and so on. All these vast possibilities involving heavier-than, as well as lighter-than, air machines, will come under the purview of the Controller-General. I see it stated in the "Times" to-day that the sea may be regarded as a hostile element. Though I agree with much that is stated in the article, I do not think that is so. A calm sea is a favourable element. In any event, if you include lighter-than-air machines in the things under the purview of the Controller-General of Aviation, the sea is peculiarly favourable for many purposes. For these reasons, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied generally that the whole of aerial navigation—or as we shall now say, "air" navigation—will come under the purview of the Air Ministry, and especially of the Controller-General of Aviation, including the heavier and lighter-than-air craft.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), at the end, to insert the words,

"especially those used for carrying passengers, goods, or mails."

These words are inserted in order to emphasise, on behalf of the Government, that it is our intention to confine our activities to craft which either wholly ply for hire or attempt to evade proper inspection. They are not words which are at all usual in an Act of Parliament, but this is a temporary measure, and, I think, they may be accepted as being an earnest of our desire to confine our inspection to pilots and the craft of those who ply for hire in the case of passengers, goods, and mails.

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at line 14 of the Bill he will see that his words are already there—"especially those used for carrying passengers, goods, or mails." Has the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the Bill in his hand?

Yes.

Perhaps line 12, paragraph (a), is meant, and not line 14, paragraph (b)?

I presume, Sir, that what is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend was the intention of the Parliamentary draftsman, to whom this matter was referred. I had not observed the particular line in the Bill. No doubt the intention of the draftsman was, as I have said, to insert the words in both places. I will, therefore, move the Amendment in paragrapt (a).

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, a), to add the words,

"especially those used for carrying passengers, goods, or mails."

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Will the Air Ministry be prevented from interfering with private individuals or experimental enterprises, and will it have to confine its activities to those engaged in carrying passengers, goods, or mails?

I explained before the hon. Member came in that the object of these words was to confine inspection to those who carried passengers, goods, and mails for hire, and conceivably to extend it to those who might attempt to evade the regulations by not charging for a service that was really not safe. I propose, I think with the consent of most hon. Members present, that we should not accept an Amendment which would strictly and rigidly confine it to those persons for fear of that happening. I have given my personal pledge, as Minister responsible, that we do intend to confine ourselves to pilots and aircrafts who are engaged in carrying passengers, goods, or mails.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, b), to insert the words,

"but no such inspection or certificate shall be refused on the ground that plans were not submitted to the Secretary of State prior to the completion of the aircraft."

1.0 P.M.

The right hon. Gentleman has been so frank with us that I want to state why I put this Amendment down on the Paper. It has been said that some protection is wanted for the public, and that inspection by the Government is a necessity. The hon. Baronet took the view that he thought this proposal was not necessary, but we think it is necessary. This measure, which looks a very innocent one, gives power to inspect aircraft for public service, but there is a possibility that the Government is going to control the design of all aircraft in this country. I think that must lead to absolute stagnation in a new industry like the aircraft industry. We must allow private firms to have some initiative in design, but before any firm can do aircraft of any sort they have to go to the Government and lay before them their design before they can start. I think that provision will hamper enormously the initiative of those firms. We must remember that private firms have often been competitors before and are to-day in aviation. As we look back we see that the private firm has almost invariably beaten the Government in design and in turning out successful aircraft. If my proposal is carried it will be more difficult for the Government to squash a radically new departure if the machine is brought complete for trial, and when that is done all the Government can do is to look at the machine from the point of view of performances, and they will be able to see whether it does give the performances and results claimed for it, and whether it does the work asked of it. I must remind the House that there are fashions in aeronautics just as in anything else. We have had a fashion for the biplane and for the monoplane and we have had different kinds of engines. If you are going to allow the whole design in aircraft to be centred in the Controller-General, I think it will be a dangerous thing, because that assumes that that man must necessarily be the best, and in a new subject like this we cannot allow the whole design to rest in the hands of one man. On that point the Under-Secretary of State for Air must appreciate that with a load on their necks like this no firm is going to start the exploitation of aviation in order to hand over their ideas in regard to new machines to the Government. That is not a scheme which will promote the success of this great subject.

There is another point of view which I want to bring before the Under-Secretary. On the Second Reading I said that this Bill was a blank cheque on aviation. The Under-Secretary for Air put before us his proposed Orders in Council, and some of those, I am glad to say, have been altered, but there is still this objectionable part. The Controller-General of Civil Aeronautics, who has now passed from a soldier to the wearer of the bowler hat, said the Government intended to standardise design as much as possible. If we were dealing with ships it would never be tolerated for one minute that all ships were to be of the same design, and in a subject wrapped up with so many new possibilities it would be preposterous to impose standardisation of design. I cannot help asking what is really at the bottom of this proposal. I believe there is at the back of the Air Ministry an idea that no machine shall be built in this country unless it has the potential possibility of being turned into a war machine straight away. If the Government by means of this simple Bill have that in mind, I wish to protest here on the floor of the House. If the Government want aircraft built so that they can turn them, into war machines at a moment's notice, then let the Government say so, and let them subsidise them, but do not let such a thing be introduced under cover of this Bill. The Secretary of State for Air told us the other day that the designs for war and for commercial aircraft are taking very separate lines. If the Government are going to compel machines to be useful for war, then they are going to sacrifice their usefulness for commercial work. The two things go entirely separate ways, and it is going to be very difficult to keep them together. I do hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment, because the trade will feel very much freer in action if they can bring their machines complete for inspection and the Government can only look upon them from the point of view of whether they can do the work that is asked of them, and not whether they are machines that can be turned to use in war at a minute's notice.

I beg to second the Amendment. In doing so, I feel considerable diffidence, as my knowledge of Parliamentary debate and procedure is very small, but, as a pilot during war for four or five years, I feel rather strongly on the matter. The aeroplane which we were given to fly over the lines in France five years ago was a very different proposition from the modern machine with which the War closed. I believe in the same way the change in civilian aviation in the next four or five years will be as striking and as great. If that change be to benefit this country, then every encouragement must be given to invention in aeroplane design. I am convinced that five years from now aeroplanes will play a very large part in the transport of mails and goods throughout the world, and it seems to me a question whether this country is going to reap the benefit of that expansion, and is going to win in the race of invention and progress. My feeling is that if this Amendment be favourably considered, it will encourage and help aeroplane invention and new ideas. I know myself that many a plan for a new aeroplane looks very poor and improbable on paper, and, if it has to go up to a Government office to be considered by a number of men and is pigeon-holed for a time, the invention will be thought of by somebody else, perhaps in another country, and we shall lose the trade coming from that invention. It is vital that we should not be placed in this position, and I believe, if we can secure the lead in the invention of civilian aircraft, as we undoubtedly now have in military aircraft, it will redound to our credit and to the commercial prosperity of this country. I would, therefore, very strongly urge that this Amendment should be favourably considered, and that we should be told the Government's view as to how this situation is to be met.

It is not often that anyone on this bench listens to two speeches proposing an Amendment with which he is so entirely in accord. I say at once that I am in accord with every word that fell from my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment (Lieut.-Col. Brabazon), and, if possible, even more, with remarks that fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O. Guest), who, I think, addressed the House to-day for the first time. We are glad to welcome him here as one who is a practical flying man, and whose advice on these subjects will be of great value to the House. My only doubt is as to the best way of achieving the result which we all have at heart. I suggest, instead of putting it into the Bill, which is a somewhat unusual procedure, that I undertake to make it perfectly clear in the Regulations. I will define what we will make clear in. the Regulations. It is, perhaps, a little more drastic and complete than is proposed in this Amendment. I will deal with two points raised and explain how completely I myself, the Secretary of State, and the Air Council, are in accord with their view. They say, first of all, "We do not want any Government Department to keep on interfering with designs." I entirely agree. That is not the intention of the Air Ministry, and the Regulations will make it quite clear that is exactly what they are not to do. When. I remind the House, as I stated in a previous Debate that I myself struck out the word "suitable" in order to leave nothing but "safety" in the Regulations which provided for inspection, I think they will understand how completely that is the view of the Air Minister. Our duty is to see that aircraft are reasonably safe. It. does not matter what they are like. They may be air ships or tractors, motor planes or monoplanes; they may be of a design of a most fantastic character, but, unless it is proposed to carry people for hire, and they are bound to break the neck of the passenger, it is not our business to interfere. We act solely on the lines on which the State acts with regard to ships. If a ship is reasonably seaworthy, then whatever its design it is certified.

The next point, which is a very important one and a point of real substance, was whether the State would be tempted to endeavour to secure uniformity or standardisation of design in this new science, in order to have the advantage of having aircraft readily available for use in time of war. Here, I think, there might possibly be a divergence of view, but I say unhesitatingly that the State must not and shall not, while we have anything to do with the direction of policy, adopt so fatal an error. In my judgment, as an humble student of air matters, the divergence which we now see beginning between civilian and war types is going to be on an ever-increasing scale. I am quite sure that within a very few years the type of machine which is flown for civilian transport—in which in common with those hon. Members to whom I am speaking I see a very great future—will have diverged in a far greater degree from the fighting machine than even the merchant ship—the fast liner—has diverged from the battle-cruiser. What you want in a fighting machine is extreme speed, and climbing arid manœuvring power. They are points which may be of advantage incidentally in a commercial machine, but obviously they are not of the first importance compared with other factors which are demanded for commercial or other civilian travel. For these reasons I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Amendment that we have no intention whatever of trying to interfere with designs just because Government Departments do interfere, and I undertake to put in special words to make it quite clear that that is our intention. In the second place, still less have we the intention to try and make our Air Force a little cheaper by compelling civilians to build their machines to our design. I hope that will satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend, especially when I say that I have had long consultations with the Society of British Aircraft Manufacturers, which have been continued between the Controller of Supply and the Secretary of the Air Ministry. As far as I know, they themselves are completely satisfied that the Regulations make our intentions plain; but if they do not, I will see that words are put in to make it clear that we will not interfere with design except in so far as it is necessary to give public safety to air travelling.

Of course, we accept at once the assurance given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not his intention to insist on unnecessary inspection of designs. My hon. and gallant Friend, who has a great experience in matters of this kind, is of opinion that interference would discredit the whole thing, and I am sure it is desirable it should be avoided if you are to get progress in scientific inventions. We expect there will be changes of personnel in the Air Ministry. I hope there will be a big change in the direction of restoring to the Ministry its independence and take it away from the control of the War Office. It would be much more satisfactory from the point of view of aerial navigation that what we desire should be put into the Bill, and not depend upon the will of the Air Minister of the day. Moreover, the Bill is only a temporary measure, so there can be no real objection to making assurance doubly sure by inserting these words in the Act itself. For the people who are going to make experiments it is necessary that they should have the assurance and the knowledge that nothing will be done which would interfere with the success of their undertaking. That assurance would be much better given by an Act of Parliament than by relying on Orders in Council made by the Air Minister and laid on the Table of this House which it might be inconvenient to discuss. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he could not see his way to accept those words and put them into the Bill. He approves of the intention, he knows that the Bill is only a temporary one, and I ask him if he will let these words go in in order to make it unnecessary for Members interested in British aircraft to scan so meticulously every Order that may be brought forward.

I can only say a word in answer by leave of the House. There is really an obvious objection to putting these words in the Act. Suppose I were to promise to give to my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, to the Mover and Seconder and all those interested a copy of the Regulations embodying the substance of what they suggest. I am making Regulations to secure that any design, however fantastic, provided it safeguards reasonable public safety shall not be interferred with. I think that is far better than introducing words into the Bill. Regulations have not yet been agreed to, but they will have to be laid upon the Table of the House.

Will my right hon. and gallant Friend put some words into the Bill?

I will undertake to put words to the effect indicated in the larger Bill later on. Anyone who has had charge of a Bill knows that whenever an Amendment of this kind is put in at the last moment without consideration it may lead to all sorts of difficulties and you may defeat your object by using exact words. We will put a provision of the kind suggested in a larger Bill.

When will that be?

Directly we have got the adhesion of the foreign countries to the contention which I expect to get shortly.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, e), to leave out the words,

"imported and exported and passengers transported in aircraft into or from the British Islands, or from one of the British Islands to another,"

and to insert instead thereof the words,

"conveyed in aircraft into or from the British Islands or from one of the British Islands to another."

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).

My object in moving this Amendment is somewhat disarmed by the assurance which has just been given that there will be a larger Bill this Session. My objection was to the very drastic powers in this Bill. We have got accustomed to drastic powers in war-time, but this is a peace Bill, and I am sometimes tempted to think that the procedure of seizing Naboth's Vineyard was a very clumsy process. They had not invented Orders in Council in those days. If my right hon. and gallant Friend is prepared before this Bill has gone through to give us an assurance that the Orders in Council he proposes, before they come into operation, will be submitted to a Committee of Members—say, of Members nominated by the Air Committee—for discussion, not for decision, that would satisfy my point. The only right of interference which we possess in the case of an Order in Council is to make an Address to the King within twenty-one Parliamentary days, if it comes for discussion before a certain number of Members of this House. If my right hon. Friend failed to satisfy the proposed Committee they would have to get a body of forty Members in this House in order to make the House, and on the adjournment move an Address to the King. Ordinarily we should not even know of the existence of an Order in Council. It is simply a piece of paper nominally laid on the Table of the House, a written copy of which is given to the Librarian, and the Members generally have no means of knowing of its existence. It is that danger I wish to obviate when this Bill comes into force, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give this assurance.

I gladly give the assurance asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend that, before making an Order in Council and laying the Regulation on the Table of this House, they shall be circulated to those specially interested—for instance, the Aerial Committee of Members. I have given the same assurance in regard to Regulations to be made under this Bill. I am sure that is a good plan, and I will see that it is followed up. I wish to safeguard this, however, by saying that when the House is not sitting, or in the case of urgency, it may not be possible to do this. I do not see how such a case could arise, but it might be that something occurred involving the necessity for the Government issuing an Order in Council in the interests of public safety or of health, and, in such a case, I will give such notice as is possible. I will see that the hon. Members interested are the first to receive an advance copy of any Regulations we propose to make that will become the subject of an Order in Council.

On that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I want to ask one or two questions. The first is as to the Conference in Paris on air matters. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the civil side will be adequately represented there as well as the naval and military? In the second place, I understand the Air Ministry has a very generous scheme of air routes and aerodromes, as well as for inspection and certification. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that is to be a self-supporting organisation, and whether there is to be a charge on the companies actually using the aerodromes? I see a danger that the Air Ministry may have very good intentions, but the Treasury may not agree, and I want an assurance that Treasury agreement will be secured for any scheme the Air Ministry may put forward for the benefit of aviation.

My hon. and gallant Friend asks me, in the first place, whether the civil side of aviation will be properly represented at the Conference in Paris. It will be, to an ever-increasing degree, aviation business will become civil rather than military, and if all goes well civil aviation will become the main business of the Air Ministry. It will become of far greater importance than the military side. For the moment, of course, the military side engages far more attention, because we are still at war, but the moment we get peace then we may look forward with certainty to an immense advance in aerial travel; therefore the greater part of the time of the Air Ministry will be taken up with questions of that kind. Major-General Sykes, now the Controller-General of Civil Aviation, is the member in charge of the negotiations there on the civil side, while General Trenchard will deal with the military side of the question. My hon. and gallant Friend also asks with regard to our policy respecting aerodromes, and I gladly answer his question on that point. We want the assistance of the House in carrying out the policy which it is our object to pursue. We want to make flying much more safe by providing a large number of aerodromes, some of which are now military aerodromes, and will be so used, and some of which will be civil aerodromes. My hon. Friend asked a specific question—who is to pay for them? The military will, of course, pay the whole of the expense of the military aerodromes, and in the case of those military aerodromes which will be exclusively confined to the military, except, of course, in cases of forced landings, there, of course, the whole cost will fall upon the State.

In the case of purely civil aerodromes I think we must show the way in providing them, but I hope that before long they will become entirely self-supporting and involve no cost to the State, except so far as we find it convenient to retain the right to land in them, and for that, of course, we shall pay. But on this topic I would not like to be asked to pledge myself more definitely. We propose, and wish to promote, air travel by every possible means, and if anybody can show us a plan by which it can be made easier, safer and better, not only on these Islands, but in crossing the sea and communicating with our Dominions, we shall do our utmost to carry it out. Air travel has made considerable advance since the last occasion I spoke upon it in this House. One of our ships has been travelling in the air for 101 hours, and the speed, although it has not been conclusively computed, is estimated to have been 50 miles an hour. That means it covered a distance of over 5,000 miles, and it is possible that, with continuous speed, it was more than that. During the voyage considerable winds were met. We are far less afraid of storms in the air than any ship is on the sea, whether we are in lighter-or heavier-than-air machines. There is none of the danger of the heavy overfall of a following sea. The prospect is very favourable—more favourable day by day. I can promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman that anything we can do at the Air Ministry we will not fail to do, and we shall rely upon the assistance of hon. Gentlemen in this House and ask them to bring anything to our notice which can help in the forward movement. We can promise, so far as the Treasury will permit, that we will do everything possible to ensure the future and safety of civilian flying.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether inspection on certification will be a State charge?

I confess I have no answer ready to that question. We shall certainly do nothing to hinder the industry. I do not carry in my mind the rule with regard to ships, but I should think it would be reasonable to adopt a similar rule. If anyone in the House can elucidate the question and produce a suggestion, we shall be glad to consider it. For the moment I do not think it is laid down in the Regulations.

In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have before me a particular case which does not agree with his statement. A large commercial body submitted a scheme to the Air Ministry in which they desired assistance in opening up a route between certain districts. They received a memorandum in reply from the Air Ministry which terminated in a lot of platitudes. It said:

"The whole scheme would need careful investigation. No doubt there are difficulties. Indeed from the financial point of view it appears doubtful."

No conclusion was advised or arrived at. In a subsequent communication on this matter the authors of the scheme said:

"If Britain does not arrange a service in this locality France will."

I should like to bring this matter to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to ensure that something a good deal more definite arid specific may be given to these commercial bodies who seek assistance.

What is the date of that?

19th February.

This is a short Bill making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the returning officers' expenses. Under Section 29, Sub-section (2), of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, it was provided that the amount of the expenses of returning officers for a Parliamentary election other than a university election should be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament. When the first Estimate was presented before this House under the Local Government Board Estimates in the autumn, it was generally agreed that it would be a much more convenient form if these expenses could be made once and for all a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. The point was raised by two or three Members of the House who had taken great interest in the matter, and it may be of service, perhaps, in the new House if I point out as briefly as I can what was the practical difficulty which we were up against under the Representation of the People Act. It would be necessary to do one of two things: First, to provide for these expenses in the Estimates of the year. If that were done, it would only be once in every three or four years that the money would be expended. There would be the trouble of moving the Estimate, possibly debating it, and then having that in vain. Secondly, it would be possible that the Estimate should only be moved for by the Government when a General Election seemed near. That course is a very clumsy method of procedure. It is impossible to state when a General Electionis near.

Both of these two systems have this very great drawback: They put it in the power of the House of Commons, by refusing the Estimate, to prolong its own life and to do away with the old constitutional practice in this country that the right of dissolving Parliament rests with the Crown on the advice of his Ministers. The suggestion that the expenses should be made a charge on the Consolidated Fund was made from the Front Opposition Bench in a Debate in the autumn by the right hon. Gentleman who was then speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, Mr. Herbert Samuel. After investigating the various ways in which this matter was treated, we came to the conclusion that this was much the simplest and the best method. The Bill is practically a one-Clause Bill embodying this proposal, and when this Bill is passed the result is that whenever a General Election may come then the funds for the payment of returning officers' expenses are at once available. I think these few words suffice to explain the purport of the Bill and the necessity for it, and I hope that with that explanation the House may see fit to give it a Second Reading.

The Committee is aware that when any Bill is introduced containing a charge upon public funds a Money Resolution of this nature has to be introduced and passed through Committee and Report stage before the Bill can be circulated and introduced. The stage is generally a formal one, but the amount mentioned in this Resolution is very large, and the Bill itself is one of a peculiar and temporary nature, and so it is only fitting that at this stage I should say a few words to explain the necessity for it, leaving further details to be discussed when the Bill is before the House. The Government decided some little time ago that there should be no more Votes of Credit, and I am quite sure that met with general approbation in all quarters of the House. It was felt that the sooner we could return to the usual practice of gross Estimates the sooner the House of Commons would be able to resume that financial control over business which we all feel to be so desirable. But during this coming financial year there will be a large amount of payments which will have to be made, but the exact amount of which and the exact time at which they fall due cannot possibly be foreseen, and on those grounds it has not been practicable to include them in the Estimates. It is therefore necessary, as there is no Vote of Credit to fall back upon, that some arrangement should be made to provide a banking account for the country, so that these accounts can be met, and the way that seemed most convenient was to give such a fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund as would meet every possible obligation which might arise, and to include in the Bill the strictest regulations for the repayment of all the advances by a certain date, the date that is fixed for the last repayment being a date not later than 30th September next year. I shall see that a minute of the expenditure as it goes along is laid before the House of Commons. The class of liabilities for which we have devised this method of making payment falls under several heads. There are payments in regard to food, payments for wheat, for sugar, and for bacon, and there are payments connected with the Ministry of Shipping and the Ministry of Munitions, payments for the hire of ships and payments which may become due in matters of compensation for cancellation of contracts, and payments which may become due in the winding up of contracts where certain amounts of finished goods may still have to be taken. More than that, there will probably be considerable sums to be paid on account of materials purchased in connection with the housing schemes of the Government. It may be that such payments will arise before the Estimates can be got through this House for the Local Government Board in which these charges will appear—payments for the raw materials of houses. It may very well be that nothing like the sum I have put in this Financial Resolution will be needed. In every case there is no final payment by the Civil Contingencies Fund. In each case it is merely a temporary advance, which will be repaid either when the articles paid for are sold and the purchase-money is obtained or when the Government Department whose Estimate we may have anticipated have had their Estimates passed and will be in a position to repay the amount.

I quite agree that this is not to be taken, as has sometimes been, sought, as an opportunity for a long discussion. Sometimes it has been endeavoured to bring it almost up to the level of the Second Reading Debate on the Bill which is to succeed the Resolution upon which it is founded. The Government is asking power to pay £120,000,000 into the Civil Contingencies Fund. My hon. Friend has, with the frankness which always distinguishes him, told us how it is proposed to handle that money, in transactions in connection with wheat, sugar, bacon, shipping, and housing. I should like to know what opportunity will be given to the House to discuss those questions, and the whole question of Government trading and the control of these vital factors in the nation's physical existence. It is obvious that the whole matter is one which has been exciting the very greatest attention in the public Press and in public discussion, and the time, surely, has arrived when this House is entitled to know on what lines the Government is going in this matter! Nothing can be better than publicity and frankness, because I am quite certain, no underhand game is being played, or anything of that kind, and the greatest asset the Government can have is just to let the people know, and I am certain the people will back them if they know what the facts are, and even what the difficulties are, because they know what they have to struggle with. I would ask whether we are going to have on this a fair opportunity of discussing and knowing what the Government is doing and proposes to do?

The point the right hon. Gentleman has raised is perfectly fair. Of course, when you first hear this scheme explained, it seems very novel, but I am sure he understands that this is a temporary substitute for a Vote of Credit. With regard to a full discussion on such subjects as he mentioned, there will be a full opportunity of debating them at length on the ordinary Estimates for the Food Department and the Shipping Department, and so forth. I shall be even more relieved when he can be when the time comes if we can bring to a close all these methods of finance, and we shall be in a position to get into some kind of shape the trading accounts which have been carried on. My right hon. Friend, I am sure, quite understands that all the articles which we have to purchase by the banking system—if I may use such a phrase—are all articles of absolute necessity for this country, and all required in war time with the single exception, I think, of any money that may be required to pay for the raw materials of housing before the Local Government Board Estimates can be got through. It is quite possible that there may be no need to come for any advances, but my right hon. Friend knows the importance of getting on with houses in the country, and it might easily be that the Government were in a position where they might have to pay for a very large quantity of bricks or timber by cash transactions before Parliamentary time had allowed us to get the Estimates in which provision is made for these materials in the ordinary course. But my right hon. Friend will have every opportunity on the Estimates to discuss all these subjects.

Might I make a suggestion?

Certainly.

One knows that these Estimates are going upstairs in the first place, and are to be dealt with, as was pointed out yesterday and the day before, with no publicity at all. That is the first instance of the danger I pointed out. They can only be dealt with in public if they are taken on the floor of the House, either in Committee or on Report. The Report stage must be weeks hence, and the question is urgent and imminent now. This is my suggestion. Will the Bill to which my hon. Friend has referred be drawn in such terms that on Second Reading it will admit of discussion—not fractious, but of a really useful character—on this matter, which is exciting so much public attention at the present time? An early opportunity should be given for this House and the public to know what is being done, so that they may have an opportunity of backing the Government in any measures they are taking for meeting the very difficult situation with which they are faced. Give us and the public an opportunity, not merely of criticising, but of knowing what action, and supporting any action, the Government are taking for the public good.

I think, perhaps, it might hasten discussion if I were allowed to say a word. As I understand my right hon. Friend's point, it is not that he objects to this proposal, but that he wants to be assured that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter. Of course, under a Vote of Credit, which would be the alternative, the House would have an opportunity, if it chose, in the same way as on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is drawn very widely. Every one of these subjects can be discussed at length. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity is another thing, but the opportunity will be given.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether this Contingencies Fund is available for claims for goods supplied to the Admiralty, War Office, and Ministry of Munitions?

What sort of goods do you mean?

Goods that have been used—steel goods and materials for use for the War Office, Admiralty, and Ministry of Munitions.

The Vote is not included in this Fund. It will come on the Estimates.