Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 180: debated on Thursday 26 February 1925

House of Commons

Thursday, February 26, 1925

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

Private Business

Private Bills

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the Provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Clydebank Burgh Extension, Etc., Bill (Substituted Bill).

Renfrew Burgh Bill (Substituted Bill).

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That., in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [ Lords ] (Substituted Bill).

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

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

South Metropolitan Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (no Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Marriages Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Middlesex County Council Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 12th March.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naval and Military Pensionsand Grants

Treatment Allowance

asked the Minister of Pensions whether in every case where an ex-service man is unable to follow his employment through a disability for which he is receiving outpatient treatment, he will receive full allowances so long as he is receiving treatment and is unable to follow his employment?

I fear that the suggestion would not be in accordance with the long-standing terms of the pension warrants and could not, therefore, he adopted. Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the same subject by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts).

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into sympathetic consideration the case where a man is refused unemployment benefit because he is not fit to follow his employment, and is also refused treatment allowance by the right hon. Gentleman's Department because he is supposed to be fit for employment?

It is the practice of the Ministry to compensate a man for his disability.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of permitting the panel doctor to be present when examination takes place prior to the allowance being taken away from a man?

I do not think that question arises here, but the medical profession, I understand, are not at all in favour of that proposal.

Is it not the fact that the local panel doctor in many cases has a closer acquaintance with a man's disability than the medical doctor who examines him afterwards?

Gould the Minister not give us an assurance that he will go into this question in order to try and provide some method of relieving these hard cases?

In that case, it is quite clear that this Ministry must not go into the question of employment, for if we took into account that question of employment, it would be greatly to the disadvantage of many ex-service men who are getting good wages.

further asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on certain pensioners undergoing in-patient treatment, he will alter the regulation so that allowances in respect of in-patient treatment shall be calculated from the actual date of admission to the date of discharge, instead of as at present from the Wednesday following such admission or first attendance?

The suggestion referred to by the hon. Member has been fully considered, and I am satisfied that the present arrangement is hest in the interests of the disabled men affected. I may point out that allowances under Article 6 of the Warrant are paid for complete weeks and in advance.

Widows and Dependants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the large number of cases of pensioned ex-service men who have died as a result of their disability, and have left their widows and children destitute by reason of the fact that they married after discharge from the service and their pensions ceased upon death, ho will consider the possibility of continuing payment of the pension in such cases or, at all events of making some provision for these dependants who are now being compelled to seek the aid of the Poor Law?

I could not agree to this proposal. The responsibility of my Department in respect of death as resulting from war service has always been defined by the Royal Pension Warrants as limited to the man's family obligations as existing at the date of the contraction on service of the fatal disability.

As the right hon. Gentleman's reply is unsatisfactory, I beg, to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Need Pensions

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that capacity for self-support is now being regarded as a reason for refusing an award of need pension to the parents of men killed in the War; and if it is the settled policy of the Ministry to refuse need pensions to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit?

The grant of a pension of this class has under the terms of the Pension Warrants always been conditional on incapacity for self-support owing either to age or infirmity, and no change has been made in this respect. It is, on the other hand, a condition of the payment of unemployment benefit that the recipient is capable of work.

Appeals

also asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Members of this House who deal with pension cases which raise questions of the reconsideration of claims already dealt with by the pensions appeal tribunals are now being asked to deal directly with the appeal tribunals instead of through the Ministry; and if he will explain the reasons for this procedure?

No change in the practice of the Ministry has taken place. The hon. Member will however, of course appreciate that any complaints about such questions as the procedure of an appeal tribunal are a matter necessarily outside the purview of the Minister of Pensions and to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there are a number of ex-disability pensioners who have lost their pensions, although suffering from disabilities due to War service, through failing to comply with the Regulation governing the period in which appeals may be lodged, either through ignorance or other causes; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation whereby these men may he allowed to state their ease to an appeal tribunal?

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, as already stated in the House, arrangements are in operation to put to the tribunal cases in which the appellant can show that on account of some unavoidable cause he was prevented from exercising his right of appeal within the statutory period. This procedure, coupled with the administrative arrangements made for the correction of cases in which a final award is found to have been seriously erroneous, is, in my judgment, adequately meeting the situation. I do not think, therefore, that I could usefully adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.

My difficulty is that, when the House of Commons has passed an Act that there is to be a final limit, it is quite impossible for me to override the Act of Parliament.

Is the difficulty not that, after this House has passed an Act, Regulations are put in force which do not properly interpret the spirit of the Act?

No. Any alterations that have been made have been made in favour of the ex-service men.

In view of the difficulties, will the Minister not consider the introduction of new legislation, having regard to his experience of the working of the matter?

No. In view of such experience as I have had, I am strongly in favour of an arrangement which gives a final assessment to the pensioners, as consider that they derive great benefit from receiving a final assessment.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether pensions awarded through the appeal tribunal date from the actual date on which the pension would have commenced, irrespective of the fact that the pensioner has had to appeal to the tribunal, as was recommended last year by advisory councils.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the full answer which my hon. and gallant Friend gave on the same subject on the 16th December last to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many out-of-time appeals have been submitted to the appeals tribunal: how many of these have been objected to by the Ministry: and in how many cases have the out-of-time appeals been heard?

I would refer the hon. Member to the very full answer which I gave on this subject on the 12th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins).

Tottenham and Edmonton Committee

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the Tottenham and Edmonton local war pensions committee have had two cases brought to their notice in which part of the appellant's medical history, although in the possession of the area officers, has been withheld from the appellant and his representative: and, in view of the suspicions aroused upon this matter, whether he will receive a small deputation from the committee in order that the matter may be satisfactorily cleared up?

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to two cases which last summer were brought to the notice of my predecessor, who, after full inquiry, found that the discrepancy complained of was due to a clerical error. I am satisfied, as was my predecessor, that every care is taken to ensure that a complete precis of all the medical history of the man, as known to the Ministry, is prepared in each ease, and I do not, therefore, consider that any useful purpose would be served by the deputation suggested in the last part of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local war pensions committee are not yet satisfied, and that his predecessor, realising that, was willing to receive a deputation, and would have done so had he continued in office?

I cannot undertake to see this committee, but I have myself gone to see these precis being prepared, and I have done all I can to see that they are carefully made out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical history of Corporal Cottaral, of Pontypool, was refused to me by his Department?

If the hon. Member wishes me to answer on an individual case, he must give me notice.

I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the reply given to the hon. Member.

Seven Years' Limit

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the hardships created by the rigid application of the seven years' limit, especially in the case of the ex-service men who have been under the supervision and care of the Ministry at some period during the seven years, and where there is reasonable cause to believe that the disease for which they apply for pension has existed for some time, and that the failure to apply in accordance with the provisions of the Act has been caused by an inadequate or mistaken diagnosis of their case by the medical men at an earlier date; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to remove these hardships?

am not aware that any such ease has arisen, because ex-service men who are entitled to receive treatment from the Ministry are those who have already been awarded pension for disablement or have made a claim for this purpose. If, however, the hon. Member has any exceptional case in mind in which, owing to a mistake, the claim has not been proceeded with, I shall be glad to consider it.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases have been submitted where pensioners have received treatment for neurasthenia, or debility and have been treated at various times during the seven years, and have practically at the end of the seven years been diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis, and have been ruled out?

That, of course, would be one of the things which could be considered under the arrangement for the correction of errors, which I have already very fully explained to the House.

Government Departments

Ministry of Pensions

asked the Minister of Pensions whether any requests have been received by his Department for provision of hostels for either men or women employed at the issue office at Acton; and, if so, whether the matter has received favourable consideration?

But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that very many of the staff in this office wish to live in this healthy district, and, if so, cannot he collaborate with the Minister of Health to provide accommodation for them?

Would it not save a great deal of expense if the issue office were distributed' in the regions?

No. I can see many grave disadvantages from following that course, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that that was the view taken by the Departmental Committee, which spent many months going into this question.

Board of Education (Permanent Secretary)

asked the President of the Board of Education why it was found necessary to appoint as permanent secretary an official with no education experience; whether anyone associated with educational work in England was available; and whether a re-organisation of the work of the Department is intended?

My right hon. Friend has made the appointment referred to after the most careful consideration of all the circumstances. The appointment is not intended to foreshadow a re-organisation of the work of the Department, or to reflect in any way on the existing officers of the Board of Education, in whom he has the fullest confidence—a confidence which is being continually increased by his experience of their work.

Is it realised by the Board of Education that the appointment of a non-educationist at the head of the whole of the education of England is very much resented by all the education authorities throughout the country and by educationists, and was there any special reason why a very able and competent official, with no knowledge of education, was put at the head of a Department that wanted a very human touch?

I think the hon. Member will agree, after consideration, with the opinion of my right hon. Friend, that it is very undesirable that important appointments of this kind in the Civil Service should be discussed in this way.

Is this appointment in keeping with the policy of the Government in appointing people so that they may not bring the prejudice of their education into the job, but come with an unbiased mind or an empty mind?

Is it the rule of this House' that we cannot discuss appointments in the Civil Service?

Ministry of Health

asked the Minister of Health what was the total cost of the medical staff of the Local Government Board in 1914 and 1918, and of the increased medical staff of the Ministry of Health in 1919, 1923, and for the current year; and how many new medical officers have been appointed in the last 12 months?

As the answer is necessarily somewhat long. I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows :

The total cost of the medical staff of the Local Government. Board for salaries and travelling and subsistence expenses was £30,420 in 1914–15 and in 1918–19, including bonus, £35,743. The medical staff of the Ministry of Health cost £56,985 in 1919–20, £121,454 in 1923–24; the estimated cost for the current financial year is £122,910.

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the functions of the Ministry of Health include not only those of the Local Government Board but also of the National Health Insurance Commissions for England and Wales. The figures for 1923–24 and the current financial year include the salaries and expenses of the regional medical officers: approximately four-fifths of the total cost of this service is recovered out of National Health Insurance Funds.

Three new medical officers have been appointed in the last 12 months to fill vacancies in existing posts.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will sanction clerks and officials engaged in the Poor Law branch of the Ministry of Health standing as candidates for urban district, borough, and county councils; and if he will sanction clerks in the public health branch standing as candidates for Poor Law guardians?

No, Sir. The Ministry of Health is one Department, and must be regarded as a single whole for the purpose of distributing business amongst its officers in the interest of proper working. Any such arrangement as is suggested in the question would militate against such distribution, and I could not consider it.

Ex-Service Men

asked the Minister of Health what is the percentage of disabled ex-service men, ex-service men without disability and civilians, respectively, engaged to fill unskilled positions, such as liftmen, messengers, doorkeepers, etc., in Government offices since January, 1920?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret that I cannot give the figures asked by the hon. and gallant Member in the form of a percentage, but I am informed that all the appointments to posts of messengers, doorkeepers and similar posts of a non-industrial character in Government Departments made by the Joint Substitution Board and the Ministry of Labour in London since January, 1920, were of disabled ex-service men, except in a very few cases where the nature of the employment did not permit of the appointment of a disabled man. In these latter cases a non-disabled ex-service man was appointed. Liftmen are industrial employés, and are appointed by the Office of Works, and I regret I cannot speak as regards them.

Departmental Expenditure

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a White Paper showing, for the last five years, the total estimated expenditure and the total actual expenditure in respect of each Government Department?

The figures are always given in the annual Appropriation accounts, but if there is any general desire I will consider publishing them in a summarised form in a White Paper.

Questions

Workmen's Compensation

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in certain cases the medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been known to be almost a permanent representative of employers in compensation disputes; and will he take steps so that in future all medical referees shall be independent of either employers or employés?

I know of no such cases among the medical referees at present appointed under the Act. It is a condition of the appointment of a medical referee that he shall hold no permanent employment either on the employers' or on the workers' side, and the medical referees are enjoined that in their private practice they should as far as possible avoid cases which are likely to come before them in their official capacity. It has not been found practicable to impose any further restrictions on them.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in practice medical men who are practically permanent professional representatives of employers in compensation disputes are employed as medical referees in cases over which they may have had some jurisdiction professionally, and, since that creates a grave dissatisfaction in the mind of the injured workman, will he not consider the necessary amendment of this particular part of the Compensation Act?

This question as a matter of fact, will come up to-morrow on a Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will defer his statement till then?

Yes; I hope to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman of at least 10 medical men.

asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to schedule miners' silicosis as an industrial disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

The reported occurrence of silicosis among coal miners is under investigation by the Health Advisory Committee of the Mines Department, but I am informed that they have not yet come to any definite conclusions. Any further action must await the Committee's Report.

asked the Home Secretary if he can give the information as to the total amount secured as compensation for injury since 1913 or any fixed period of years between that time and the present?

I regret that figures are not available except as regards the seven great groups of industries from which returns are collected under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. The total compensation paid in these industries for each year since 1911 will be found on page 5 of the Volume of Workmen's Compensation Statistics for 1923 which was recently presented to Parliament.

Moneylending

asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation fixing a legal maximum rate of interest on all money loans?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the possibility of prohibiting the use of the post to moneylenders' circulars, in view of the fact that their despatch to minors through the post has already been stopped?

Can my hon. Friend say whether any decision is likely to be arrived at before the Easter Recess?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary realises the great importance of this question and I hope there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.

asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the regulation of moneylending, in view of the revelations at a London inquest in which the coroner stated that the deceased was driven to death by moneylenders?

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the West-minister Coroner made on Friday last, in connection with the death of a distinguished officer who had been driven to take his own life through falling into the hands of moneylenders, to the effect that it was time that such broadcasting of moneylenders' circulars as obtains to-day should be made illegal; and whether he will introduce legislation on the lines of the Bill introduced last year by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham to stop this?

This matter is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Would it not he quite simple to apply some such regulations as apply to the sending of immoral literature through the post?

As I said before, the Home Secretary attaches very great importance to the whole question, and the matter is now being looked into, and I hope there will be no delay in coming to some decision.

Trade Unions (Political Funds)

asked the Home Secretary how many of the 66 coin-plaints made by trade unionists to the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Trade Union Act. 1913, as to the political rules concerning levies have proved to be well founded?

asked the Horne Secretary, in view of the fact that the 66 cases of complaint in, connection with the Trades Union Act, 1913, covering the whole period from then until the present day, were all complaints in connection solely with alleged infringements of the Act, if he can state how many of such cases of alleged infringements were proved and upheld?

The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that in 33 cases the complaint was well founded and the matter of complaint was remedied by the trade union concerned; that in 15 cases the complaint was not well founded: that in five cases he asked for further particulars and received no reply from the complainant; that in eight cases the complainant did not pursue the matter after receiving an explanation from the Chief Registrar; and that the total of 66 is completed by five very recent cases which are still sub judice .

Can the hon. Gentleman say from how many million trade unionists these complaints came?

Police

Pensions (Increase) Acts

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction among many retired police officers about certain conditions in the Pension (Increase) Acts of 1920 and 1924, which debar them from obtaining the increases given to others under those Acts; also among widows of retired police officers at the restrictions contained in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, by which the older widows were debarred from benefit and left entirely unprovided for; and whether he will take steps to remove these grievances?

With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 10th instant. The Home Secretary has carefully considered the question of widows' pensions referred to in the second part and regrets that on this matter also he can hold out no hope of legislation.

Is any consideration being given to the appointment of a Committee to examine the anomalies arising out of the Pensions Acts?

I do not know that any Committee is sitting at the present time, but we have the whole question continually under review.

First-Aid Instruction

asked the Horne Secretary whether he has taken any action on the suggestion contained in the Report of Major-General Atcherley, His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary that refresher courses in ambulance work and first-aid instruction should, at suitable intervals, be made open to, or compulsory for, the police force?

My right hon. Friend is at present looking into the whole question.

White Overalls

asked the Home Secretary if he will state what reply his Department has given to the motor associations and other bodies which have urged him to provide white overalls for the police when on point duty?

I do not think my right hon. Friend has received any representations in this sense from the motor associations, at any rate of late.

Is it not the case that wherever these white overalls have been tried throughout the country they have always proved satisfactory?

We have had a good many representations about the wearing of white gloves, but so far as I know we have had practically no representations about the wearing of white overalls.

So far as the wearing of white gloves is concerned, is it not the fact that only one pair was issued to each police station?

Questions

Poor Litigants (Assistance)

asked the Home Secretary it he is now in a position to state when the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Lawrence, dealing with the question of the defence of poor prisoners, is likely to report?

The Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Lawrence was concerned only with the rules regulating civil litigation by or against poor persons in the Supreme Court, and not with the defence of poor prisoners. The Committee has presented its Report which will be available for the use of Members as soon as sufficient copies have been printed.

Taximeters

asked the Home Secretary if, before issuing licences for taxicabs, he will see that there are larger and clearer figures on the meters of these cabs and a better lighting of these meters at night, so that passengers may without difficulty see what they have to pay?

The Commissioner of Police advises me that with any known type of taximeter it is not possible to obtain larger or clearer figures owing to limited space. The question of more efficient illumination is engaging the attention of the licensing authority.

Is it not possible to enlarge the space and so enlarge the figures so that the light is really thrown upon the meter, and the passengers know what they have to pay?

Is there any connection between this question and the one that immediately follows about night clubs?

I think the question of illuminating is the important question—much more important than the question of size.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people will never be able to see the figures, however large they are

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very often the bars—[HON. MEMBERS: "What bars?"]—the bars in front of the glass prevent passengers from seeing the meters? Will he remove these bars?

Night Clubs

asked the Home Secretary how many night clubs have recently been raided by the police in London; and whether the names both of the proprietors and inmates arrested for breach of the law have been made public 7

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that six night clubs have been raided in the West End of London since 1st January, 1925. No power of arrest exists for the offences usually committed at these clubs. The names of proprietors and others proceeded against by summons are always given in the Press.

Is it true, as reported in the Press, that the method has been adopted of dressing police officers up like frequenters of these night clubs; and, if that be the case, does not the hon. Gentleman consider it a somewhat un-English proceeding; and would not the publication of the real names of those found in the clubs, and the proprietors, be a more effectual deterrent?

Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether any building operatives have been found in any of these night clubs?

As the Noble Lord is aware, the Home Secretary is looking into the whole question, and I anticipate that very shortly a Bill to deal with it will be presented to Parliament.

What is the total number of night clubs in existence known to the Department?

Franchise (Proposed Conference)

asked the Home Secretary if the conference on franchise questions will include in its reference the question of the method of voting at elections?

My right hon. Friend cannot make any further statement at present on the proposed conference.

Am I to understand that the opinion of the Government is that the present method of voting gives an accurate reflection of the opinion of the electorate?

Prisoners (Bail)

asked the Home Secretary whether, in accordance with the Report of the Commissioner of Prisons, Command Paper 2307, any action has been taken on a suggestion of the governor of Cardiff prison, that a leaflet, explaining in simple language the meaning of bail and the methods of obtaining it, should be prepared for the use of prisoners to enclose to their friends and relations; and, if not, whether, in view of the difficulties that arise from the inability of poor and respectable persons to understand technical language and procedure, and their consequent failure to grasp the significance of an appeal from a prisoner, he will consider the preparation of such a leaflet?

A leaflet has been prepared and steps will be taken to make full information on the subject readily available for all who require it.

"Sunday Worker"Newspaper

asked the Home Secretary whether he has issued instructions to keep under observation persons connected with, and the offices of, a new paper, the "Sunday Worker"; if not, under whose authority or instruction was a visit paid by two members of the Criminal Investigation Department to the residence of the owner of the premises in which the offices are situated; on whose authority did they demand access to the offices without either producing a warrant or the permission of the occupants of the said offices; and had these two officers authority to discuss or inquire into the political opinions of the said owner?

I know nothing of the "Sunday Worker," and my right hon. Friend has issued no instructions about it. The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police informs me that no such visit as is described in the question has been paid by any members of his force.

If two persons have visited this lady's house, producing a card alleged to be their authority as Scotland Yard persons, was that a forgery like the other notorious letter?

Licensed Premises (Opening Hours)

asked the Home Secretary if he contemplates bringing in legislation in order to obtain greater legitimate freedom and uniformity in times of opening licensed premises?

My right hon. Friend can hold out no prospect of legislation on this subject at present.

asked the Home Secretary if he will consider bringing in legislation to restore the privilege of Sunday opening in the county of Monmouth, in conformity with adjoining English counties?

Dancing Clubs

asked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of clubs licensed for dancing and the sale of intoxicants in London at the present time; whether he has any figures of the numbers of dancing clubs in London which are not on the register; and how many dancing clubs have been raided by the police in London and the provinces, respectively, since he took office?

The number of registered clubs in the Metropolitan Police District on the 1st January, 1924, was 1,510. I have no means of knowing in how many of these dancing is carried on. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that beyond the figures given in answer to the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley), as to raids on night clubs in the West End of London since the 1st January last, I am not in a position to give the figures asked for.

Is there nothing stated on the licence of a club as to whether or not dancing is permitted on the premises? Do not they have to get some sort of permission?

The difficulty is that you do not require a licence for dancing unless it is a public dance. If it is merely a question of a club for private dancing, no licence is required.

Service Men (Minor Offences)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the numerous statements in the recent Report of the Prison Corn missioners that young soldiers and sailors were being committed to prison for minor offences which could have been much better dealt with by the military authorities; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I am strongly of opinion that when a young soldier or sailor has been guilty of a minor offence which can be adequately dealt with by his commanding officer, it is generally better that he should be so dealt with than that he should be prosecuted at a police court and sent to prison for his offence, but I do not know how far the cases mentioned in the Appendix to the Prison Commissioners' Report may form exceptions to the general rule, and I will make inquiry in the matter.

Blasphemy Laws

asked the Home Secretary if the Government are prepared to take the necessary steps to repeal the existing blasphemy laws?

The Government do not propose to introduce any legislation on this subject?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the precincts of this House last night there was a good deal of blasphemy?

Anthrax

asked the Home Secretary whether he will take some action with a view to securing an international agreement with reference to disinfection of dangerous materials, thereby minimising the danger of anthrax?

Repeated efforts have been made by His Majesty's Government to secure an international agreement for the disinfection of dangerous wool and hair, but I regret to say without success. For an account of the action taken I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to pages 11 to 14 of the Report of the British Government Delegates to the last International Labour Conference, which was recently presented to Parliament. I am afraid that there is no ground for hoping that a further attempt at the present time would have any different result.

If nothing can be done internationally will the hon. Gentleman do anything within the ambit of the United Kingdom?

We are always trying to come to some mutual arrangement with other countries, and we shall continue to do so.

In view of the fact that the international difficulties arise through differences between India, Australia and ourselves, will the hon. Gentleman see to it that a conference is called in time to settle the Empire difficulties before the Geneva Conference?

asked the Home Secretary if he will give an assurance that before any further scheduling of wool by Order in Council or other means he will consult the trades concerned?

Yes, Sir. No new materials would be scheduled for disinfection except after the fullest opportunity had been given to the trades concerned to represent their views.

Is it not a fact that on each occasion which it was proposed to schedule new material the trade has always been consulted?

asked the Home Secretary if, before making an Order in Council that the disinfection of East Indian wool and China and North African goats' hair shall be compulsory in this country, the Government will prohibit the importation into this country of goods made in other countries from similar material, unless the same has been treated in the same manner as required in this country?

Any proposals to this effect would be carefully examined, but there are various important considerations which would have to be taken into account, and my right hon. Friend is not hi a position to give any pledge in the matter.

Education

British and Continental Schools(Intervisitation)

asked the President of the Board of Education if he is prepared to consider schemes dealing with the intervisitation of suitable children in the higher classes of elementary schools and secondary schools in this country with children in schools in France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy; and if he will adjust the expenditure in some of the sections of his Department to enable savings resulting thereafter to be expended on this practical form of education

As regards secondary schools, there are a number of unofficial schemes at present in operation for the exchange of both teachers and pupils with France; and under a convention between the Board of Education and the French Ministry of Public Instruction a number of young teachers and intending teachers of modern languages are appointed each year to the secondary schools and training colleges of each country. There are, of course. considerable difficulties in the way of the extension of such arrangements in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, but if a local authority were to submit proposals for the purpose my Tight hon. Friend would be prepared to consider them sympathetically and to recognise for grant any reasonable expenditure involved, provided that he were satisfied that the proposals were, in themselves educationally desirable and that the financial and other arrangements contemplated were suitable.

Technical Colleges and Institutions(Equipment)

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will make monetary grants towards part cost of valuable technical models and machines which many manufacturing firms would present to technical colleges and institutions in their own localities for use of engineering and other students, but find themselves unable to do so under present conditions?

It is open to a local education authority to arrange for the acquisition of such technical models and machines as they may require for the equipment of technical colleges. Any expenditure reasonably incurred by an authority for this purpose would be recognised as part of their expenditure on higher education for the purpose of the Board's grant. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any grounds for thinking that special provision is required in this connection.

Will the Noble Lady represent to the President of the Board of Education the vital need, in small towns where the type of model is of so expensive a character, as to be beyond the means of the ratepayers, of snaking some grant through the Finance Minister to such bodies?

I am sure my right hon. Friend would take into consideration any cases which were represented to him.

Special Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will say what is the total school population, the number of places provided in special schools for the mentally defective, and the number of children who have been medically examined and deemed suitable, but who, owing to want of accommodation, have been awaiting admission to such schools for six months or longer in Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, respectively?

As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer :

I assume that the object of the hon. Member's question is to ascertain how many defective children there are in the areas concerned, for how many of such children provision is made in special schools, and how many such children, having been medically examined and certified as suitable for admission to special schools, have been awaiting admission for six months or longer owing to lack of accommodation. According to the latest returns furnished to my Department, the number of children ascertained during 1924, in the areas concerned, to be mentally defective was: Manchester, 1,370; Leeds, 296; Birmingham, 1,220; and the number of children from each of these areas attending special schools for mentally defective children during 1924 was: Manchester, 657; Leeds, 279; Birmingham, 1,186. I am informed by the local authorities concerned that the number of children who have been medically examined and certified as suitable for admission to special schools for mentally defective children, but are at the present moment awaiting admission owing to insufficiency of accommodation, is: Manchester, 537; Leeds, 0; Birmingham, 17. I am not in a position to state for what period these particular children have been awaiting admission.

asked the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the inadequate provision which at present exists for the education of mentally deficient and physically defective children, he will consider taking measures to increase the facilities for the education of these defective children?

This matter is engaging the active consideration of my Department, and my right hon. Friend has recently issued to local education authorities a Circular, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, drawing their attention to the need for augmenting the provision made for defective children, and asking them to inform him of the lines on which' they are moving and the progress which they make?

School Buildings (Survey)

asked the President of the Board of Education when the last survey of school buildings was taken; how many education authorities have been notified of the unfit and unhygienic condition of their schools; and what is the number of such schools throughout the country?

A survey was made last year of the worst public elementary school premises in the areas of the London County Council, the county boroughs and the boroughs and urban districts in England which are local education authorities for elementary education. As a result, letters have been addressed to 165 authorities (out of 239), and the number of schools or departments mentioned is 807 (out of 5,760). This figure includes not only schools which, in the opinion of the Board, are altogether unsuitable, but also schools which are structurally unsuitable in part or for their present numbers in varying degrees. A similar survey is in progress in the areas of the county councils in England (apart from London), and it is hoped that the results of the survey of the areas of all local authorities in Wales will shortly be available.

Business Training

asked the President of the Board of Education whether instruction in the addressing of letters, the use of the postal directory, the use of the telephone, the giving of change, and other simple duties of business life, is given in elementary schools of London or other large towns?

My right hon. Friend has no doubt that most teachers lose no opportunity of giving point to the ordinary instruction in the schools by reference to such operations as those mentioned by the hon. Member.

Housing

Stamped-Steel Ceilings

asked the Prime. Minister whether he has now obtained information to the effect that a metal stamping company, who are the manufacturers of stamped-steel ceilings, had orders from the Gateshead and Newcastle Corporations to fix their ceilings in houses in the corporation's areas waiting for the ceilings in such houses to be finished; that when the employés of the firm started fixing the ceilings the officials of the Plasterers' Union intimated that their men would be called out on strike unless the men fixing the metal ceilings at once ceased from work; that in consequence of this action the orders given to the company have been cancelled, whereby some 45 houses which might have been made ready for occupation in one or two weeks remain unfinished; and whether he will grant facilities for passing the necessary legislation to secure freedom of contract in the building and fitting up of houses and generally to prevent interference by interested parties with the completion of houses urgently needed by the public?

I understand it was proposed as an experiment to try one ceiling of that material in one house. I am informed that the experiment was abandoned by the local authority on objection being taken on behalf of the plasterers. I am unable to say on what grounds the Plasterers. Union claimed to veto the use of a particular material, but as no objection was raised to other substitutes for plastering, and as I am informed that the completion of the houses has not been delayed by this incident, I do not think I can take any further action.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 45 houses were to be built in this way and could have been so built, and that it was simply because the plasterers thought it was interfering with their work that they put the veto on it, and does he not think that the Weir house—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Does not this require the immediate attention of the Government?

In view of the allegations against the men in the question and in the supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what was the actual reason for the men ceasing work?

Assuming that the facts are as stated, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now 50 houses open and on exhibition in Gateshead which were finished by direct labour, and if they had been under private contracts they would not have been finished for another three weeks?

Unoccupied Houses

asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation giving local authorities power to compulsorily rent unoccupied houses for the temporary accommodation of persons dehoused during municipal and local schemes of rebuilding, such as that for the Tabard Street area, Southwark?

I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not think that it appears a practical solution of the problem of expediting improvement schemes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of erecting temporary buildings on the waste land in districts such as Tabard Street to alleviate the distress of those poor people during these rebuilding schemes?

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the resolution passed by the overseers for the parish of Liverpool that, having regard to the shortage of dwelling-houses, local authorities be empowered to levy rates after an interval of three months on unoccupied dwelling-houses in cases where such houses are deliberately held up for sale; and, if so, whether the Government propose to promote legislation to embody this proposal?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply.

Are not the difficulties referred to in the previous answer less than the difficulties of the tenants who want to get houses owing to these houses remaining empty, and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is the duty of statesmanship to overcome the difficulties in order to relieve the hardship which exists owing to the prevailing practice?

Non-Brick Houses

asked the Minister of Health whether arrangements have been made for the erection of demonstration houses on the Telford and Wild systems; and, if so, in what towns the houses are to be erected?

I will send the hon. Member a list of the local authorities who have been invited to erect these demonstration houses.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the difficulty in regard to getting houses quickly and cheaply is even more urgent in the rural districts, and could he arrange that demonstration houses should be placed within the reach of rural districts?

I have not lost sight of the rural districts, and I have included some amongst those receiving the demonstration houses.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange to include in his periodical statement of the progress of house building under assisted schemes particulars of houses being built by approved alternative methods of construction?

I cannot undertake to furnish detailed information concerning the numerous alternative methods of construction, but I will consider how far it is possible to obtain additional particulars on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

further asked the Minister of Health whether the promoters of the Atholl and Wild houses are prepared to conform to the wages and conditions prevailing in the building industry?

I understand that the promoters referred to are prepared to conform to the wages and conditions of the building industry so far as these are applicable to their methods of construction.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet approved any scheme for the erection of Weir houses; if so, what is the tender price of the houses; what size the houses will be; and for what term of years the money for their construction is being borrowed?

Apart from the houses to be erected in various centres for demonstration purposes, I have not received any applications from local authorities for approval to the erection of Weir houses, but I understand that some authorities are at present considering the matter. I propose to allow a period of 40 years for the repayment of loans raised in connection with this type of house.

Is it not the case that in the opinion of Lord Weir himself the lifetime of these houses will be limited to 30 years?

No; I understand that in Lord Weir's opinion it will be longer than the 40 years.

Decontrolled Houses (Rents)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiries in selected towns into the rents being charged for houses which have become decontrolled and the number of houses decontrolled?

I have already made some inquiries into this matter, and, judging by the nature of the information obtained, I do not think there would be any advantage in pursuing the investigation.

Agricultural Parishes

asked the Minister of Health whether any local authorities are arranging for the erection of houses in agricultural parishes under the terms of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the local authorities and the number of houses to be built?

1,122 houses have, up to the present, been authorised for erection in agricultural parishes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924–980 by local authorities and 142 by private enterprise. I will send the hon. Member a list of the local authorities concerned and the number of houses approved for each.

Re-Planning

asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to require local authorities to prepare plans for replanning built-up areas?

I hope, when a favourable opportunity occurs, to introduce a Measure empowering local authorities to town-plan built-up areas.

Direct Labour

asked the Minister of Health what local authorities have built, or are building, houses under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 by direct labour: how many houses are being so built; and whether he can give any particulars of the costs?

Fifty local authorities have built, or are building, houses by direct labour in connection with schemes under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924. The number of houses included in such schemes is 4,010. Information is not available as to the final costs of houses completed under these schemes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me—I am sorry if it was not ma de clear in the question—the number of houses under the 1924 Act as distinct from the 1923 Act?

I have not the particulars of the two separately, as I did not understand that they were asked for in the question, but I will ascertain and send the particulars to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a Report prepared by the Housing Committee of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Corporation on the building of houses by direct labour; and whether he will have a copy procured for the information of hon. Members, to be placed in the Library of the House

The Report in question has not been brought to my notice. I am asking the Corporation of Newcastle-on-Tyne to let me have a copy, and will consider the suggestion in the latter part of the question.

Slums

asked the Minister of Health, inasmuch as the boroughs locked in the centre of large cities are well known to be suffering severely from slum and other overcrowding, will he state what action he is taking to remedy this evil; and can he see his way to suggest some financial encouragement to the local authorities to take immediate and obvious steps towards remedying it?

Local authorities have power to initiate schemes for the clearance and reconstruction of insanitary areas, and 68 such schemes have been approved since 1919. Under the Housing Act, 1923, a contribution may be made from the Exchequer up to half the estimated average annual loss to be incurred by the local authority in carrying out the scheme.

Public Building

asked the Minister of Health why the Ministry of Health is at present restricting the use of bricks on certain kinds of construction: and what are the kinds of construction on which the use of bricks is restricted?

In order to permit of the maximum amount of building-work to be undertaken during the present shortage of bricklayers, I am encouraging local authorities to adopt alternative methods of construction on public buildings wherever these can be conveniently substituted for bricks.

Is it the case that the restriction on the use of bricks is mainly in house-building, whereas there is a free use of bricks and stone in the erection of motor garages, warehouses and factories?

I am asking a question, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer.

I confess I did not understand the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he will put it on the Paper.

If I put it down in writing, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will he able to understand it.

Materials (Profiteering)

asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to introduce legislation during the present Session for the prevention of undue profiteering in building materials?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statements on the subject which I made in connection with the Debate on the Address and on the Supplementary Estimates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when he hopes to introduce the Bill?

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet started his inquiries into the last increase in the prices of the Light Castings Association?

No, Sir; I was anxious to appoint another Chairman of the Committee before the investigation started.

Inquiry, Liverpool (Costs)

asked the Minister of Health whether, under Section 8, subsection 7, of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, he will reconsider the decision with regard to the question of costs of the inquiry held in Liverpool in connection with properties at 337, 339 and 345, Scotland Road, Liverpool, in view of the successful appeal of the owners against inclusion in the scheme prepared by the Corporation?

The point raised in the hon. Member's question has been very carefully considered, but I regret that I am unable to modify the decision which has already been communicated to the appellants.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the expense in this matter was brought upon the owners of the property purely by a mistake of the Department, and is it fair to ask the owners of the property to bear the expense of the Department's mistake?

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry into the matter and ascertain, and, if it is so, will he reconsider that point?

Questions

Russia (British Trading Interests)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is considering taking any steps to safeguard British trading interests in Russia, in view of the agreement recently signed between Japan and the Soviet Union?

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on the 17th February, unless it be that I see no reason to suppose that this treaty in any way jeopardises British trade interests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese market recovered from a very serious depression immediately on the signing of this treaty?

Inter-Allied Debts

asked the Prime Minister whether, following on the last exchange of notes between the British and French Governments on the subject of inter-Allied debts, he can state when the next meeting of representatives of the British and French Governments will take place to discuss this and like subjects; and who the British representatives will be?

No, Sir. It is not possible to decide these matters until a reply has been received from the French Government to the recent British note.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action he proposes to take if there is no reply from the French Government?

Of course that is a hypothetical question which cannot reasonably be answered.

Ministry of Labour

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of changing the name of the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Industry?

The change of title suggested could not be made without careful consideration of its effect in relation to the functions of the Board of Trade. The proposed change, moreover, raises the wider question of the possible reallocation among Departments of the functions of government.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government considering any change, they will also consider the question of raising the Labour Ministry to the status of other Ministries?

That is a subject which is under my consideration at the present time.

Unemployment Relief(Edmonton)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that from November, 1920, to January, 1925, the Edmonton Board of Guardians have disbursed £534,502 in relief to able-bodied unemployed cases, and in addition have incurred considerable expense in the provision of increased staffs, etc., necessary for the administration of this relief; and if he will state when the Government intends to bring forward proposals with the view to the maintenance of unemployed becoming a national charge, and thus relieving the local rates of their present heavy burden?

I would remind the hon. Member of the very substantial relief to the local rates which has resulted from the extension of the system of unemployment insurance. The Government do not propose to make the whole cost of maintaining unemployed persons a national charge.

National Health Insurance(Record Cards)

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many approved societies' representatives fail to give receipted record cards to their members, thus depriving members of security against loss by stamps becoming detached and being lost; and whether he is prepared to issue Regulations to make the giving of a record card obligatory?

It is a requirement of the existing Regulations that record cards shall be issued by Approved Societies to their members for the purpose of recording particulars of contributions paid. I am aware that some-difficulties have arisen in connection with the matter, and representations for a change of the system have been made to the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, who will, no doubt, deal with the subject in their Report. In the meantime I am prepared to make inquiries in any case in which it appears that representatives of societies have failed to carry out their instructions.

Food Adulteration

asked the Minister of Health if he will appoint a committee to inquire into and report to him as to the most prevalent methods of food adulteration, other than by preservatives, now in operation; and whether thereafter he will frame Regulations similar to those recently issued relating to preservatives, which shall define the duties of food inspectors with reference to modem methods of adulteration, and render the application of the law easier and more prompt.

The Committee on Food Preservatives are extending their inquiries to include the treatment of flour with chemical substances. While I will of course consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend, I am inclined to think that it will be best to dispose of this question and of the question of preservatives in food before undertaking further commitments.

Maternity Homes (Fees)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the high fees charged to inmates of maternity homes; and whether he proposes to take steps to secure a substantial reduction of these fees?

I am not aware that there is any general complaint that the fees charged to inmates of maternity homes are too high, although there is evidence that in certain cases the amount of the fees asked may have deterred some women from entering the homes. As regards the second part of the question, I have recently circularised the authorities of the grant-aided maternity homes, pointing out that, while women should in general pay what they can reasonably afford, no necessitous woman should be excluded from these homes merely on the ground that she is unable to contribute a certain sum towards the cost of her treatment.

Ante-Natal Clinics

asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes, in view of the present rate of maternal mortality, to call the attention of local authorities to the importance of establishing effective ante-natal clinics and of making adequate provision for the care of women about to become mothers?

A circular was issued by my Department on the 30th June last, calling the attention of local authorities to the importance of these and other measures for reducing the maternal mortality rate. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the circular.

Machinery Rating

asked the Minister of Health the total number of rating authorities in Great Britain entitled to levy rates upon machinery; the number of authorities which impose rates on machinery; and the total average annual amount thus realised for the past four years?

The number of rating authorities in England and Wales is approximately 16,000. The valuation lists do not show separately the value of machinery which may have been taken into account, and I am unable, therefore, to supply the hon. Member with the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question.

Food Preservatives Andcolouring Matters

asked the Minister of Health when he is to publish the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Preservatives and Colouring Matters in Food?

The Report of the Committee has already been published, and draft Regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, based on the Committee's recommendations, have recently been issued and are on sale.

Have the Government any intention of taking some space in every paper so that the public may know what the Report contains?

No, Sir; I do not think that that is necessary. I think that most of the papers have published the Regulations, and the Report of the Committee can, as I have stated, be purchased.

But the public are not yet grasping what has taken place in this Committee, and I hope the Government will see their way to take a little space in every paper to give the prominent points.

Municipal Banks

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the success of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, he proposes to introduce legislation to extend the benefit of the scheme to other municipalities?

I have been asked to answer this question. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on the subject.

Poor Law Relief, West Ham

asked the Minister of Health whether he has recently received complaints against the present procedure of the West Ham Board of Guardians, in which income or earnings of children, boys or girls, at work are taken into consideration where the parents apply for relief; and whether such proceedings are taken on the initiative of the local guardians or upon the instruction of his Department?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the law requires a board of guardians, in deciding whether relief may be: granted in any particular case, to take into consideration, subject to certain statutory exceptions, all means available for the support of the applicant.

Is there any legal obligation compelling children living at home, to maintain able-bodied parents and other children who may be dependent upon those parents?

That, I think, is entirely a different question. I do not think there is any legal obligation, but the means available for the relief of the applicant have to be taken into consideration by the guardians.

How can means which are not legally at the disposal of the person applying for relief be taken into account in assessing what shall be given?

The means may be available, although they may not be legally demanded.

Old Age Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take into consideration the simplification of the Regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924:; whether he is aware that the wording of this Act is extremely difficult for the old age pensioners to understand; and whether, in addition, he will consider the desirability of modifying the law, especially in the direction of removing the penalty on earnings which the Act referred to introduced?

The local pension officer is always ready to explain the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts to applicants for pensions. In addition, a leaflet was issued last year describing the alterations made by the Act of 1924. A new leaflet giving information in as simple language as possible as to the old age pension scheme as a whole is in preparation and will shortly be available. As regards the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I can add nothing to the indication of the Government's policy in regard to old age pensions which has already been made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the Members of his party are pledged to this reform?

German Reparation

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Ruhr Accounts under Article 12 of the recent Finance Agreement reached in Paris are to be presented to the Reparation Commission?

I am informed that the Reparation Commission is taking all possible steps to deal with the valuation of the receipts obtained by the French, Belgian and Italian Governments in the Ruhr in cash and in kind since the 11th January, 1923, with a view to establishing the accounts required by Article 12 of the Agreement referred to by the hon. Member. It is not, however, possible at present to forecast with any certainty the date by which the accounts will be settled.

Will the Reparation Commission decide whether to allow the expenses of France and Belgium in the occupation of the Ruhr?

Income Tax(Residence Appeals)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many notices of appeal have been received under Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1924; how many cases have been heard; the number of decisions given in favour of appellants; and the number of decisions given in favour of the Crown?

The Special Commissioners have received 37 applications under the section named. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the desirability—in his own interests—of the attendance of the appellant often makes it difficult in these cases to fix an early date for hearing, which is convenient to all parties. The Special Commissioners have, however, already heard seven of these applications, of which four have been decided in favour of the Crown and three in favour of the appellant, and arrangements have been made for the hearing of nine more cases on dates which have been fixed to suit the convenience of the appellants.

Indian and Colonialpensioners (Income Tax)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue is causing deductions of Income Tax to be made from pensions paid by the Indian and Colonial Governments in cases where appeals are pending under the section referred to in the previous question, and that in some cases the hearing of appeals is delayed for six months or upwards; and what steps are being taken to accelerate the hearing of such cases?

I think that the appeals, to which my hon. Friend is referring, against deduction of tax from the pensions paid by the Indian and Colonial Governments, are primarily appeals to the Special Commissioners under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1922, although in some of the cases an application under Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1924, may also be involved. For the reason which I have indicated in the reply to my hon. Friend's previous question, there is, in certain instances, some unavoidable delay in arranging for the hearing of these cases, but he may rest assured that all possible steps are being taken to expedite matters.

Arcos, Limited (Income Tax)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the firm of Arcos, Limited, has made a return for Income Tax assessment since the date of establishment in this country; whether any Income Tax was paid between that date and the date of registration as a limited company at Somerset House; whether, since the date of registration, the company has made an annual return for assessment; and, if so, whether Income Tax has been paid?

The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from furnishing particulars regarding the tax liability of individual companies, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the company to which he refers is being dealt with in conformity with the law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this company has done £50,000,000 of business?

Empire Cotton

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government moneys, if any, have been voted to the British Cotton Growing Association and the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, respectively, and for what purposes

have been asked to reply. No Government moneys have been voted to the British Cotton Growing Association. A total sum of 2988,715 has been voted to the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation from public funds for the purpose of encouraging and assisting the development of cotton growing within the Empire. This sum represented profits accruing to the British Government under the Egyptian Cotton Control Scheme. The hon. Member will find details on page 5 of the Supplementary Estimate which was presented to this House in July, 1921 (H.C. 172 of 1921).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the cotton corporations referred to is actually acting as agent for a Portuguese East African cotton-growing concern, and is that within the limits of the conditions under which the subsidy is granted?

I am aware that the cotton corporation, which is associated with the whole English industry, employers and employed, is doing the most admirable work.

If any hon. Member brings a particular point I will look into it.

Gold Coinage

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of minting new gold coinage, he will consider the question of changing the design on the reverse side from St. George and the Dragon to some other design, such as Britannia, which would be more representative of the United Kingdom?

Naval Air Arm

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Chairman of the Estimates Committee was consulted before the Vote for the Naval Air Arm was transferred to the Naval Estimates?

The answer is in the negative. The functions of the Estimates Committee are to examine estimates actually presented to the House of Commons. Provision for the cost of the Naval Air Arm continues in fact to be made on Air Votes, but a grant-in-aid thereof will in future be made from Navy Votes.

Has the consent of the House of Commons ever been obtained to this change?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Herbert Samuel's Committee, dealing with the Estimates Committee, recommended that it should be given these powers?

It is a matter which necessarily will be before the Public Accounts Committee. In fact, the Treasury is taking steps to bring it to their notice.

Is it not a fact that the Public Accounts Committee does not see the Estimates before hand, but Only after the money has been spent?

The Public Accounts Committee are concerned with the form of accounts, and so far as it is not merely a matter of policy, we are taking steps to bring this matter to their notice.

Has it nut been laid down that no change in the Estimates may be made unless the Public Accounts Committee has been first consulted?

No purely accounting change. In this matter there is large policy as well.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House of Commons has ever given its assent to the division of the charges of the Air Force between the two Services.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is really a proper way to deal with a great change?

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it a proper question to put without notice?

Business of the House

Will the Prime Minister tell us what business it is proposed to take next week.

On Monday, Trade Facilities Bill, Second Reading; British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee), Report stage of Money Resolution; and Second Reading of the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill.

Tuesday: China Indemnity (Application) Bill, Second Reading; Trade Facilities Bill, Committee; and Private Business at 8.15.

Wednesday: Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Money Resolution, Committee; Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill, Second Reading; Private Member's Motion at 8.15.

If time permit on any of the days I have mentioned, we will consider other Orders on the Paper.

Thursday: Civil Service Vote on Account, in Committee.

What is the meaning of the Notice of Motion with regard to Supply? How much of the Air Force Votes is it proposed to take?

I am glad that question has been asked. I have put down this Motion merely as a precautionary Measure because of the desire to get the Committee stage of Votes 1, 2, 3 and 4. I do not expect that the House will have to sit after 11 o'clock as a matter of fact, and if we find in the course of the Debate that many questions have to be raised, and that there is obviously room for much more discussion, I shall be very pleased to arrange for a full day to be given for Report. Stage in order that the matters may be discussed. The, hon. and gallant Gentleman may possibly remember that the usual time on Report Stage is half a day.

The right hon. Gentleman said Votes 1, 2, 3 and 4. Are we taking Vote A to-night?

Does the Prime Minister intend to move the closure, on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair, if necessary

That is a question that I would rather not answer now. I do not anticipate it will be necessary. We are giving ample time for the discussion.

Does the Prime Minister consider that one day is sufficient to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates, and to take all these Important votes? There are certain questions of policy arising. I do not think it is quite fair to the House.

We are suggesting giving half a day more than I remember has been given before. I think the time allowed is ample.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted at tins day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister .]

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 112.

Division No. 21.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Briscoe, Richard George

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Crook, C. W.

Albery, Irving James

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Bullock, Captain M.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Dalkeith, Earl of

Apsley, Lord

Burman, J. B.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

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

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Butt, Sir Alfred

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Caine, Gordon Hall

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Campbell, E. T.

Drewe, C.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Balniel, Lord

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Ellis, R. G.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Elvedon, Viscount

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Christie, J. A.

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Berry, Sir George

Clarry, Reginald George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Betterton, Henry B.

Clayton, G. C.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Fermoy, Lord

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

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Fielden, E. B.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Cohen, Major J Brunel

Finburgh, S.

Blundell, F. N.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Fleming, D. P.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cooper, A. Duff

Forrest, W.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Cope, Major William

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Couper, J. B.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Brass, Captain W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Gates, Percy

Briggs, J. Harold

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

Savery, S. S.

Goff, Sir Park

Lumley, L. R.

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Gretton, Colonel John

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

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

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

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

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

MacIntyre, Ian

Skelton, A. N.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Hammersley, S. S.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hanbury, C.

Macquisten, F. A.

Smithers, Waldron

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Harland, A.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Malone, Major P. B.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

Haslam, Henry C.

Margesson, Captain D.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Hawke, John Anthony

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Hilton, Cecil

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Tasker, Major R, Inigo

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

Murchison, C. K.

Templeton, W. P.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Homan, C. W. J.

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

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

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

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Nuttall, Ellis

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Oakley, T.

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

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

Penny, Frederick George

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hurd, Percy A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Philipson, Mabel

Watts, Dr. T.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wells, S. R.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Price, Major C. W. M.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Radford, E. A.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

Raine, W.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Jacob, A. E.

Ramsden, E.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rentoul, G. S.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rice, Sir Frederick

Wise, Sir Fredric

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Womersley, W. J.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Lamb, J. Q.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Wood, Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Ropner, Major L.

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

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Loder, J. de V.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

Looker, Herbert William

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Lougher, L.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sandon, Lord

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

NOES.

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

Connolly, M.

Pirst, G. H.

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ammon, Charles George

Day, Colonel Harry

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Attlee, Clement Richard

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Barnes, A.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Barr, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

Batey, Joseph

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Kelly, W, T.

Bromfield, William

Groves, T.

Kennedy, T.

Bromley, J.

Grundy, T. W.

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Kirkwood, D.

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lansbury, George

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Lee, F.

Charleton, H. C.

Hardie, George D.

Livingstone, A. M.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harris, Percy A.

Lowth, T.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hayday, Arthur

Lunn, William

Compton, Joseph

Hayes, John Henry

Mackinder, W.

MacLaren, Andrew

Sexton, James

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Viant, S. P.

March, S.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Maxton, James

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Montague, Frederick

Smillie, Robert

Welsh, J. C.

Morris, R. H.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Westwood, J.

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wignall, James

Palin, John Henry

Snell, Harry

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Stamford, T. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Potts, John S.

Stephen, Campbell

Windsor, Walter

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Wright, W.

Riley, Ben

Sutton, J. E.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Taylor, R. A.

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

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Warne.

Scrymgeour, E.

Thurtle, E.

Scurr, John

Tinker, John Joseph

Bills Presented

Licensing Act (1921) Amendment Bill,

"to amend the Licensing Act, 1921," presented by Mr. GATES; supported by Mr. Greaves-Lord, Major Barnett, Mr. Samuel Samuel, Sir Henry Cowan, Sir Henry Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel James. Major Malone, Colonel Grant Morden, Sir Newton Moore, Sir Philip Dawson, and Mr. Hopkins; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Forestry Bill,

"to authorise an increase of the number of Forestry Commissioners; and for purposes consequential thereon," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

Imperial Institute Bill

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Imperial Institute Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,

Buckhaven and Methil Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Bridge Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Publications and Debates' Reports

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates' Reports in Session 1924 be referred to the Select Committee.—[ Sir Rowland Blades .]

Selection (Chairmen's Panel)

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Robert Sanders to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Northern Ireland Land Bill); and Mr. Samuel Roberts of Standing Committee B (in respect of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, in respect of the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, and in respect of the Agricultural it turns Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 (Panel))

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House appointed to act as Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Major Steel.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee B

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Colonel James and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, and the Agricultural Returns: Captain Garro-Jones; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Godfrey Collins (in respect of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, and Mr. Ellis Davies (in respect of the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill and the Agricultural Returns Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

Supply

Air Estimates, 1925–26

Order for Committee read.

Sir Samuel Hoare's Statement

I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Hon. Members will have noted that. I have circulated a White Paper showing that Parliament is asked to vote for the ensuing financial year a sum of £15,513,000 as the net expenditure under the Air Votes. That is a net rise of rather more than £600,000 over the expenditure of last year. It should, however, be noted that the Admiralty are now giving a grant-in-aid to the Air Ministry for the expenses of the Fleet Air Arm. This change in form is the result of a Treasury ruling following on the recommendations of the Balfour Committee upon the relations between the Air Force and the Navy. It does not mean that the Air Ministry has in any way been deprived of its undivided responsibility for all Air development, but it does have the practical effect, so far as this year is concerned, of bringing the net increase under the Air Votes down to the amount of £652,000. If, however, hon. Members will compare like with like and take into account this change in the form of the Votes, they will find that the effective increase is £1,972,000. I hope, in view of the details that are set out in the White Paper and of the fact that many specific questions will no doubt he raised in the course of the Debate, that the House will allow me at this stage to say nothing more about the increase than that it is principally due to two causes. In the first place, the home expansion scheme: and in the second place, the exhaustion of war stocks. As to the expansion scheme, which accounts for the, greater part of the rise in the Vote, here, I think, I am carrying out a policy that is in accord with the declared views of each of the three parties in the House. Indeed, I do not suppose that there has ever been a question connected with national defence that has had behind it greater unanimity among the party leaders. We are attempting, as the House knows, to treble the combatant strength of the Air Force as compared with its size when I stood at this Box two years ago. That, quite obviously, accounts for the greater part of the increase of this year's expenditure. Then there is the second cause—the fact that now we are reaching a period when war stocks are becoming exhausted and when more and more we have to go into the market to buy equipment. From the point of view of the aircraft industry, that may be a satisfactory feature, but, from the point of view of the taxpayer, ii is a very serious feature that just at the moment when we require this large expenditure for the expansion of the Home Defence Force, simultaneously in these Votes we should have this additional expenditure for buying new machines, new engines, and now spare parts.

Home Defence Programme

I hope that with this brief explanation of the increase of expenditure, I can now come to what is in my view much the most important question to be discussed, namely, the whole basis of our air policy, for, after all, it is air policy, just as much from the point of view of finance as from the point of view of Imperial defence, that really matters. Every Minister for the last four or five years who has introduced the Air Estimates has emphasised to the House the magnitude of the revolution that has been brought about in the problem of home defence by the introduction of air force. It is a revolution far greater than the revolution introduced by the invention of gunpowder in the later middle ages. For a country like ours that up to a few years ago depended almost entirely for its defence upon the sea and upon the Navy it is a revolution that probably means more than it does for any other country. There is no need to exaggerate the claims of air power. There is no need to involve ourselves in technical disputes as to whether such and such a number of bombs or aeroplanes can raze a city to the ground or can sink a battleship. The central and undeniable fact is what matters, and the central and undeniable fact is that to-day an air force can pass in a few minutes over trenches and armies and channels and navies and penetrate into the very heart of this country, and, whatever may be the material damage it inflicts, make life well-nigh unendurable for a population that lives mainly in great cities. This is the vital danger that we are attempting to meet as best we can in our home defence programme.

I do not wish to linger upon the horrors and dangers of air warfare, for I am inclined to think that the less the peoples of Europe concentrate their morbid attentions upon the possibilities of the next Great War the less likely is that war to come about. Fortunately, here we are in the position of being surrounded by old friends and allies, and that means that we can consider this question of air defence without any panic and without having to undertake any exaggerated measures. I would therefore ask the House not to brood upon the dreadful horrors of the next air war, but to take a healthy interest in a great question of Imperial defence that must be faced even in times of peace by any country and by any Empire in the position in which we find ourselves. Happily, I need not go in great detail into the scheme of Air Force expansion. Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach, no less than myself, have attempted to explain the proposed home defence expansion in some detail, and I imagine that what. the House would like me to do to-day would he to draw its attention to any new features that may be connected with this stage of the expansion scheme and to give my general view as to whether or not I think it is proceeding satisfactorily and sufficiently expeditiously.

When I took office two years ago, there were in this country, upon a liberal calculation, only three air squadrons available for home defence. To-day, I am glad to think, there are six times as many and at the end of the ensuing financial year there will be 26. But, apart from the question of numbers, there are certain new features to which I would draw the attention of the House. The first of these features is the fact that we are now equipping the regular squadrons in the expansion scheme with new types of machines. That is a very important and significant fact. Until recently we have been living upon war types. Now, for the first time, we are equipping a large number of these regular squadrons in the home defence programme with post-War types of machines. At the end of this year, out of the 18 squadrons already formed for home defence, no fewer than 15 will be equipped with post-War types of machines. The house will at once see the importance of this fact, for I think that they will agree that, assuming one has to have a home defence force, it is of vital importance that the squadrons in it should be as efficient and as well armed as they could possibly be.

I come now to the second feature to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. We are in the ensuing year starting the experiment of introducing into our programme two types of non-regular unit. This is the first experiment with non-regular units in military aviation. During the next 12 months we hope to see formed a number of Special Reserve squadrons. I am glad to think that it looks as though we shall be able to form two of these squadrons instead of the one squadron to which I made reference in my White Paper. Then there are four auxiliary Air Force squadrons also to be formed this year. The Special Reserve squadrons are formed on a Militia basis, that is, on a cadre basis, with the greater part of a squadron liable to embodiment in time of emergency. One of the two Special Reserve squadrons will probably be formed in the neighbourhood of London, and the other in the neighbourhood of Belfast. The Auxiliary Air Force squadrons will be formed more nearly upon a territorial basis. They will have a nucleus of regular officers and men, but, apart from that, will be recruited speaking generally upon a territorial basis. I have already decided to locate two of these squadrons in the neighbourhood of London, one in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh and the fourth in the neighbourhood of Glasgow.

But there is a further experiment in this connection which, I think, merits the notice of hon. Members. In the regular squadrons we are attempting to make an experiment which, so far as I know, has never been made before in regular fighting units. We are attempting to introduce into them a large civilian element for the purpose of carrying out the less important non-flying duties. I admit that all this is an experiment, but I hope very much that it is an experiment which is going to succeed. If it succeeds it will not only mean a great saving of expenditure on what must necessarily be a very costly expansion, but it will also mean—and perhaps this is even more important—a diffusion of a knowledge of the principles of air defence among classes of the population, and in districts where little at present is known of them. Hon. Members will see at once how important the effect will he, if these squadrons succeed, from the point of view of setting up a, national foundation for the expansion scheme.

Unity of Command

There is only one further feature to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members in this connection. We have at last introduced into the field of air defence the principle of unity of command. That is to say that, in the event of air operations, there will he unity of command over all the various units taking part in those operations. That does not mean that the Air Force is going to take over the administration of the various units—the anti-aircraft defence units—on the ground. I have always taken the view myself that it would be most unwise and objectionable to complicate the flying service with the administration of an unnecessary number of non-flying units. It does mean that the air officer commanding-in-chief will be in operational control of all the various units and means of defence that may he necessary in the event of air operations. I have ventured to draw the attention of hon. Members to these three distinct features, and to indicate the point at which the expansion has now arrived, and what are the principles upon which it is based. To sum up, I may say that what we want is, first of all, a strong hacking of the best equipped and best trained regular units; second, a national basis for the force, particularly in the great centres of industry; and, third, unity of command.

Suppose that an attack is to be made on a foreign country, and it is to be made by particular cruisers, convoying seaplane carriers, and the attack is going to be carried out by the Air Force, having the seaplane carriers, who in that case would be in command of all three?

That is rather in the nature of a riddle. I would restrict my answer to this, that, if it were principally an air operation, the air officer commanding would be in control. If, on the other hand, it were principally a naval operation, obviously the naval officer would be in command. In either case the two Services presumably would be co-operating.

I will leave that to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I believe that on these lines we shall have the best means of building up an Air Force which will make our air defence so strong that the risk of any attacking force would be so great that they would hesitate before undertaking it. I am aware that a number of people say that, in the case of air operations, defensive operations are of little use, and that the air is essentially an offensive arm. I agree, but that does not mean that a system of defence such as I have just outlined cannot be very effective, and, if it is properly developed, cannot make the risk to an invading force so great that it will be hardly worth while for the attacking country to dream of undertaking the risk.

There, in summary, is the state of the Home defence force as it is now, and as it will he at the end of the ensuing financial year and I would ask hon. Members to give me their opinions, in the course of the Debate, as to whether they think that on the whole it is upon a sound foundation, and whether upon the whole we are proceeding as expeditiously as the country has a right to expect us to proceed. On the one hand, there is the fact that even to-day we are, from the point of view of Home Defence, in a numerical inferiority of 1 to 3 as compared with the greatest air Power in Europe.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give figures as to the French Air Force when this programme was started and the French Air Force to-day?

I can give them rather roughly. I think that there is very little difference in the actual numbers. The further expansion scheme to which, the hon. and gallant Member will remember, there was a great deal of reference two years ago has not developed materially during the last two years. On the one hand, there is the fact that we are in a numerical inferiority of 1 to 3, and it will take some years before we reach anything like numerical equality. On the other hand, there is the fact that the greatest air Power in Europe is France, our old friend and Ally, and, so far as I know, no sane Englishman or Frenchman dreams at present of strained relations between the two countries, and I think that hon. Members should take that into account when they come to a decision as to whether we are or are not proceeding with sufficient expedition. Then there is the fact that the great internal need of the country at the moment is a reduction of expenditure and a reduction of taxation. I hope that, when hon. Members weigh in their minds these conflicting needs, they will say that on the whole I have held the balance between the different requirement of the country at the present time, the conflicting requirements of a reduction of expenditure and taxation and the urgent need that a great country like ours should have an Air Force commensurate with its obligations and responsibilities.

Empire Defence

I pass from the questions connected with home defence to the wider questions connected with Empire defence. While I do not wish to make any claim that cannot be sustained, I would ask hon. Members to keep constantly in their minds the potentialities of air power for Empire defence. If we could make our Empire defence more mobile than it is now, might we not save large numbers of men and great sums of money?

Iraq

As things arc, we are engaged in a very interesting experiment in air defence in Iraq. I ask hon. Members for a few minutes to give their minds to what is happening there and what are the lessons which this experiment may well teach us. It is not a question as to whether we ought to be in Iraq or whether we ought not to be in Iraq. That is a political question. The only fact with which I am concerned to-day is the fact that, being in Iraq, we want the most economical form of defence that we can possibly adopt. There is Iraq, a country almost 700 miles long, with very indefinable boundaries, with very bad communications, with a population which in the past has been notorious for its turbulance, with the Turkish frontier unsettled, with Turkish raids during the last twelve months on the one hand and with Wahabi raids on the other. Yet, in spite of that, the country has been maintained in peace and order and without danger upon its external frontiers by a small garrison of eight air squadrons, four infantry battalions and some armoured cars. I suggest that that is a very remarkable example of the economy of Air Force garrisoning in a country of this kind, an Air Force faced with every kind of difficulty during the last twelve months, and yet during all that time the loss of not a single British life in action nor the demand for any reinforcements whatever from Air Vice-Marshal Higgins, the Air Officer Commanding.

Let me give a further example of this mobility of air defence. Last summer a serious disturbance broke out at Kirkuk in which the native forces were involved. Within eight hours a force of the Inniskilling Fusiliers was transported a distance of 150 miles from Bagdad to Kirkuk, and in the course of the next day and a half the force was brought up to something like 150 men and officers with all their arms, and with marching kit and supplies for the expedition. That all took place in this comparatively short time, whereas if they had proceeded by road and rail it would have taken them twelve hours by rail and four days' marching. That example will show how quickly one can transport a force of men over country with bad lines of communication, and how instantly, as was proved in this case, the arrival of this force restored peace and avoided what might have been serious trouble in a very turbulent district of Iraq. I hope that hon. Members, when they consider these very important questions of Empire defence, will keep examples of that kind in their minds. My own view is that we shall have to apply them more and more, particularly, for instance, when airships develop. With airships it is obvious you could move much larger bodies of men, and there appears to be no technical reason why in course of time you should not be able to move aeroplanes as well with airships as carriers.

Pilots and Machines

So much for the outward expression of British air power. I come now to a side-of it which, although it does not always receive as much attention as is due to it, is yet no less important. I am afraid that people who know little about the Air Force are apt to think that it is quantity and not quality that matters. There is no service in which quality matters more than in a highly technical service like the Air Service—the quality of your pilots, the quality of your mechanics, the quality of your machines, the quality of your engines. I can assure the House that it is to quality rather than to quantity that the Air Staff, and the Chief of the Air Staff in particular, are giving their most constant attention. So far as the pilots are concerned, I believe that we are constantly raising the standard of flying. I believe that the cadets who are coming out of Cranwell will prove to be even better pilots, if that be possible, than any pilots we have had before, just as I believe that the mechanics, the boys who are going through the three years' course at Halton, will prove themselves to be the best mechanics the world has ever seen. As for machines and engines there again we are gradually attempting to improve the standard and to get better types. I do not mean by that that I am going to ask the House suddenly to re-equip the whole of the Royal Air Force with new types of machines and engines. To attempt anything of that kind would mean the expenditure of many millions of money, and I should not feel justified in making such a demand upon the Exchequer. But it does mean that month by month we are gradually introducing new types of machine, not indeed the kind of type that will win world's records, but the kind of type which, taking one thing with another, will arm our pilots and Air Force with more serviceable and more manageable machines than anyone else.

Research

So much for the quality of the pilots and the machines. I come now to a further side of the question that is no less important. Just as I have said that you must not judge the Air Force by the quantity of its machines. just as I have said that you must not judge the Air Force solely by the quality of its pilots. so you must go a step further back and consider another factor of immense importance, the factor of experiment, the factor of invention and the factor of discovery. On that account the House will, I feel sure, look with great interest, and perhaps with a critical eye, at what we are attempting to do in the field of research and scientific development. I admit that in the financial stringency of the last few years it has been almost impossible to provide the sum of money that we could have desired for scientific development. As far as I am concerned I plead guilty to any sins of omission in that respect which may be laid at my door. At least, I have attempted to set in being in the Air Ministry an organisation that is going to make it easier for scientific research to be properly developed; at least, I have done what I could to consult the leading scientists of the country as to the wisest road to go; at least, also, I have put into these Estimates a larger sum of money for research, and particularly scientific research as distinct from technical development, than in any year since the end of the War. That, at any rate, is evidence of my point of view towards the development of scientific research.

I am quite sure that in the air war of the future it will be the man of science, whether he be in a Government Department or in a university, or in the laboratories of the country, who is going to have just as much to do with the success of it as even the best pilot and the most manageable type of machine. After all there is the fact that our country can, I suppose, boast a greater wealth of scientific capacity than any other country in the world. If that be so, it is surely the duty of anybody who is responsible for the Air Force and the Air Ministry to do his utmost to bring to the help of the Air Force pilots this incomparable wealth of the scientific brains of the country.

Civil Training and Light Aeroplaneclubs

The common territory between military and civil aviation is the field of research. What I have just said about research brings me from the atmosphere of bombs and fighting planes to the field of civil aviation. There, again, I cannot, in the time at my disposal, do more than draw the attention of hon. Members to certain of the significant features in connection with civil aviation for the ensuing year. Let me refer first of all to the position of the training of reserve pilots in civilian training schools. That was an experiment which I introduced two years ago and I am glad to say it is now developing and, in the ensuing ear, the number of reserve pilots is to be raised from 510 to 725. I come now to another feature which I hope will be of some interest to hon. Members—the fact that for the first time in the Air Estimates there is introduced a sum for the starting of light aeroplane clubs. Hon. Members will recall that during the last two years there have been some most important trials of light aeroplanes at Lympne and it has there been shown that a small aeroplane with the engine of a motor-bicycle can go 80 or 90 miles an hour, can remain quite a long period in the air and is so small that you can wheel it through a field gate. It seems to me obvious that if we develop these light aeroplanes and the training that may be carried out upon them, it is a possible way of increasing the air knowledge of the country and getting a much larger number of men trained as pilots with a knowledge of the air than we have at the present time. The difficulties so far have been two. In the first place, there is the money difficulty connected with the starting of the clubs. I hope we have, in the last week or two, got over that difficulty. The other difficulty is that of finding a suitable engine for a dual-control machine. Obviously if you are going to train a pilot to fly in a light aeroplane you must have a dual-control machine. I hope we are also surmounting that difficulty and, while I do not wish to be too sanguine, I have reason to think that in the course of the next summer we shall get at any rate some light aeroplane clubs started, and we shall be in a position to commence an experiment which may be of great value in the development of the nation's air service.

Civil Air Transport

As to civil air transport, the last year has been a difficult one. There was, first of all, the inevitable difficulty connected with amalgamating the several small companies into one company. Then there was the difficulty which arose from a difference of opinion between the pilots and the new company, and, lastly, there was the very regrettable, Croydon accident on Christmas Eve. With the Croydon accident I am going to deal when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) raises the question of accidents later in the Debate. With the details of civil air transport I am not proposing to deal now. I think it would be in accordance with the wish of the House if the Under-Secretary w ho is particularly responsible for this branch of air administration were to deal with it himself later in the Debate. Lest, however, it should be thought that if, in my opening speech, I say little or nothing about civil aviation, I am not sympathetic towards its development, I wish to make one or two general observations connected with it. I should like to say that one always has found and one now finds that the centre of any sound civil aviation policy is the development of some long-distance route. In the case of short-distance routes the advantage over other forms of transport is small, and is often insufficient to make it worth while to start a civil air service. When one comes to consider the longer routes, the routes that would take days or weeks, then the advantage of civil air transport becomes increasingly great.

Empire Air Routes

As far as aeroplane long distance routes are concerned, the House will have seen that the Director of Civil Aviation has recently paid a flying visit—in all senses of the word—to India. I am not blind to the great difficulties and, possibly, the great expenditure, involved in inaugurating an aeroplane route to India. At the same time, I can assure the House that we are looking very seriously into the question, and I feel sure that the visit of the Director of Civil Aviation will help us to deal with a number of difficulties which now seem very great. I only add in that connection that one of the immediate difficulties in connection with any long-distance aeroplane route is the fact that, in the present international situation, it is impossible to inaugurate a regular civil air route over Germany. That is the reason why we have not, so far, been able to carry out the programme of organising a civil air route from here to Prague.

How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to overcome the difficulty? Is he proposing some relaxation in the provisions of the Treaty?

Yes, Sir, we are constantly discussing the question and negotiating on the subject. I do not want to be too sanguine at the moment but, sooner or later, the difficulty will have to be overcome and, so far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. So much for the possibility of a long-distance aeroplane route.

Airship Development

I come now to the possibility of a long-distance airship route. When I left office a year and a half ago I had, on behalf of the Government, announced to the House that we intended once again to embark upon a policy of airship development. We were then in negotiation with a private company associated with the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). We went out of office, and the Government of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite took our place, and they set on foot a scheme different to that upon which we had formerly been engaged. It was a scheme under which there was to be a period in the nature of an experimental period, during which the Government was to build one airship and the Airship Guarantee Company was to build another. When I went back to the Air Ministry I found that the situation had changed a good deal since I parted from it a few months previously. Many commitments had been entered into under the new scheme, running into several hundreds of thousands of pounds. The more the Air Ministry experts looked into the question the more clearly they realised the potentialities of airship development for purposes of Empire defence, that is for the purposes of carrying troops or even carrying aeroplanes.

Under the control of the Air Ministry. Further, I think everyone who has been connected with the consideration of airship development has come to agree that it is necessary to insist upon safety above all things else and, on that account, it is very important to have as much research as possible into the many difficult questions connected with airships. There was the additional fact that airship policy during the last four or five years has been subject to so many sudden changes and reverses that I was genuinely nervous lest a sudden new reversal of policy would plunge the whole question back into the melting pot and stop airship development altogether. It seemed to me in these circumstances that the wisest course was not to destroy what I may call the Thomson scheme, but to do what I could to meet the criticisms which I and other hon. Members made against it last year, and to make it possible, for instance, to pool more easily the airship knowledge between the Department and the company; to make it more possible to give the experiment a freer scope than it looked like having six months ago, and—still more important—to make it more possible for this experimental stage to develop into what I have always regarded as the main object of airship development, namely, a commercial airship line operated, not by the State, but by private enterprise. That was the situation as it appeared to me, and that is the position as I see it to-day. If t may sum it up in a few sentences, what I desire in this initial stage of airship experiment is, first of all, that there should be as much research as possible into all those extraordinarily difficult and complicated questions which are connected with airships.

5.0 P.M.

For, after all, I think the House will agree with me that, after the disaster to R.38, and the disasters which overtook other airships during the War, the one thing that matters is safety and the avoidance of risk of failure. Therefore, I say, first of all, let us concentrate upon airship research. I say, secondly, let us give the experimental period the freest possible scope. If the Air Ministry has the best kind of design, let us have the Air Ministry design. If, on the other hand, the Airship Guarantee Company can produce a better design, I can say quite frankly to the House that what I want is the best design, from whichever of the two it may come. Thirdly, I want to see, at the earliest possible moment that allows for the considerations of safety, to which I have just referred, the development of this initial experimental stage into the commercial stage of a great airship line between this country and one or more distant Dominions, operated, as I say—and let me make this as clear as can—not by the State, but by a private company.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what precise stage he discovers the best design? Is it after completion?

I could not at this moment say what the precise stage would be, but, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better, provided that in our view the transition is safe. I am afraid that, after the length of time during which I have occupied the attention of the House, the House will wish me not to take up the time of the Debate any longer.

Restriction of Air Warfare

However, before I sit down, there is one concluding observation I would desire to make. It may be that hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members opposite, will think that we at the Air Ministry are concentrating our whole attention upon the development of this new and terrible arm, and that we are giving no heed to the great dangers that may be in store for the world, if this development goes on unrestricted. I can assure hon. Members of the fact that no one who is connected with the development of aviation, and with the expansion of the Air Force, can possibly be blind to this terrible future. How can we avert it? That is the question that is constantly in my mind, and I would ask hon. Members to give their attention to what I believe to be one of the most difficult problems connected with the reduction of armaments and with the restriction of warfare. Can you, for instance, restrict the number of aeroplanes? If you restrict the number of aeroplanes, you run the risk of not being able to distinguish between different types. You are not dealing with a single, easily defined unit, as you were at the Washington Conference in the case of battleships. You run the risk of destroying civil aviation. As hon. Members know, the civil machine is easily convertible into the bombing machine. You run the further risk of destroying what may be both an economical and a humane method of Empire defence.

Can you restrict the number of pilots? There, again, if you attempt to restrict the number of pilots, you are involved in all the anomalies connected with the different conditions of military service in various countries. Can you, then, restrict the conditions of air warfare altogether? I am aware of the depressing history of modern warfare, in which paper restrictions have invariably been thrown to the wind when nations once begin to fight. None the less, I would not set aside as impracticable the consideration of any suggestion for the purpose of avoiding these terrible dangers of the future. On that account, I read with great interest a book that has recently been published by a well-known international lawyer, Mr. J. M. Spaight, upon the Air Force, and the possibilities of restricting air warfare. In this book he makes the suggestion that the bombing of non-military objectives should be restricted to the night. If hon. Members will think what that means, they will see that there are many vital centres, particularly in a country like ours, where at night-time the population has left the buildings, and only the offices are left untenanted. [An HON. MEMBER: "The night watchman"!) I agree with the hon. Member that it sounds rather a fantastic suggestion. None the less, I want to put it to hon. Members, that where you have a number of great centres in a great country where at night there is little or no population, is it necessary, if these centres are to be bombed during war, that you should necessarily massacre at the same time thousands of people who would be inhabiting them in the daytime That sounds, possibly, a fantastic and an impracticable suggestion. That may be so, but I would ask hon. Members, if they do not think it could be carried out, at any rate, to give their minds to alternative suggestions. Here is the fact, that with Air Force development as it is, with developments in bombs, with developments in range, with developments in chemicals, with developments in liquid gas—if we go on as we are now, air warfare in the future may well mean the destruction of civilisation as we know it to-day.

Does my learned colleague, the author of the international book, give any definition as to what one might call the permitted hours for bombing?

Speaking generally, it is night-time. It is an original suggestion, as I say; it may be so original that nobody could carry it out. None the less, I would ask hon. Members to read the book, and, if they will, they will realise the great difficulties with which we are faced in restricting air warfare in any way. But whether these difficulties are insuperable or not, the fact remains, that for the present we must proceed upon our expansion scheme, and we must, without panic but with determination, continue to build up an air force, and a system of air defence, that will make the risk of air attack less likely, and make the population of our great cities more secure than it is at the present time.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any need to apologise for the length of time he has held the attention of the House, because the speech has been brief indeed compared with many occasions which I remember in the past, when Ministers have introduced the Estimates for their Departments. Many of them have succumbed to the temptation of making that a great occasion in their career. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been interesting throughout. I am not in a position to deal with the complicated and technical matters which the Air Minister has necessarily introduced into his speech. The fortunes of the General Election robbed the Labour party of its only Member who had experience and inside knowledge of the Air Ministry, and, therefore, not by my desire, I assure the House, it has fallen to me to offer a few observations upon the Estimates which are now submitted. I shall avoid all technical and complicated matters. On that I say nothing more than this, that, accepting the policy of the Government, granting that it is necessary that a large Air Force should be maintained, granting the policy which the Government are now proceeding with, I should have no criticism whatever to offer to anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon. I am quite sure that everybody will agree that, so long as we have an Air Force, it should be efficient, and we shall all agree with the Minister in attaching the highest possible importance to quality in everything that the Ministry or Force undertakes, but I said that I make these two or three words of preface on the assumption that we accept the policy on which the Estimates are based.

Before I sit down, I shall challenge the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that every party in this House accepts the basis or the policy upon which this expansion of the Air Force is operating. The Estimates which the House is going to be asked to accept involve a gross expenditure of more than £21,000,000, and the proposed net expenditure is about £15,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that the net effective increase was only about £500,000. I do not ask the Minister to reply to this point now, but I should like an explanation upon it later. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman arrives at that figure. The increase over the Estimates of last year is roughly £2,000,000, but it would have been much more than that, had it not been for two items to which attention is called in the interesting memorandum which accompanies these Estimates. There has been, we are told, a saving of more than £500,000 on the Middle East Services, and, therefore, if the Estimates were the same in amount as last year, that would mean that there is an increase, hidden somewhere in the Estimates, of more than £500,000.

There is one further point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the actual expenditure during the current financial year. I suppose that he has, now that we are approaching the end of that year, a fairly good idea as to what the actual expenditure of his Department will be during the current financial year, and I assume from what he said that the Estimates submitted to the House a year ago, with the addition of the Supplementary Estimates, were larger in amount than the actual expenditure of the Ministry during this year. It is no unusual thing for the fighting Services to estimate for a much larger sum than events prove to be necessary. That is the common experience, at any rate, in regard to the Navy Estimates and actual Exchequer payments, and I suppose, arising out of that experience during the past 12 months, the right hon. Gentleman's Department are getting nearer the hone, if I may use such an expression, in their Estimates this year. They are not making the same liberal provision for the expenditure upon new construction work which it has been the custom for the Department to do in the past. If, I understand from the White Paper, the estimates of expenditure for the coming year, particularly on new construction work, had been based upon the same methods as have been adopted in previous years, the Estimates of the Department would have been £500,000 more than they actually are; but we are told, too, in the Memorandum that the Department will endeavour to accelerate, or at any rate to put no obstacles in the way of acceleration of, construction during the 12 months, and we are warned that we may expect, some time a few months hence, a Supplementary Estimate from the Department on account of this new construction work.

I can understand, of course, why that has been done. The Air Ministry have had, no doubt—indeed, I know they have, because every Department has—to submit to a very close scrutiny of its Estimates from the controlling financial authority, and no doubt this £500,000 to which reference is made in the White Paper represents the concession which the Air Ministry has been able to make to the controlling authority in the Government, but there still remains a net increase in the expenditure of something like £2,000,000. The House must, I think, remember a statement made by the Minister in the course of his speech in regard to the burden of this and other national expenditure upon the taxpayers of the country. I think the words that the right hon. Gentleman used were that the greatest internal need is a reduction of taxation.

Well, I am afraid that the Air Ministry are not making much of a contribution this year to this greatest of all our internal needs. We have not yet had the Estimates for the other fighting Departments, but if newspaper rumours are to be believed—although, from my experience of a year ago, I am not inclined to attach a great deal of importance to newspaper rumours—we may expect, when the Navy Estimates appear in the course of a few days, an increase of something like £5,000,000 over the Estimates of 12 months ago. We are told, too, that the Estimates for the War Office are not likely to be very much reduced, so, taking this £2,000,000 increase in the estimated expenditure of the Air Ministry, and an increase, say, of £5,000,000 in the Navy Vote, we may look forward, with as much cheerfulness as we can command, to an increase of something like £5,000,000 in the estimated expenditure of the fighting Services during the coming financial year. That means that we are to have an expenditure this year of probably not less than £120,000,000, and that sum is 50 per cent. more than the total expenditure upon armaments in the year before the War.

This is a new Department. In the days before the War there was no Air Ministry, and there were no Air Estimates, and, the right hon. Gentleman said, the defence of the country rested upon the Navy. Now I want to make this point most emphatically, and I think I am justified in making it, arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I have just referred. If that statement of his meant anything at all, it meant that the former functions of the Navy for the defence of the country had been superseded by the Air Force.

Then how is it that we have this new Department, with a rapidly increasing annual expenditure, doing the work which formerly was expected to be done and for which funds were provided by another Department, and how is it that we do not find at least a corresponding reduction in the expenditure of that other branch of the forces? The Navy Estimates this year will probably be £60,000,000. When I first came to the House of Commons, now about 20 years ago, the Navy Vote was about £30,000,000. Now we are asked to sanction an expenditure for the Air Forces of something over £21,000,000 altogether, but it hardly yet appears what we shall see. This is a rapidly expanding Department, with a rapidly expanding expenditure. The policy which the Department is now carrying out will involve, if it is carried out to completion, an expenditure which will make the Air Force a more expensive Department than the Navy is at the present time. This scheme, I understand, involves ultimately the building or the establishment of something like 52 squadrons—12 machines to a squadron. Its present strength for home defence, so called, is about 18. This is a simple sum in arithmetic.

Well, it is still a simple sum in arithmetic. If it costs £21,000,000 for an Air Force of 26 squadrons, what will it cost for an Air Force of 527 In that connection, we have to remember a statement which is made by the Minister in the Memorandum which accompanies the Estimates, namely, that the cost of machines and the cost of everything connected with this branch of the fighting Services is progressively increasing. I notice that the greatest technical authority that ewe have in the House on this subject nods his head approvingly; therefore, if you establish an Air Force of 52 squadrons, it is perfectly certain that when it is completed it will involve at least an annual expenditure of £50,000,000.

Then I shall be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman will explain how there is going to be a, progressive reduction of expenditure with an increase in the strength of the Air Force. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be looking forward to a very considerable increase of expenditure.

I come now to the question of policy. The right hon. Gentleman said that this policy of expansion was approved by all parties in the House. There is no doubt it is approved by the party behind the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know if it is unanimously approved by the Liberal party; I am not in a position to know their views upon the question or to give expression to them. But it is a policy which is certainly not approved by the party which sits behind me. I want the House to follow me for a moment or two while I explain what happened last year. The right hon. Gentleman was not very clear about the date when he left the office that he had previously occupied in the Air Ministry, but as a matter of fact it is only a little over a year ago. The Labour Government came into office on 23rd January, 1924. Hon. Members will notice that these Estimates were presented to the House on 17th February. If the Estimates were ready for presentation on the 17th February, it follows that they must have been finally agreed to and sanctioned a month before, because printing takes some considerable time. When we came into office the Estimates of the Department, then presided over by The right hon. Gentleman, were in as advanced a state as they were at the same period this year. They were ready for the printer on the 23rd January of this year. They were ready for the printer, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the time we took office a year ago. That was the position we found them in, and if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be fair they will allow that when the Government came into office—and, mark you, Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach had not the advantage which the right hon. Gentleman had three months ago—he went back to a Department he knew quite well, he was familiar with its work and organisation, with its policy; but Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach went to the Air Ministry over a year ago when the Estimates were completed. Therefore, I ask any reasonable man would it have been wise, nay, indeed, would it have been possible for them in a week or two completely to reverse the policy of the previous Government and to present a new policy and new Estimates to the House of Commons.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to be entirely fair. I found the Estimates fully advanced when I went back to the Air Ministry, and they differ in no serious respect from the programme left to me by Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach.

I am not giving away Departmental secrets at all when I say that the Estimates of the Department are first of all prepared by the officials themselves, and it is only when the first draft of the Estimates has been completed that they are presented to the Minister. Therefore, for what might have been the advance in these Estimates when the right hon. Gentleman reassumed office neither Mr. Leach nor Lord Thomson had the slightest responsibility.

I will come to that point in a moment. We had not been in office a month when the right hon. Gentleman challenged the Labour Government as to their Air policy. He submitted a Resolution to the House with the terms of which I do not know that I need trouble the House, for hon. Members will remember them. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has in more than one sentence deprecated indulgence in panic statements, but I fail to remember a more panicky speech ever delivered in the House of Commons than the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman 12 months ago. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman himself make a panicky speech, but the effect of it was to make every Member of Parliament who listened to him panic-striken. I remember the tales we were told of the horrors in store for the citizens of London and of the wholesale destruction coming. What is the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman in that Resolution? He asked the House to agree to a policy which would involve this country in the provision of an air fleet equal in strength to that of the next strongest air power within striking distance of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Resolution!"] I have given it from memory, and I think I am fairly accurate in my paraphrase of it, but if it be desired, I will read the Resolution:

Let me just give one or two reasons why we shall do this. The right hon. Gentleman 12 months ago asked the House to agree to a Resolution which would have brought about a competition in air armaments between France and this country. We all know from past experience what competition in armaments is. We know that competition in armaments before the outbreak of the Great War was one of the contributory causes to the outbreak of that war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) put a very pertinent question to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the programme and expansion of the French Air Force during the last year or two. The right hon. Gentleman was not able at the moment to give that information to my hon. and gallant Friend. Well, I am in a position to do that, because the Air Ministry two days ago gave a reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) which conveyed the facts. This is most important. The right hon. Gentleman's interruption a moment or two ago, in which he laid emphasis on the word "adequate," indicates, I take it, that he does not mean we need the same number of squadrons or the same number of machines; that it might be adequate protection for this country to have a smaller Air Force than France; there could have been no relevance or pertinence in his interjection if that had not been in his mind. Speaking 12 months ago, the right hon. Gentleman said the ratio between France and this country was ten to one. I think he put it to-day at six to one.

I put it at three to one, comparing the machines in England and the machines in France, and leaving out of account the machines in distant parts.

According to the same authority to-day it is three to one. I think I should be justified, in view of the greater efficiency of our own Air Service, in presuming that the right hon. Gentleman ought to regard that as adequate for defence.

Let us have one or two facts. A year or two ago, it was 10 to one, said the right hon. Gentleman. Now this British expansion scheme was began or was formulated in 1922, I believe. We then began our acceleration programme. Since we began our acceleration programme France appears to have decelerated. In 1922 she had 135 squadrons. There are nine machines in a squadron in France and 12 in this country. Reduced to machines, France, in 1922, had 1,215 machines, and at the present time she has 140 squadrons or 1,260 machines, an increase in two years of only 45 machines. What have we done in the meantime? In 1922 we had only three squadrons, first line. Then it was decided by the Government of the day that this expansion policy should be embarked on, and we shall have next year, said the right hon. Gentleman just now, 26 squadrons. Therefore, between 1922 and 1925–26 we have raised our air fleet from three squadrons to 26.

Certainly, home defence. In the same period France has raised hers from 1,215 machines to 1,260 machines. The record of the last 12 months is rather interesting, because it appears that this deceleration of the French programme is proceeding at an increased rate. Between 1922 and 1923 she increased her force by four squadrons, but last year by one squadron only. That seems to me to remove to a very great extent, if not altogether, the grounds upon which our air policy was started three or four years ago. It is no longer necessary that we should go on expanding the Air Force as we have been doing during the last two or three years. I submit, taking the right hon. Gentleman's own words, that, if we are to have an Air Force, we have that adequate protection against the next strongest air power Which was demanded in the right hon. Gentleman's speech 12 months ago.

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just come in. It is encouraging to me to touch upon this point. I know, of course, that he is not in sympathy with any of these increases of expenditure upon the fighting forces. No Chancellor of the Exchequer ever is, or ever was. The business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is always to be in disagreement with his colleagues. Suppose there was a French menace. Suppose that France, instead of decelerating her programme, was increasing it. Have we no other weapon for meeting France than by expanding our own Air Force, and placing an additional burden on to the British taxpayer? Surely we have. If Franco were building more aeroplanes, at whose expense would she be building them? The newspapers this morning made a great sensation of a memorandum which has been sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Federation of British Industries upon the question of Inter-Allied Debts. In that memorandum we are told that the British Income Tax payer is paying an Income Tax of 7½d. in the £ because of the default of France in the matter of payment of interest upon money we have lent her. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a great weapon in his hand, by this indebtedness of France to ourselves, for demanding from France some lessening of her expenditure upon armaments which, as I believe Lord Balfour said at Washington, could only be intended as a menace to this country. Although, Mr. Speaker, I should not be in order in discussing the question of Inter-Allied Debts now, I think I am entitled to say this as being pertinent, that I regret that in dealing with this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown away all the best bargaining powers he had in regard to this matter.

These are the two points I make. The French have arrested their programme, they are not adding to it, and, therefore, the whole reason for the policy embodied in these estimates has been removed, and we shall go into the Lobby against the Motion now before the House. We are not going back upon anything which we did as a Government. Although we inherited the Air Estimates of the Ministry, and were executors of that policy for the time being, we did not approve of it, we were not committed to it as a policy to be continued in succeeding years had we remained in office. Our record upon that matter is perfectly clear. The second point is the one with which I have just been dealing. The right hon. Gentleman occupied a part of his speech in saying he would welcome, as I am quite sure every sane man and woman would welcome, some policy, some international understanding, which would make the maintenance of these huge armaments unnecessary. But I am afraid the suggestion he put before the House is entitled to no other description than the one which the right hon. Gentleman himself gave namely, a fantastic proposal.

I think it was interesting because it was so fantastic. But the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer probably knows much better, that when you get into war all your rules and regulations and international conventions are blown to the wind, and I think it would be perfectly silly—I can think of no other word than "silly"—to enter into an arrangement that during war bombing should be confined within certain hours. It is not in that way that we are going to lessen armaments, going to reach ultimately, I hope, universal and complete disarmament. It is by a better understanding between the nations of the world, it is by removing grievances which nations either have or imagine they have—it is in this way that we can with safety reduce armaments and get a security which will be far stronger than armaments can ever give, because it will be a security based upon conviction in the minds of the people that they have no danger from any other country. Now that, as the spokesman of the Labour Government last year said, is our policy, and we shall oppose these Estimates because we believe they are continuing the old, bad, vicious, and so often proved futile, method of thinking that the security of a nation is in huge armaments. All experience goes to prove that, instead of that giving security to a nation, it weakens the defensive power of a nation. That is why we oppose this, and that is the alternative policy that we put forward.

6.0 P.M.

I do not think I have anything more I need say, except this. I had hoped to be able to say a few words about civil aviation, but I have taken far too much time, and I will not deal with that now, beyond saying that, in the account the right hon. Gentleman gave of what he found when he went back to the Ministry of Air as to the policy that had been adopted and the action that had been taken by the Labour Government in regard to what is known as the Burney scheme, I see nothing that distinguished his policy from the policy of the Labour Government, except in this one thing. He favoured civil aviation, or Imperial airways, managed by, I suppose owned by, and controlled by, private enterprise. I will give the reasons why we scrapped the Burney scheme approved by the right hon. Gentleman. There were two reasons. One was that it was absurdly expensive, and would have involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he leaves office, if he is going to retain that position normally, in an expenditure of about £5,000,000. That was one of the reasons why we scrapped it. The reason why we decided to have two airships, one by the Air Ministry and one by a private company, was that we wanted emulation. The company said they could build a better airship than the Air Ministry, and they said they had command of more technical knowledge and highly scientific skill. The Air Ministry said the same thing. We said, "We will put you in competition," and then the type that proves to be the best will be the type that will probably be copied by those who think there are commercial possibilities in this airship passenger service. That is all I have to say on that point.

I notice that there is at the end of the White Paper a note dealing with an increase in the salary of the Air Minister. I note that it is proposed to raise the salary of the right hon. Gentleman from £3,000 to £5,000. The whole question of Cabinet Ministerial salaries, I agree, is in a most unsatisfactory state. It is regulated by no rules. You have Ministers whose responsibilities are quite equal to those of other Ministers who are receiving much lower salaries. The salary of the Air Minister is to be raised to £5,000, but I do not think anybody will say that his responsibilities are any greater than those of the Postmaster-General or the Minister of Labour, and. therefore, I do not see what justification there is to make this change until the whole question of the rearrangement of Cabinet salaries is made.

Why should the House of Commons agree now to this increase in the right hon. Gentleman's salary? Last year we did increase the remuneration of the Lord Privy Seal from £2,000 to £5,000, but he took on an additional office, and it was simply the restoration of the salary to the figure which had been paid for a combination of two offices in previous Governments. I simply mention this fact. We do not attach much importance to this, and I do not think there will be any opposition from hon. Members behind me to this proposal. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I do not know whether I began by saying that I make no claim whatever to be an expert upon this question. I have had no experience at the Air Ministry beyond the fact that I was a member of the Cabinet Committee which dealt with the Burney scheme, and my whole knowledge of the Air Ministry is derived from that experience. The Air Minister gave us a very interesting survey of the activities of his Department, but notwithstanding that, I am afraid that it will not deter us from criticising his proposals, or from going into the Lobby against them.

As a new Member I claim the indulgence of the House for intervening at this stage of the Debate. I was, as far as I know, the first officer to take up the question of artillery fire from the air before the War. I was a member of the first committee to discuss and investigate whether it was possible to observe artillery fire from the air, and I was the member who went up in the air myself. I do not wish to take up the time of the House too long dealing with other matters which took place in 1912, bat I should like to emphasise the progress which aeroplanes have made since that time. In 1911 it was with difficulty that we got up as high as 300 feet. One day we got up as high as 2,000 feet, and we thought that was a very remarkable result. That was 14 years ago, and having in view the progress in aircraft which has been made during the last 14 years, I venture to suggest that we cannot say that these Estimates are excessive.

I am very glad that our relations with France are as friendly as previous speakers have stated, and therefore there can be no misunderstanding if I take the coast of France as the nearest of all points for a possible enemy. We must remember that the distance of the coastline of France from our capital is only about half an hour's flight by a modern aeroplane. I am glad to notice that air defence is to be co-ordinated under one command, because the time available for preparation is so small. If we look back: upon our history on this subject we shall realise that we go to war with the minimum of force and the minimum preparation, which often is grossly inadequate compared with other countries. With modern arms we have so much shorter time available for defence that I think the suggestion thrown out by the Minister for Air about co-ordinating under one command all the defence forces is a very valuable one.

What have we to co-ordinate? There is, first of all, the high Air command, then the aircraft, and I think I am right in dealing with anti-aircraft, because I understand that the command of antiaircraft in war comes under the Air Minister. In peace time there is a sort of interregnum, and it is rather doubtful whether it comes under the Air Minister or the Army. At any rate, they are trained by the Army, and I suggest that what is commanded by the Air Force, and trained by another Service, is nobody's child. I should like to know where air defence, air research and antiaircraft is dealt with. Is it under the Air Ministry or the War Office? I have been in command of an anti-aircraft battery, and perhaps matters relating to antiaircraft defence are well known to me. I can also say that that is one of the hardest problems which air defence has got in front of it. One hon. Member last year described how difficult it was for an aeroplane at night to meet another aeroplane. That is so, and while aeroplanes must remain our first line of defence against aeroplanes at night, we must invoke the aid of other arms to support them. Therefore, there is a great field in regard to anti-aircraft.

I suggest that anti-aircraft affords a cheap and remunerative study which will be well worth any expense incurred upon it. I do not think it is fairly well known that our anti-aircraft defence brought down over 150 aeroplanes during the last year of the War. If we encourage that arm we shall be able to assist our air squadrons for the home defence of our civil population. Therefore, while supporting these Estimates, which I do not think are at all excessive, I hope that this transition stage of having the command of the various forces for war under one, but being trained and officered by another Service, will progress, so that we shall get eventually unity of command and unity of training as well. It is a little difficult for me to criticise the expenditure on this arm, but I suggest that the cheapest available expenditure we can get for air defence is efficiency, and that can only be obtained by research being in proper hands, and by the officers and men being under one command, so that they are not likely to go off to different branches of the Service, which I maintain are totally different. I hope that the Air Minister will be able to give to this question the greatest consideration.

I would like at the outset to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon one matter. In the Estimates there appear Appropriations-in-Aid of this Vote. There are two main ones. One is for the Middle East and the other for the Fleet Air Arm. I want to know whether the Debate can take place on those Appropriations-in-Aid, or whether the Debate on the subject-matter of the Appropriations-in-Aid must be on the Votes in which the money is actually voted. That is the point I want to put.

May I put a point to you, Sir, before you reply? With reference to the Middle East Vote, as you probably remember, the Air policy and the details connected with it have always been discussed on this Vote. With reference to the Fleet Air Arm Vote, the position really is no different this year from what it has been in previous years. The Air Ministry is as responsible as ever for the training of the men and for the quality of the machines, and the only difference here is that the Grant-in-Aid stereotypes an arrangement that has always been in existence. The Admiralty, as you are probably aware, asks for the quantity and gives a Grant-in-Aid for it, and we supply it in detail, we being entirely responsible for the detail.

In that case, on the present Vote, I think discussion is open connected with anything concerning the supply of machines or the training of men for both of these Services.

I need hardly say that my sympathies are entirely with the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. My fear was that by the transference of this slim of money to another Vote we were really preventing a full discussion upon Air matters from taking place on the Air Vote, because clearly, if the amount of money to be taken is decided by another Minister, the wider question of policy should be discussed on this Vote.

I think that, as on the Middle East Vote, questions of policy are discussed on that Vote, and that Vote has been put down specially for the purpose.

Then I will refer to the matter again, as I think it is a very important change, and one which is likely to do a great deal of harm to the Service in which I and many hon. Members axe interested. First of all, I should like to congratulate the last speaker on his first speech in this House, and especially on being able to contribute highly technical information in regard to which he is so special an authority. I should like also to congratulate the right hon. Baronet on being back at his old post at the Air Ministry, which he has adorned, with a short interval, far the last two or three years. In reference to what has been said by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would venture to remind him that there are two distinct aspects of the development of aviation. Although it is perfectly true that air power can be a weapon of the most terrible destruction, it can also be a weapon used in the service of humanity, and one of the chief interests that I have in the Department of the right hon. Gentleman and in the Air Service generally is in watching and hoping for greater developments in this service that air power can render to humanity and, so far even as the military aspect is concerned, it seems to me to be sound policy to bear that view in mind.

If you are looking for a great development of flying for peace purposes, the things that you must secure, or try to secure, are good research and capacity for output. These things are useful if you are looking for the development of flying for the peaceful progress of mankind—and it can render great service in that direction; and they are equally sound as guiding principles if you are looking at it from the military standpoint. If you have good research and the last word in design, and if you can retain capacity for output—which the development of civil aviation would secure—although you tend to restrain your military programme, you do leave yourself with resources which, even from the military standpoint, make you stronger, when and if the moment of crisis comes, than if you merely produce masses of machines which may be obsolete, and certainly will be obsolescent, when they are required for practical use.

In this matter I was very much encouraged—and, if I may say so with respect, I approve of it entirely—by what the Air Minister said and the Vote he has taken for research. I am glad to see the research Vote increasing, because that is a matter in which progress in all directions demands that we should keep the lead. I want, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are in fact doing as much to develop civil aviation in this country and in the British Empire as we might. We have, I think I am right in saying, under the British lines, the Amsterdam-Berlin line, the Cologne line, the line from Paris to ZÜrich, and, I think, the Channel Islands seaplanes. I fancy that that exhausts the British lines. I do not know what happened to the Manchester, Liverpool and Belfast line. I do not know whether it exists now or not. There were experiments made in that direction. There are matters which are sources of congratulation to us as showing the steady progress of British flying and the belief that people have in it. Some figures have been published about the Le Bourget Aerodrome, showing that, of the passengers who fly, 35 per cent. are British, 40 per cent. American, and only 6 per cent. were Frenchmen, although a larger number of French lines is operating from that aerodrome than from those of other countries. Further, the Report of the Department of Civil Aviation—it is not up to date, but it has been published up to last Marda—shows that there was an increase in the civil mileage flown. I think it rose from 778,000 to 1,000,000. More than that, we have, I think one may say, the best pilots in the world. In this connection I would refer particularly to the wonderful flight which was made by Mr. Alan Cobham from London to Tangier in one day. That shows that, as regards personnel, we are not by any means losing our lead.

The year has been remarkable for a number of sensational flights. I do not know that I want to press on the right hon. Gentleman that he should become the patron of this sort of thing, but it is a, fact that many of the countries of the world have engaged during the year in sensational demonstration or advertisement fights, or whatever you like to call them. There was the wonderful American round-the-world flight, and there was also a remarkable flight across America, in which 2,600 miles were covered in 21 hours. Then there were two unsuccessful national attempts. There was the Italian attempt of Signor Locatelli, who set out avowedly with the object of going round the world, and there was the attempt of the Argentine flyer, Señor Zanni. There have been many successful flights. There was the Portuguese light to Macao, and there was the Dutch flight to the East Indies, while the flight from Belgium to the Congo is now going on. There was also the very brilliant flight, made by Lieutenant Pelletier-D'Oisy, from Paris to Tokio—one of the most remarkable aerial achievements of the year. We had, on the other hand, Squadron-Leader MacLaren's very gallant attempt to get round the world. I do not know how much assistance he got from the Air Ministry. I think he got all the assistance that they could give, and I would gladly have seen him get more assistance in order to succeed, because it must be a very expensive thing to put a man round the world. Then—speaking always of the British Empire—there was the very successful circumnavigation of the Australian Continent by Australian airmen. I am not saying that I would urge the Air Minister necessarily to stress this advertisement side, but I should not like to see our country fall behind others in showing capacity as a pioneer in what I may call flights for blazing the trail.

On the more serious side of civil aviation, I would ask the Under-Secretary, whose special interest I believe this is, whether the Empire is keeping level with the competing countries in this matter. Australia, I believe, has considerably extended her coastal mail line, to which I think some hundreds of miles have been added in the course of the year; and I believe that South Africa is starting an air mail between Cape Town and Durban. As far as we are concerned, we have the lines that I have mentioned, but other countries seem to me to be showing great activity, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary could reassure us that we ourselves are not going to be behind-hand. If you look at a map of the airways in Europe, you will find that everywhere—from Helsingfors to Moscow, from Constantinople to Angora—there is a network of air lines which is constantly being added to. Even Spain has developed its own air force. It was stated in the "Times" not long ago that there has been a daily service of aeroplanes—I do not know whether commercial or for what purpose—between Seville and Laraiche, on the Atlantic border of French Morocco, for two years, and plans were recently published of several internal lines in Spain, and also of a line to connect Spain with the Canary Islands. The Czechs have their own line from Prague to Presburg, with extensions which they are proposing towards the Rumanian border; and the Italians, according to the "Times" correspondent, are devising a network of air mails in Italy from Genoa to Barcelona, from Brindisi to Constantinople, from Brindisi to Geneva, from Turin to Trieste, from Milan to Lausanne.

The French, of course, seem to have devoted most attention to this branch of air development. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question the other day as to the expenditure by the French on aviation development, and in his answer he explained that it was, as we can well understand, very difficult to dissect the figures, particularly on the military side, because they have no separate Air Service in France. I believe, however, that I am right in saying—I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the French are voting this year £580,000 for civil aviation. That was the figure that was given in the "Times" of a few days ago, namely, the 5th February. They have their Paris Constantinople-Angora Line, they have lines crossing the Mediterranean from Martigues to Algeria, and there was a line to Oran and another line from Toulouse to Algiers. Then they had made a great plan for flying, from Marseilles, I suppose, across and along the Atlantic Border from Casablanca to Dakar, which, it is supposed, will be connected, first by ships and ultimately by flying machines of some kind, with South America. We know that a very fine attempt was made the other day to reach Dakar in one flight, and 2,400 miles, I think, were covered in one day, although Dakar was not actually reached. I am well aware that these plans are very easy to make on paper, and it is very easy for a newspaper correspondent to describe the plans, although it is very likely that a great many of them have not materialised. We know that some of them are only plans at present, but I think we should feel reassured if we could hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, among his many necessary activities and responsibilities at the Air Ministry, he is not neglecting to see that this country keeps in the foremost place in regard to civil aviation.

I might say one word in anticipation of a Motion which an hon. Member is to move about air accidents. Of course, everyone desires to avoid air accidents; everyone desires that the greatest possible precautions should he taken, especially in the Service, to save young officers from injury or death in the course of their training and duties. Everyone desires that, but, after all, flying, and especially Service flying, is a dangerous trade. It is no use denying that it is a dangerous trade, especially in the early stages, and I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman replies to this Motion, he will tell us, not only how many accidents have occurred, but how many accidents per number of hours flown, because it is perfectly obvious that the figures are strictly relative—you must take into account how much flying has been done before you can judge whether the ratio of accidents is increasing or decreasing. It would be a pitiful thing if a matter in which the whole public sympathy is excited, namely, that of accidents to flying men, should be exploited as a stunt merely for the purposes of criticising the Air Ministry.

Now I approach the military side of the problem. We are all agreed—although I shall have something to say in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman at the end of this—that the desirable thing is to secure disarmament by mutual agreement, and everyone is looking forward to the day when that will be possible. But in the meantime I think we should secure a progressive reduction of expenditure on the three Services independent of any agreement as to disarmament at all. Thirdly, you must have a proper distribution of the money which is going to be available for the defence between the three Services. I do not so much complain, so long as we are forced to maintain a sufficient Air Force, at seeing an increase in the Air Estimates provided the money comes from the other Services, but there is no justification, in the present condition of world affairs and the state of exhaustion in which the world finds itself, for an increase in the Admiralty. If an increase is to take place in the Air Estimates it must be shown to come from the other two Services. The figures for the last two years do not show that this is happening at all. They show, on the contrary, an aggregate increase in the fighting Services. As to a proper distribution, how is that to be secured? Many hon. Members think the money would be properly distributed if you had a Defence Ministry. No doubt that is the ideal, but the technical people, the soldiers, the sailors and the great authorities, say it is impossible because of the practical difficulties in the way. A Defence Ministry would no doubt deal even-handedly with the three Services.

If you cannot have a Defence Ministry you must have three Ministries of equal standing to fight their battles before the Imperial Defence Committee or the Cabinet as the case may be, and. here I think the ex-Chancellor rather overlooked the point in the increase of the power of the right hon. Gentleman. When the present Prime Minister put the Secretary of State for Air back in the Cabinet he did a very good thing for the defence of his country, and when the Estimates today put the right hon. Gentleman back on to the same status as the Air Minister or the First Lord of the Admiralty they are doing the right thing. I am not caring about the salary, I would willingly see a reduction of all the salaries of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I am caring about seeing that the Minister for Air is not put in an inferior position as to salary to the Ministers for the other two Services. Unfortunately, at the very moment that this happens, this transfer of the item of £1,300,000 or thereabouts takes place from the Air Vote to the Naval Vote. It seems to me that this is the first breach in the citadel which has hitherto been held for the independence and integrity of the Air Force. Is it not a fact that when it comes to Cabinet decisions it is the First Lord of the Admiralty who asks for the amount of money that he wants for the Naval Fleet Arm and not the Secretary of State for Air at all? It will not affect the Estimate because he is going to get an Appropriation-in-Aid equal to the amount the First Lord asks him to spend on seaplanes. Therefore the whole position is altered, and by making the First Lord of the Admiralty the paymaster of the Air Force you put him in the position to begin again with a greater chance of success the age-long war which the Admiralty has carried on against the Air Service.

May I recapitulate the history of the struggle? There was the Royal Flying Corps, as it was called in 1912. It was supposed to be united then but it never worked unitedly. Then there was the Joint Committee. It was so impotent that it never met even when War broke out. Attempts were made to co-ordinate the two Services which were in competition for engines and machines by means of Lord Derby's Air Committee, Lord Curzon's Air Board and the Second Air Board. They were aiming at doing exactly the same sort of thing this plan is going to lead us to, namely, supplying material to the two Services, co-ordinating the demands and keeping the two Services in harmony. They all failed and in 1917, in the middle of the War, it was necessary to alter the whole machinery. It. would not have been done unless it had been very urgent in the national interest. The whole machine was altered and the Air Ministry was set up with the whole power over everything that goes into the air. Now it appears that the first step is being taken to re-verse that policy and I protest that in times of peace we should go back upon things which were decided upon under the stress of war and with the knowledge of what war meant fresh in our mind.

That is true. What does it mean? When the First Lord of the Admiralty is presenting his Estimates he will be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "so much money and no more," and he has to decide how much he is going to grant to the Air Minister for the Air Force and how much he is going to spend on ships. The First Lord of the Admiralty will be the arbiter as to what is to be the strength of the air arm and what is to be the strength of the floating part of his command. Everyone knows—we have gone over the ground so often—that there is no similitude between the services rendered by the people who fly with the Fleet and the people who-serve in the ships. There are points in common. It is true that observation from the air, when it is done with the Fleet, should be done by people familiar with the look of ships from the air and familiar with the manœuvres of ships. But let me ask the warmest advocate of the policy of division some questions such as these. Is there anything comparable to the air engine in the warship? Is there any service rendered by any naval officer which is comparable with flying? It is a different thing altogether. It is not comparable with anything that is done in a ship. Again, take photography, a very important function of aircraft. Is there anything in a warship comparable with photography? Is there any other branch of photography in the warship? Take bombing. Is there anything comparable with bombing? Is a knowledge of bomb sights required by any naval officer? There is no similarity between the services of the naval officer and the flying officer. They are working in different elements. It is no good saying they start from an aeroplane carrier. They fly in the air, just as the people who start from an aerodrome fly in the air, and until the policy is worked on that basis, that the air is an element requiring a service of its own, no efficiency and no progress can possibly he' made. If the navy gets an Appropriation-in-Aid, why not the Army? I would ask the Prime Minister, Supposing the Secretary of State for War says: "I would like to have the Vote that is going to be expended on the service I require, which is just the same as the service used for the Navy—artillery observation and reconnaissance—and I will make a grant to the Air Ministry," how will he be able to resist it? On what ground can he possibly resist it? There is no logical ground for resisting it. I see it has already been demanded. General Iron-side, speaking in November last, said he thought an air arm was absolutely necessary for the Army. Can it be denied that, although this is the recommendation of the Balfour Committee, which has never been approved by the House, this new plan of splitting up the money and making the First Lord of the Admiralty account for one part, with the result that the War Minister must account for another, is the beginning of the disintegration of the force and landing us back again in those days of Air Boards and Committees?

What are some of the disadvantages of this? In the first place, it is bad for the Services themselves. They are cut off from the centre of air thought and air advance. Furthermore, people who fly, who are connected with the Naval or Army Air Services, are constantly under the shadow of a competing profession, and instead of the air being your ideal, it is the Army or the Navy, as the case may be, and if you destroy that pride in the air and make the air an appanage of the Army or the Navy, you deal a crippling blow at the efficiency of the Service. I am not qualified to speak about strategic considerations, but supposing you give your air arm to the Admiralty, and supposing there is an attack on London, will the Air Minister call back the machines to defend London or to make a counterattack on the aerodrome attacking us? It is an important point. There was an article written by General Groves, whose authority will be generally admitted, in which he said the general policy should be designed to fulfil two requirements in reference to the air units allotted to the Army and the Navy, those necessary to fit them to be integral portions of the nation's aerial arm, and those necessary to render them efficient auxiliaries to the Services to which they were attached.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman contemplate that the Chief of the Air Staff shall be able to apply for a fleet of aircraft to be sent out at any time?

That point was dealt with in the Balfour Committee's report. You are depriving us of a possible force which may be necessary at a moment of crisis if you divide up the Services and give one part to the Fleet and one to the Army, leaving the right hon. Gentleman with what is left. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also interrupted me to say that France has not got a united Air Service. That is true, but Italy has recently decided to have a single Air Service and also there is a campaign, which may succeed, going on in America to give America a united Air Service. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman challenges me on that let me remind him of what the "Times" said about President Coolidge's opinion on the matter, because it bears very closely upon the point whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is the safest guide as to how much should he spent on ships and how much on the Fleet Air Arm. The "Times" said: any special arrangement with France? Are you calling an International Conference?" He will not complain if I put the same questions to-day, and if I say to him: What are you doing? We cannot find out what are your intentions about the protocol. We do not know whether anything is going to come of the Conference with Washington, with a view to some extension of the Washington Treaty to aircraft. I know the difficulties. Those difficulties were explored by a committee of the Washington Conference. There is the difficulty of finding some means of differentiating a civilian machine from a military machine. But you have done it in the case of Germany. You profess to allow Germany to continue her civil aviation, without depriving her of the military arm. What is the Government doing? The question is urgent. We do not want to drift into these enormous squadrons. We would rather see the air arm used for more peaceful, more useful and more humanitarian service.

It is a matter of urgency that we should know what the Government are doing in the direction of disarmament. When this programme was started, the yard measure for our support was always to be France. That was done without the least feeling of ill-will and without any suggestion of possible ill-will. That was merely the measure we took. France had then 128 squadrons. That was in December, 1922. The number grew to 140, and we were told that she was to have 200 squadrons very shortly, and 400, I think, on mobilisation. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to point out that this programme has not materialised, and the Minister for Air was good enough to tell me that, in answer to an interposed question which I put. We have made our special advance, we have increased from 32 squadrons. I do not know what the strength is to-day, but I think it is 54 squadrons. We have increased our Home Defence squadrons from three squadrons to six squadrons, and it is to be increased to 26 squadrons this year. While we are advancing, France appears to be standing still.

I do ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible to go slow and to take some step which will make Estimates of this kind, either for the Navy or the Army, grossly swollen. The French menace, as we will admit, has gone—I mean that the disparity is disappearing. I should not have used the word "menace," because it never was a menace. That is the point that we have to consider. if you are taking the French standard as the standard you aim at, is it likely that France can maintain her present standard? The greatest friend of disarmament in France will be the franc. That has to be taken into account if you are going to measure our standard of defence by the standard of the French.

The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a point which I desire to emphasise, namely, that it is preposterous that we should be called upon to increase our Air Force to reach a certain standard when the people who are setting that standard are in the relation of debtors who are unable to pay their debts. If £5.000,000 could he taken off our Air Estimate in consequence of an agreement with France—it is not as if we are competing with many countries, because there is only the one great air Power in Europe, save ourselves—it will be worth £100,000,000 at present of their debt. I trust that when a reply is made, we may be given some ray of hope so that we may know that we are within measurable distance of reasonable arrangements between the nations that may set this great force free in the direction of serving human progress, instead of making it a terror and a menace even to civilisation itself.

I should like to touch on some of the larger aspects of these Estimates. We have now had a separate Air Ministry for seven years, and during the last five years we have spent £91,000,000 on it. It would be well if we reviewed the progress which has been made during that period, and for that sum. Any criticisms that I may make are not directed primarily to these Estimates which are a heritage of the Estimates of previous Governments. I want most strongly to urge the Secretary of State for Air, now that he is embarking upon his Ministry in this Parliament , to ensure that the arguments as to what is right and what is wrong in the policy that is being pursued are clearly and definitely reviewed. He should prepare the way for a radical improvement in that policy for the next year's Estimates.

The policy under which the squadrons are being increased and based at home has been approved, but as I see it, the Air Ministry exists primarily for aerial development. It is not merely a question of increasing squadrons and giving them buildings and ground service, but it is the necessity of carrying out aerial work that is important. What are the respective amounts apparently to be spent on actual flying and ancillary services? What progress is being made in regard to the development of night and fog flying? What is being done for the development of airmanship in bad weather? These are the practical points. Two years ago, the Secretary of State confessed that four-fifths of the Air expenditure went to ancillary services. That proportion, so far as I can see, is no better now. Last year, the Under-Secretary defended the large proportion of ground personnel by the argument that an efficient staff makes for safety and confidence. No one would quarrel with that view, but efficiency is surely not measured in terms of quantity. In this regard, how is it that the average life of Air Force machines is only 130 flying hours or, say, only some 5 per cent. or less of the number of hours reasonably asked of civil aircraft, carrying passengers.

Again, the additional provision made for petrol this year is surely not commensurate with the proposed increase in squadron strength. In any case, it is very much less than is set down for armament and ammunition. Another unsatisfactory point in the continuation of past policies is that nearly three-quarters of the personnel, serving under the chief of the air staff, are concerned with buildings and land. There seems to be something wrong there. There are many similar points, but I will not weary the House with them. I think it is clear that, generally speaking, the Estimates hold out very little hope for what I regard as the most important aspect of the work of the Ministry, and that is, actual flying in relation to the expenditure.

In regard to airships, I am glad to see the desire expressed to place the scheme on a commercial footing. It is in that direction that the best progress lies. We have only a certain amount of money and knowledgable personnel for airship de velopment. The alternatives are, development by the State or commercially, or by both at the same time. The last is the present policy. By doing so, the money is being divided, the personnel is being divided, and you are creating competition between the Government and a commercial concern. In my view, competition between the Government and commercial concerns cannot lead to satisfactory results, and the policy is unsound under the circumstances. We have seen how unsound State operation is in the air service which has been in existence for a few years between Cairo and Bagdad. We were told by the Secretary of State when that service was initiated in 1922, that it was initiated from a trading point of view, as a practice field for the future, and for further developments in the direction of Imperial airways. This route has failed in competition with the ground route. We all know that there is now a motor route effectively competing between these points. This s air route has produced no returns or data upon which a commercial service can be well founded. Therefore, it has failed in both directions. If it should be argued that it is primarily for the training of pilots, that is another thing, but it was not instituted for that primary purpose.

I welcome the desire which has been expressed by the Secretary of State for the formation of imperial aeroplane routes. It is absolutely vital to our communications that these routes should be set up, and I hope that in this case the desires will take actual practical effect and will not remain as mere desires. We have heard desires frequently expressed in that direction, and I hope those desires will this time come to something very shortly. If we examine the Estimates, it will be noted, however, that they fail to reflect any hope in this direction. If the cost of direction of civil aviation is a criterion of the value placed upon the development of civil aviation, it will be found that the development of civil aviation is rated at about one-half the value of the Air Ministry's messengers and cleaners.

7.0 P.M.

With respect to the technical aspect, we have spent £10,000,000 in the name of research during the last six years. We have done something in the matter of all-metal machines. Germany, I believe, is doing more. We have new types of machines, and engines of slightly better performance than those of six years ago, but showing less relative improvement than those produced abroad. I have taken the past six years as the criterion, because in the previous year, the year after the War, everything was so tangled that it was unfair to include it. The flying boat has remained stagnant, although it is one of the most important forms of aircraft development to carry into effect, especially for an Empire which has many rivers that could be very well operated for communication and patrolling by the flying boat at very much less cost than is now necessary by ship. Is technical progress such that aircraft can be employed in night and fog flying more easily now than six years ago I Has controllability at low speeds been radically improved? What efforts are being made in this direction and. with what definite substantial results? It is not very encouraging to find increased provision asked for armaments and ammunition and decreased provision made for research in aircraft and engines and miscellaneous research. Then for the second time in succession there is in these Estimates no mention of details of research organisation. The Secretary of State says: "It is feeling its way towards re-organisation." Well, I think the common-sense organisation is quite clear, and I hope that he personally will take up this matter, because it applies to the root and foundation of all aerial development. It is, if I may say so, absolutely upon research that the whole of this development depends, and I do hope that the Secretary of State will see his way to go into this matter personally and re-organise the Department so that he can get the best brains to work and the best methods, without being tied down to small details, to enable them to carry out their work in the best possible way.

As I said at the beginning of these remarks, the Secretary of State has got a very difficult job. On the other hand, think he has got a tremendous opportunity at this juncture to carry into effect benefits of enormous value to this country; but I do hope and believe he will take advantage of that position. In almost every direction hitherto, Air Ministry policy and achievement have failed. It has failed in the development of flight and, flying material, failed in the weight that it has attached to the development of air transport as an Imperial trade instrument, and it has failed, too, in the creation of reserves. With this year's Estimates, we reach a total amount for defence expenditure of some £1,000,000,000 in six years, and of this, air expenditure represents about £110,000,000. Of the £21,000,000, which the present Estimate totals, about 2 per cent. is provided for civil aviation. I would ask the House to note this figure, especially in view of the remarks made by the last speaker as to the provision for civil aviation—6 per cent for research and experiments under military control, while the military side proper takes over 90 per cent. There can be very little aerial progress with such an allocation of expenditure. It shows a totally incorrect assessment of the relative values of force and progress. It has lacked, it is true, a unified machinery, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me said, and with whose remark I agree, and I think there can be no real solution of this question short of that it has also had the handicap of six Secretaries of State and eight Under-Secretaries of State during the last seven years. But I hope now the present Secretary of State is entering upon a long period in which we hope that he will be able to set this matter of relative allocation straight and get abreast of the policy which should govern aerial development. I hope he, will be able to produce next year Estimates which show that he has been able to cut at the root and make a really drastic re-moulding of the system of the great concern which is under his jurisdiction, and I hope he will tackle it very shortly and carry it into effect as speedily as possible,

Flying Accidents

I beg to move; to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words dents and was alarmed by the number of accidents which had taken place. I want at the outset to disclaim anything of that kind. I want also to disclaim any idea of any technical or practical knowledge of flying, but what I do wish, in the few moments in which I propose to address the House, is to say a few words from the point of view of the man in the street and try and express, as far as I can, some idea of the things which he will probably like to know with regard to this question of flying accidents. I speak entirely as one who has watched with the greatest admiration the work which has been done by the pioneers in flying, those who, by pluck and tenacity from the early stages of flying, have brought it into its present state of perfection. They are, indeed, men of whom this Empire may very well be extremely proud. Of course, one realises that some may take up the profession of flying in spite of danger; fear of danger will never prevent those intrepid spirits to whose invention and resource we owe so much for the advance of the science of aviation.

There is one very serious danger. There is the serious danger that the exaggeration of the proportion of accidents that may have taken place, the exaggerated idea of danger which is conveyed by that and misapprehension which is caused by it, may be a matter of very serious concern. In the first place, I venture to think that the exaggeration of danger is very unfair indeed to those engaged in the profession of flying. One never knows how the exaggeration of the risks that are run may affect a man at a critical moment, and under those circumstances I venture to think that those who in any way exaggerate the dangers do a very great disservice to those who are doing magnificent work, as those are doing who are connected with flying. Quite apart from everything else, exaggeration of that type must seriously retard the development of aviation. Quite apart from exaggeration, grave difficulties may be brought about if anything is done which tends to create a lack of confidence. Some time ago there were statements in some of the newspapers which tended to undermine confidence in the administration and management of our Air Service. I refer to the statements made suggesting that those responsible for the Air Service withheld news of accidents from those who were immediately concerned. Nothing, in my opinion, could more endanger confidence in the Air Service than the idea that news of accidents was withheld. I should like to know whether there has been, in the first place, any justification for that statement.

I hear now, at any rate from one of the principal critics of the Government in that regard, that there is no cause of any kind for complaint at the present time. The suggestion was undoubtedly made that a change has come about and that since the right hon. Gentleman took charge of the Air Department there has been a complete change of policy and not now for one moment is any news of that kind withheld. I should like to know if that is the case, and I think the public would like to know whether it is possible for a fatal accident in England to take place without publicity, without its being made known to the public. I should like to know whether steps are taken to give the fullest publicity of these accidents and also that information is given to those who are more immediately concerned. If that change has taken place, it is undoubtedly all to the good, and I think the House and the country at large would like to know whether steps have been taken to give that necessary publicity.

A word or two about accidents. I entirely agree with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) as to the idea of stunts with reference to air danger as a thing which should be avoided at all cost, and one realises, in connection with ordinary affairs even in motor car driving, how wholly unreliable the figures of the number of accidents may be. People talk about the increasing number of accidents in London, but they fail altogether to appreciate that, quite apart from the increase in accidents, the number of motor cars on the street has increased in a very much larger proportion to the number of accidents, and, just in the same way as you are dealing with the number of flying accidents, the question in everybody's mind must be what is the real position of the number of accidents in relation to the opportunities of accidents—in other words, in proportion to the amount of flying which is actually done? I think the public would like to know how far accidents which are preventible and are due to matters other than error of judgment are being reduced in proportion in that way. The proportion of accidents to the number of flying errors are matters about which I should imagine the public Are keenly interested in order that they may judge the matter in a fair way, and not as it might be judged superficially if one took the number of accidents without relation to the real position. Then one comes to the question of the inquiries that are made. The average man, I think, does want to be satisfied that the fullest and most careful inquiry is made into the accidents that occur. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he appointed an impartial inquiry in the Croydon accident. The appointment of an inquiry of that kind, a Commission of that kind, will do a great deal to prevent any lack of confidence in the supervision over aviation by the Air Ministry. While we are all glad that it was possible for the gentleman who inquired into that accident to exonerate, in his report, everybody connected with it, from the charges of negligence that were made, may I express the hope that the Government may press through the Bill which is necessary to make the changes which are advised in the aerodrome at Croydon.

One matter on which the public are, to some extent, without full knowledge is the extent to which there is inquiry as to accidents which take place in the Service. Most of us appreciate that, when an accident takes place in the Service, there will probably be something in the nature of a disciplinary inquiry, such as takes place in the Navy or would take place in the Army, a stricter parallel being the disciplinary inquiry which takes place in the Navy. But any one with any experience of disciplinary inquiries of that kind knows that when you mix up inquiries into the cause of an accident with discipline, it is just possible that your inquiry may not be quite so minute, inasmuch as the principle guiding your disciplinary inquiry must be the principle of giving the person who, by reason of the accident, is the accused, the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I would like to know whether, in addition to the disciplinary inquiry which takes place, there is any other inquiry which will provide, quite apart from questions of discipline, a more minute examination into the cause of the accident, which will not be complicated by the principle, which must be preserved at all costs in a disciplinary inquiry, that the accused must have the full benefit of any doubt which may exist in the charge which is made.

Another matter, which is of importance in connection with accidents and with research, is what inquiry and what experiments are the Ministry carrying out, with a view not merely to the prevention of accidents, but rather to the provision of means of escape in cases in which an aeroplane may get out of control when the accident has happened, and the only thing to do is to make the beat of the situation and find some means of escape. What research of that kind has been made, and has anything been adopted which would in any way tend to minimise or prevent the loss of life when an aeroplane has got into such a state that there is no longer any control, and the only thing to do, if means of escape are not provided, is to take the chance of its falling to the ground in such a way that injury is not inflicted? One has heard of means being adopted; one has heard of suggestions made in some countries of the use of parachutes. Have those been inquired into? Do the Government propose to go further into the matter, and have they found anything which could be adopted?

In all these matters the first essential is the prevention of accidents, the fullest inquiry, remedial measures immediately the accident is found to have happened which could have been prevented, and, in addition to that, all possible steps to minimise the effects of any accidents that have taken place. I have put this Motion down with the object of asking those questions, and endeavouring to seer whether we can get some statement which, while we cannot prevent alarmist statements being made from time to time, and cannot prevent paragraphs which give an exaggerated importance to accidents that do take place, will at any rate show to the public at large that there is no reason for any fear in the matter, but that all reasonable steps are taken to make what must he a calling associated with a certain amount of danger as little dangerous as possible, and will tend to prevent any undermining of public confidence in the work of this great service.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), I must dis- claim any expert or any special knowledge of civil aviation. But from personal experience I appreciate that, both for the individual and for merchandise, civil aviation is an immense economy of time. For that reason I am particularly anxious that the right hon. Gentleman shall, as I am sure he will be able to do, assure the commercial public that the dangers in regard to aviation are much more apparent than real. We all deplore the appalling disaster which occurred at Christmas time, but it is only fair that we should look at the exact facts in regard to civil aviation. I believe that there were some 11,000 passengers carried prior to that most regrettable accident, and there was not one fatal accident among that 11,000. I believe that, as that fact becomes more generally known, people will resume availing themselves of aerial transport.

I would like to associate myself with my hon. Friend, and ask the Minister whether he has considered one or two points. The first is whether it is not possible for him to inaugurate a special service of surprise and independent inspection of commercial aeroplanes? Another matter about which I would like him to tell the House is whether he has had any inquiry made with regard to a class of petrol tank that will not explode if it is pierced by a bullet, or in the event of a forced landing, and whether any information which he has on that subject could be given to the builders of civil aeroplanes? My hon. Friend referred to parachutes as being impracticable with enclosed passenger carriages, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to have an emergency exit inside enclosed carriages? An emergency exit away from the nose of the machine would give considerable confidence to passengers, and if the machine came down, and the cabin were not damaged, the passengers could easily get out from within or the rescuers could easily get them from without, instead of having to climb over the top of the machine.

Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to have, some automatic safety device such as you have in the tube railways, which, in the unfortunate event of the driver being faint or even meeting his death at his post, would conduct the aeroplane safely to the ground. I am told that automatic o stability is now almost assured, and if the public knew that, in the event of the driver becoming faint, the aeroplane itself could in normal conditions volplane down, I believe that that would produce much greater confidence in aerial transport. There is another matter. If Croydon is to become the chief aerial station I would ask the Minister to consider the advisability of immediately acquiring small emergency landing stages in the neighbourhood of Purley and the surrounding districts, because that neighbourhood is being covered rapidly with buildings, and if the aerial service develops, as we hope it will, you will find that there will be no small emergency stations available. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that my support of my hon. Friend's Motion is not due to any desire to criticise either himself or his Ministry—quite the contrary—but I do feel that there is an exaggerated feeling outside that aerial transport is exceedingly dangerous, and that if that is not contradicted from the Floor of this House throughout the country it will retard the development of commercial aviation, which I think can be, and should be, a tremendous help to the industries of this country.

I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House if I made an answer now to the two speeches to which we have just listened. I had intended to suggest, and perhaps I may do so now, that we might then proceed to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," on the understanding that the general Debate can be resumed immediately afterwards on Votes A and I. I make this statement now so that hon. Members may not think that, in restricting myself to the points raised by my two hon. Friends, I am not going to deal with the other general questions which have been raised earlier in the Debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I will have ample opportunity of dealing with the important general points either this evening or when the Debate is resumed some day next week. I am obliged to my two hon. Friends for raising this question and for raising it in so temperate and judicious a manner. I can only say that there is no question which commands more anxious attention from me than the question of accidents. When there is a tragedy by which some gallant young pilot's life is lost, and I have to write a letter of condolence to his parents and sympathise with them in what is not only a loss to the parents and the family, but also a great loss to the nation as a whole, there is no sadder task that I have to perform.

I imagine from what my two hon. Friends have said that they will wish me to address myself to two questions. First, is the number of accidents now abnormal, and, second, whatever may be the number of accidents, normal or abnormal, are we taking every possible care to restrict their number and seriousness? Let me begin with the question of numbers. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith Burghs (Captain W. Benn) said, quite rightly, that we must judge the gravity of the question of accidents, not by their absolute number, but by their relativity to flying hours. Judged by that test, the statistics are not unsatisfactory on the whole. During the last 18 months, particularly during the last 12 months, we have been greatly extending the strength of the Air Force. Therefore, in the nature of things, the flying hours have greatly increased, and although the absolute number of accidents may have risen, yet, proportionately to flying hours, the number is still going down. Let me give the House some figures.

I will take the figures for two years to show that the improvement is continuous over a comparatively long period. As far as the absolute numbers of accidents are concerned, there was an increase in 1924 as compared with 1923. The increase in the number of deaths was, moreover, roughly proportionate to the increase in the number of fatal accidents. The actual number of deaths in 1924 was 72, and the number of fatal accidents 49. But when they come to what is much more important, the proportion of these accidents to flying hours, hon. Members will find a much more satisfactory situation. During the 12 months ending in June, 1923, there was an improvement in relation to flying hours of 47 per cent, over 1922, and in 1924, although the improvement was not as conspicuous as it was in 1923, it was yet 7 per cent. better than it was in 1923. The House therefore will see that if you take into account the fact that the Air Force is considerably greater than it was two years ago, and that the number of flying hours has greatly increased, the proportion of fatal flying accidents during the last two years has steadily gone down.

Having given the House that information, let me come to certain of the specific questions raised by my two hon. Friends. They ask, "Are we doing everything that is humanly possible to make this improvement still greater and to reduce still further the number of fatal accidents?" Let me give the House a short description of what we are trying to do. I will begin with what is perhaps the most important aspect of the question, even though it may not seem so at first—the question which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith Burghs and my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) rightly emphasised so strongly during the earlier Debate this afternoon. I mean the question of research. I have been at pains during the last few weeks to examine the kind of research that is at present being carried out, and I find that the greater part of what I might call pure research as distinct from technical development is at the present moment being devoted to what. I shall describe in a single phrase as "Safety first." I will give the House a few of the questions upon which the Aeronautical Research Committee and other scientists working for the Air Ministry are at present principally engaged. Having no great technical knowledge myself I will put it in the least technical language possible. Here are a few of the questions upon which they are now actually at work:

That is the very question which emerged so prominently from Sir Arthur Colefax's valuable report on the Croydon accident.

Let me come now to one or two of the other questions that have been asked. There is the question raised at the outset of his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) with reference to publicity. I agree that would be the worst thing possible for the Air Ministry to conceal information connected with serious accidents. I think it would be cruel from the point of view of the parents and families of men who have lost their lives, and it would be indefensible from the point of view of the country. The action which I have taken during the last two or three months is to make the publicity somewhat greater than it was before. Originally, when a fatal accident took place the parents were informed of it, but no notice was sent out to the Press. If the Press asked for information it was not withheld by the Air Ministry, but we did not make the first move in sending the information to the Press. It seemed to me that it would be better for the Air Ministry to act as the fighting departments acted during the War in the case of casualty lists, by sending the information out to the Press. Accordingly, the procedure that is in force now is that we wait 24 hours after a fatal accident, to give me time to notify the relations of the pilots who have lost their lives and to send them a word of sympathy, but after 24 hours we automatically send out to the Press the notification of all fatal accidents at home.

I think that that shows that, so far as the Ministry is concerned, the last thing in the world that we desire is to withhold information and to prevent the public knowing what is happening. There is the further fact, in this connection, that in the case of the very serious accident at Croydon, where several lives were lost, I created a precedent, as soon as I had the requisite information at my disposal, by appointing what is called a formal inquiry, which means a semi-judicial inquiry held in public, at which the most detailed evidence could be given about all the aspects of the accident. I hope that I have said enough to show that the publicity which we are now giving is what hon. Members desire, and that there is no intention on my part or on the part of anybody connected with the Air Ministry to hush up accidents or to prevent the public knowing what has happened.

The hon. Member for Balham raised the question of inspection and asked whether we could not do more in the way of inspecting aircraft, and I imagine that he would include also the pilots, with a view to testing existing risks. I have here several pages, with which I will not trouble the House, setting out the series of minute inspections that are made, not only of the finished and working machine, but of the parts of it from the very beginning and before the machine is put together. From the moment that the parts are first made to the time when a machine goes off the aerodrome at Croydon, there is a continuous succession of inspections by every kind of expert inspector. There is inspection of parts, there are inspections of finished machines, inspections of the pilots, and very frequent inspections to see whether their training is up to date and whether their health is satisfactory. Whilst I am not prepared to set aside any suggestions that may be made for further inspection with a view to making security even more secure, yet I am inclined to think that if I were to show the hon. Member all the details, he would share the view taken by Sir Arthur Colefax at the Croydon inquiry that, so far as that kind of Air Ministry work is concerned, there is very little further still to be done.

Both my hon. Friends have asked me whether there are any further safety appliances which could be adopted in British aircraft, and the hon. Member for Balham suggested that there should be some kind of safety device for bringing an aeroplane safely to the ground after an accident had taken place. I will look into that question, but I am afraid that in the majority of accidents, where the crash takes place from a comparatively low height, it would be almost impossible to bring into operation any safety appliance of that kind, but there are other safety appliances which, I think, we might well utilise. Before I pass to them, however, let me say, in connection with safety appliances for bringing an aeroplane to the ground after an accident, that we are making experiments with an appliance which would show the pilot when he had reached the point at which stalling was becoming dangerous. That shows, at any rate, that we are engaged in the problem which the hon. Member for Balham has brought to the attention of the House. As I have said, there are other safety appliances which I think we might well adopt now. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood asked me a specific question with reference to parachutes. I have always taken a very deep interest in the development of parachutes, and one of the first things I did when I first became connected with the Air Ministry was to see demonstrations of various types of parachute. Since then there has been a great deal of research in connection with the subject, and more experiments have been made, and I have come to the conclusion that the time has now arrived when we ought to supply British fighting machines and pilots in the Air Force with parachutes.

Hon. Members who have studied the question know that there are various types of parachute. There is the parachute called the static parachute, which is fixed to the machine, and there is the parachute called the free parachute, which is not fixed to the machine. I have decided to adopt a certain type of free parachute. It is called the Irving parachute and has now been in use in the United States for some time—for a sufficiently long time to show that it works very efficiently and that it saves life in accidents of certain kinds. My regret is that it is an American and not a British type; at the same time, I felt that the question of safety appliances was of such urgency that I could not afford to wait longer for the development of any type in this country. Accordingly we have now given an order and, in the course of the next few weeks, the first instalment of these parachutes will arrive in this country, and we shall be able to make a beginning with the equipment of the whole of the Air Force with them. The total equipment will take some little time, but I am sure hon. Members will wish us to push the matter through as quickly as we can and, by this means, give our pilots a greater element of security than they would have otherwise. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which we raised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put in reference to inquiries into Service accidents?

I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon for overlooking that question. The hon. and learned Member has asked me whether in the case of Service accidents there is any inquiry other than the disciplinary inquiry which is conducted by officers of the Air Force, and is rather in the nature of the inquiry by court-martial held in the case of the loss of a ship. I am glad to be able to inform the House another very stringent inquiry is carried out, not by a Service official, but by the Inspector of Accidents, who is, I imagine, so far as air accidents are concerned, the greatest expert in the country, and he is not in any way trammelled or influenced in his inquiry by anything that may have happened in the purely Service investigation. I am inclined to think that the double inquiry, first the disciplinary inquiry by the Service officers, and, secondly, the impartial and independent inquiry by the Inspector of Accidents, represents everything we can do to make certain that all the salient facts of accidents are investigated, and that when they have been investigated the necessary action is taken on them.

May I say a last word about the Croydon accident. I have already alluded to the fact that we held a public inquiry and that a mass of very valuable evidence was given at it but I should like to assure the House that whilst I am naturally very much relieved that this impartial inquiry has acquitted both the Air Ministry and the company of any charge of negligence or omission at any time to carry out their proper duties, none the less the suggestions which the investigation was instrumental in bringing out are being dealt with. For instance within a few hours of the issue of the Report of Sir Arthur Colefax's investigation, I took steps to make certain minor alterations in the Croydon aerodrome which have the effect of increasing its extent at one end by the pulling down of a fence, and I immediately set on foot various further inquiries connected with the facts which emerged from Sir Arthur Colefax's investigation. As to the further question of making substantial improvements in the aerodrome, I hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill in the course of a few days. Under that Bill we shall propose to divert a road, the position of which at present makes it difficult for us to carry out any extensive improvements in the aerodrome. I think the House will find that when the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, we shall be able to carry out such alterations at Croydon as will make it one of the best civil aerodromes in the world. I think I have now reviewed all the questions raised by my hon. Friends. Let me conclude by thanking them for raising those questions and let me express the hope that the House will be satisfied with the answer which I have given, and will now proceed to deal with the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, upon the understanding that we resume the general Debate upon Vote A and Vote I.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number of flying hours per accident? He gave us a very interesting statement regarding the ratio, but it would be interesting to know the number of flying hours to each accident.

I think my hon. Friend will admit the strength of my reason for not giving the figure which he mentions. In flying a great variety of conditions prevail. Some of these accidents take place under active service conditions in Iraq, some take place in India where the climatic conditions are very different from those, for example, in Egypt and elsewhere. Any single figure of the kind asked for would be confusing and would not help my hon. Friends to come to a decision. The substantial figure that matters is the percentage taken over all, and I can assure my hon. Friends that that percentage during the last few years is steadily growing better.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

I think no one can listen with more acute sympathy to an hon. Member addressing the House for the first time than one about to face that dread ordeal himself and, at the outset, I desire to compliment the hon. Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) upon the contribution he has made with such singular authority to this Debate. The party which sits on these benches has always sought one of two objects in its defence policy. It has sought, first, disarmament, and, if efforts in that direction have failed, it has sought boldly for security. A well-governed nation recognises that semi-security is a useless thing as well as a contradiction in terms. If six Dreadnoughts were steaming on Scapa Flow and we had only two to meet them, the ensuing disaster would have to be dated back to the political blunder which made such a situation possible. I ask the Secretary of State for Air, is he quite sure that in the consideration of his air policy to-day he is not making just such a blunder? May I at this point remind the House of the actual figures which are relevant for the consideration of the Secretary of State. I will deal in numbers of machines instead of squadrons in order to facilitate comparison. There are British Royal Air Force machines to the number of 648 and, of this number, there are 216 organised for home defence. If I proceed to give the figures for France I hope I shall not be accused of wanting to scare anybody—certainly not of wanting to scare the big battalions which overflow from the benches opposite—but France has 1,260 machines, not including a large number, an unknown number, which are not quite completed.

8.0 P.M.

I hope when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of security, he will tell the House by what process of reasoning he can deduce that a force which is in a position of inferiority of three or four to one at the best constitutes security to this nation? My first question is, Whether the House is not being asked to vote £16,000,000 for services which do not give us what we want? I have spoken with a number of flying officers on this subject, and also with a Minister who was in the Cabinet previously formed by the present Prime Minister. Many of those flying officers—and I am quite sure that any Service officers here will bear me out—had the general impression that the forces of foreign nations were inferior to our own in material. They thought, for instance, that the mechanics of the French Air Service were either more slovenly or more careless than our own, and that their machines were less efficient. To my surprise, the Minister shared this view. His apprehensive study of the hard, plain figures was relieved by a pleasant daydream, in which the Pas-de-Calais, the English Channel, and the cliffs of Dover were strewn with the wreckage of a foreign aerial Armada, while our smaller but efficient Air Force disposed of the survivors over the health resorts of the South Coast. I am not attributing these views to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do say that they are held to a very large extent by a number of flying officers and a, larger number of non-flying officers in the Royal Air Force.

There is another school of thought that derives consolation from the rules of the Hague Convention. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit that be does not expect that any conceivable air attack on this country would be able to confine its destruction to military objectives. I know that a great improvement in bombing accuracy has occurred since the War, but I think it is correct to say that if a pilot were over London in broad daylight, at the height of 6,000 feet, and his machine was not fitted with the latest type of bomb-sight, he could drop a bomb and be by no means certain it would fall within 200 yards of its objective. Even with the most efficient type of bomb-sight, no one can say that bombing from the air has a 50 per cent. zone of 100 or even 200 yards, and even under the best conditions, in the case of bombs dropped at night at military objectives, not one in four would fall within 100, 200 or 300 yards of the objective. The point I wish to make is that an air attack an London, even by its genuine errors, could sprinkle gas and high explosive bombs through the length and breadth of London, exciting alarm and terror where confidence is most necessary to the morale of the civil population. I do not wish to minimise, or to exaggerate, the destructive effect of high explosives in aerial attack, but any flying officers here who have studied this question will hear me out when I say that it is possible to conceive an attack which would leave our small but efficient Air Force in a position of such hopeless inferiority that they would be utterly overwhelmed and defeated within the first few days of an air attack.

I do not want the Minister to think that I am advocating a great increase in our Air Force. That I should regard as a lamentable but necessary result, if a certain other policy failed. I listened to the Minister talking for 20 minutes about saving the lives of pilots by the use of parachutes and other devices—a very commendable aim—but would it not be far more effective for him to devote greater consideration to the question of disarmament? Why cannot the Government make a public appeal to the Powers to come together to discuss the question of air disarmament? Why cannot the Prime Minister call them together? Surely the old tag, that empty, petty platitude, that "the time is not opportune," is not the answer. What is to be achieved by the young men opposite, whose democratic fervour is the proud boast of their leader and the bugbear of their older colleagues, if every time their fervour bubbles over they are to be rebuked for displaying the characteristic impatience of new Members? Is it the pride of America, or recalcitrant France, or Signor Mussolini that constitutes the inopportune element in the disarmament situation? I am aware of the difficulties. I have read and re-read the Report of the Sub-Committee to the Washington Conference, but can we so soon have forgotten the events that led up to that Conference? The call of the late President Harding, the specific proposals of Secretary of State Hughes came as a surprise even to Lord Balfour. I would like to know, if the Prime Minister made such a call now, what nation could ignore that call without incurring the obloquy of its own citizens and the opprobrium of the whole world? Even if we concede that failure is a possibility, what could the Government lose by making this call? A temporary loss of prestige, a negligible injury to their amour propre would be overwhelmed in the tide of approbation

which would rise in every quarter of the British Empire, and Britain would have put herself right with the world, and the people of Britain would know where they stand.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 101.

Division No. 22.]

AYES.

[8.10 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

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

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Albery, Irving James

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Jacob, A. E.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

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

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Apsley, Lord

Drewe, C.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lamb, J. Q.

Atholl, Duchess of

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Ellis, R. G.

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Elveden, Viscount

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Balniel, Lord

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

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Sir G.(E Sussex, E'stb'ne)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Loder, J. de V.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Looker, Herbert William

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lord, Walter Greases-

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lougher, L.

Berry, Sir George

Fermoy, Lord

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Betterton, Henry B.

Finburgh, S.

Luce, Major- Gen, Sir Richard Harman

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Ford, P. J.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

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

Forrest, W.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

MacIntyre, Ian

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

McLean, Major A.

Blundell, F. N.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Gates, Percy

Macquisten, F. A.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Brass, Captain W.

Goff, Sir Park

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Briggs, J. Harold

Gower, Sir Robert

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Briscoe, Richard George

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Margesson, Captain D.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

Meller, R. J.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Merriman, F. B.

Bullock, Captain M.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Burman, J. B.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hammersley, S. S.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hanbury, C.

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

Butt, Sir Alfred

Harland, A.

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hartington, Marquess of

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Haslam, Henry C.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hawke, John Anthony

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Christie, J. A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

Neville, R. J.

Clayton, G. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nuttall, Ellis

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Oakley, T.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Hilton, Cecil

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Cope, Major William

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Couper, J. B.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Homan, C. W. J.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Philipson, Mabel

Crook, C. W.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Radford, E. A.

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Raine, W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Ramsden, E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hurd, Percy A.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Smithers, Waldron

Watts, Dr. T.

Remer, J. R.

Somerville, A, A. (Windsor)

Wells, S. R.

Rantoul, G. S

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Ropner, Major L.

Storry Deans, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Rye, F. G.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Womersley, W. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase-

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

Sandon, Lord

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

Savery, S. S.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Wragg, Herbert

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Shepperson, E. W.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Warrender, Sir Victor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Skelton, A. N.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Commander B. Eyres Mansell and Colonel Gibbs.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

NOES.

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

Hayes, John Henry

Shiels, Dr Drummond

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Smillie, Robert

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Barr, J.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Batey, Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stephen, Campbell

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kelly, W. T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Broad, F. A.

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Bromley, J.

Kirkwood, D.

Taylor, R. A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lansbury, George

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

Buchanan, G.

Lee, F.

Thurtle, E.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Lindley, F. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Charleton, H. C.,

Lowth, T.

Viant, S. P.

Cluse, W. S.

Lunn, William

Wallhead, Richard C.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Connolly, M.

MacLaren, Andrew

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

Cove, W. G.

March, S.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dalton, Hugh

Maxton, James

Welsh, J. C.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Montague, Frederick

Westwood, J.

Day, Colonel Harry

Naylor, T. E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Palin, John Henry

Wignall, James

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Potts, John S.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Gibbins, Joseph

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

Windsor, Walter

Groves, T.

Rose, Frank H.

Wright, W.

Grundy, T. W

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Scrymgeour, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES ——

Hardie, George D.

Scurr, John

Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Warne.

Hayday, Arthur

Sexton, James

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Number of Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 36,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 35,000 men.

I wish to explain that the purpose of the Amendment to reduce this Vote by 35,000 men is to arraign the waste and futility of all armaments, and to point out that they really produce the very evil they seek to prevent, that is, war. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that last year a Motion was moved by certain members of the party to which I have the honour to belong which had for its object the reduction of the Army by a very considerable number, and I wish to explain straight away that the real object of this Amendment is to give those of us—not the Labour party, but those individual members of the Labour party—who realise the futility of piling up armaments an opportunity of stating our case from that point of view. I think it is most appropriate that we should discuss the question of the futility of armaments on the Air Estimates. The Air Service is a, great new arm in this country. A few years ago there was practically no Air Service in existence, but we find that this year we are spending well over £20,000,000 on the Air Service, and are going to employ some 36,000 men; that is, in about the third or fourth year after there has been a serious attempt to develop our Air Force. This, as we learned from the Minister to-day, is by no means the end. It is only the beginning. The Minister himself last year maintained that we ought to have a sufficient force in this country to put us on terms of equality with the greatest air force within striking distance of us, and we know that the Minister, in making that statement, referred to France. At the present time, France has over 140 air squadrons, and we have less than 30. It is, therefore, very evident that, if we are going to carry out the intention of the Minister and seek to achieve anything like equality with France so far as our Air Force is concerned, we have a very long way to go yet, and a matter of £20,000,000 and 36,000 men will, in the course of a few years' time, appear to be a mere bagatelle. That is not all. Science is telling us every day of the tremendous potentialities there are in aerial warfare, and almost every week discoveries of more powerful explosives are being made. I daresay the chemists in their laboratories are discovering more powerful forms of poison gas, of liquid fire, and all the other paraphernalia of destruction, so that the real extent to which the Air Force may develop as a lethal weapon is practically incalculable. I was reading only the other day in the Library a copy of the current "Army Quarterly," and I discovered there an article by someone who apparently was an expert in aerial warfare. He said: So you would go on, super-dreadnought upon super-dreadnought. I know not where the end may be, nor does any Member of this House. I want to say that that fact in itself ought to make this House hesitate very long indeed before it keeps piling up in the progressive fashion in which we are doing this tremendous instrument for human destruction. Let me come to a few more facts. I want to say at the outset that I am indebted for these facts in the main to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Air himself. He said last year that France had at that time a striking force of over 600 aeroplanes. In order to impress us with what that meant in terms of destruction to the people of this country, he explained that the worst bombing period which this country endured was in September, 1917. Those who were in London at that time may remember it. In that period there was a total of 12 tons of bombs dropped. I think I am not wrong in saying that 12 tons of bombs caused very considerable destruction, very grievous loss of life, and a very great moral perturbation among the citizens of London, and other parts of the country. That was 12 tons. Let us just make a comparison 700 machines would drop 170 tons of bombs. That is something like 15 times the quantity which was dropped in September of the year I mentioned, and they could do that, not in a week, but in 24 hours. Having done that the same machines would keep up a constant rain of bombs upon this country to the extent of 75 tons of bombs daily.

There is a well-known French airman who now is Chairman of the Aeronautical Association of France, M. Rénè Fonck. He has said that a force of 500 aeroplanes in a single night, would obliterate a city over a mile square, and blot out of existence a city like Paris in the course of three weeks. I think it is well that Members of this House who wish to face realities should bear these facts in mind, and what this would mean to this great City of London and to ourselves. Macaulay, it will be remembered, in a very well-known passage, pictured a New Zealander sitting upon the ruins of St. Paul's and surveying a desolated City of London. I could conceive a London after persistent air raids of the character I have indicated in a much more dreadful state than that which Macaulay pictured. You would have it smoking and reeking, and a great mass of mangled human beings. To my mind no one can look into the future and contemplate such a terrible calamity to this great City of London without thinking and striving by every possible means to prevent such a thing happening.

Here I want to direct attention to the sheer hypocrisy practised by the, Minister of Air and other people in talking about a Home Defence Air Force. This phrase "Home Defence" is a snare and a delusion. There is no real significance behind it. When you talk to the ordinary people of this country about home defence, to the poor people in the East End of London, what do they think? They think that a home defence squadron means that they in their homes—hovels many of them!—are going to be protected from hostile aircraft, from explosive bombs, poison gas bombs, and all the other horrors. That is the impression which is deliberately sought to be established in their minds. What is the actual fact? This so-called Home Defence Force of ours cannot possbly prevent hostile aircraft coming over to this great city of London, and to other of our great cities, and raining down death and destruction upon innocent men, women, and children. If you think I am not speaking by the book let me draw the attention of hon. Members to opinions expressed by people who understand the technicalities of this matter very much better than I do. There is the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Leith (Captain W. Benn). He, at any rate, has had a very distinguished record with the Air Force of this country. He ought to know something about this subject. I have discovered that when he was speaking on this matter last year he said: In other words, what this country will have to do in the event of a great raid of bombing aeroplanes upon this country is to send over a great bombing squadron to the country from which those aeroplanes came in order to do the same thing for the people of that country. I do not know that I could imagine anything more horrible it will be no comfort to the poor mother in the East End of London when she is looking at her mangled children to think that over in Paris there is a French mother looking at her mangled children there. That is really what it amounts to. I do not wish to go into what hon. Members are sometimes pleased to call "sob-stuff." Still it is good that these things, which we know are not vain imaginings, but are really the things which we can seriously look forward to in the next air war, that these things should be constantly brought to the notice of this House and of the people of this country.

I never heard a more illogical and absurd statement made in this House than the one made by the Minister for Air this afternoon when he referred to this particular subject of the horrors and terrors of the next air war. He said it would be best for the peoples of Europe if they would keep out of their minds, so far as they possibly could, all the morbid horrors of the next war, because in that way he felt they would tend to remove the possibility of another war. That logic seems to me to be perfectly absurd. If there can be one guarantee in this country or in Europe against the madness of another war, it will be by our instilling into the minds of the people the dreadful realities they may have to face. So far from doing a disservice to this country we shall, I think, be doing a great service to it if we seize every possible opportunity of making known to men, women and children all the misery and horror the next war will mean to them.

What a commentary it is on this fine flower of civilisation which we are supposed to have cultivated in this twentieth century! What a commentary it is on the Christian religion which we are supposed to believe in and to practise, that we should be seriously and solemnly contemplating carrying out a war of this kind! We profess to be very concerned about the morals and the ethics of our young children. When they are in school, we teach them the Sermon on the Mount. Hon. Members opposite are horrorstricken at the idea of these young lads going to the godless Socialist Sunday schools, where they might be taught the principles of internationalism. Yet what happens? After these lads have left school they are fished for, they are angled for, they are begged for by the Royal Air Force. They are taken in as lads of 13, 14, 15 or 16, and they are trained in order that at some time or another they may be sent out on bombing aeroplanes to rain death and destruction upon innocent men, women and children. What hypocrisy the whole thing is!

When I spoke about this home defence force I forgot to mention that we have at present 18 squadrons in it. Hon. Members will say, "18 squadrons which are here to defend this country." I thought so at one time, and then I asked the Secretary of State for Air a question as to the nature of these home defence air squadrons, and I discovered to my astonishment that no less than nine of these 18 squadrons are bombing squadrons. Bombing squadrons for home defence! What can that mean but that what I have just been saying is true, that the only way in which they really propose to carry out a system of home defence is by sending those home-defence bombing squadrons, laden with bombs, to other countries in order to spread death and destruction over there. I tried to get some other information from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air. I asked if he would tell me what kind of bombs are at present in the possession of the Royal Air Force, what other bombs they have except high-explosive bombs, and I got the answer that it is not in the public interest to give this information. I leave my hon. Friends in the House to draw their own conclusions from that.

Then I want to say this. I feel quite certain that if ever another war does come we shall have the bishops and the archbishops following the precedent they have established in other wars, deploring with pious phrases the dreadful things which have to be done in war, but saying that, after all, they are regrettable necessities. I want to point out to Members who may think there is no danger of our Air Force being used to bomb defenceless men, women and children that there will be justification for doing that kind of thing on the very highest military grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not in his place, but I want to refer to something he said the other day. He sometimes talks a good deal of nonsense, and I thought he did so on this occasion when he said that, to a great extent, the politicians were responsible for the winning of the War. Mixed with that nonsense there was, however, a kernel of truth, which was that in any war which is waged in these days very much does depend upon the morale of the civilian population. Other people realise how important this question of morale is. The great military authorities realise it, they realise how tremendously potent the great air machine may be in undermining the morale of a civilian population. In 1917 we had mere trifling air raids, mere bagatelle raids compared with what would happen in the future, but those who were in London at the time, and those who know Landon people in the parts where most of the bombs dropped, realise that even with those small air raids a tremendous amount of nervous, apprehension was created in those great crowded areas of the city. If we had had those air raids mutiplied by 300 in intensity, I am not at all certain what would have happened in London, or in this country. I have here the opinion of a great military authority on this matter. He says: entirely with each individual Member of the House of Commons. He can please himself whether he votes in favour of the piling up of a greater Air Force or whether he votes against it.

We talk about poetic justice. If this House will assist in building up a great force for human destruction, then, if there were any poetic justice in the world, the very first great bomb of the first great super-Dreadnought that came over to London with hostile intentions would crash right down on the Floor of this House of Commons. I know that will not happen. In the next war, as in all wars, it will not be the guilty, responsible people who will suffer so much as the innocent people who have no responsibility at all. It is because of that that. I am putting in this protest on behalf of these innocent people. Hon. Members may say that I am not expressing the views of my electors. That may be open to question, but I do know in this House last year on a, Motion to reduce the Army Estimates I expressed views very similar to what I am expressing to-night. They were known to my constituents. I was questioned at public meetings on them, and I spoke about them at the last General Election, and the result was that I got nearly 3,000 more votes than I got the time before.

I am not going to say that that is a decisive test. I know very well there have been raging, tearing campaigns of jingo propaganda in this country before, which have swept the people off their feet, and there may he the same campaign at some time in the future. Those very valiant gentlemen who sit in editorial chairs in Fleet Street and elsewhere may, by propaganda of that sort, contrive to stir the people of this country up into a very fine frenzy of jingoism, and it may be as a consequence that I and those who hold views like mine may get into great disfavour and be driven from their constituencies, and all sorts of things may happen to us. That may be, but it will not for one moment alter the truth of what I am saying. It will not alter the soundness, wisdom, and humanity of the attitude I am taking up to-night. I do know that if we were turned upon by the people as the result of a jingoistic campaign of that sort, and the people went through a war, I am perfectly certain that after the jingo madness had passed they would be the very first people who would want to erect tablets to our memory, and would regret that they had not followed our advice.

I want to ask hon. Members of this House to really do their jobs properly. My conception of a Member of Parliament is not that of a man who is just timorous and hesitating about whether this or that vote is going to pay him. I do not think a Member of Parliament ought to be constantly trying to trim his sails to the popular breeze. My view is that if a Member of Parliament is cluing his duty by his constituents, he should he prepared to give them a lead, and act as an instructor to them on this matter of armaments. Any Member of Parliament who thinks of doing his job properly ought to make it clear to his constituents all that the next war will mean in human misery and suffering. If he does that, and after that the people persist in wanting to have armaments, he can say at least that he has washed his hands of the business.

It will be said in the course of this Debate that the people who take up this attitude are idealists. I want to contest that point of view. I do not claim to be an idealist. I claim to be a simple realist facing the facts, and if there are any idealists in this House, I say they are those people who are prepared to assist in the bidding up of great armaments and great armed forces, and are still able to retain the belief that no war is going to result from that. They are tempting Providence all the time, and to be able to maintain the belief that, in spite of their building up these great engines of destruction there will not be any war, is idealism in which I confess I am not capable of sharing.

I remember the Debate which took place last year, and I think this Debate resembles it in some respects. I can imagine after we on this side have made our speeches that hon. Members in different parts of the House will get up and sympathise with the objects we have in view. They will say, "Yes, we believe in disarmament," and they will probably go into the Lobby and vote for these Estimates. Others will say, "Yes, we believe in disarmament, but by means of conferences and agreements," and they, too, will go into the Lobby and vote in favour of these Estimates. Others will say, "Yes, we believe in disarmament, but we believe in reasonable progressive disarmament, and after having given lip-service to the great idea of disarmament, they, too, will vote in favour of these Estimates. My reply to all contentions of that sort is just this: I do not think there is any half-way house in this matter. If an Air Force is necessary, then you have to have the most efficient, the most gigantic Air Force that the country can possibly afford, and if you are not going to go in for that, the only logical thing is to say that you will have no Air Force at all. I never did like Mr. Facing-Both-Ways in any matter, and I think if anything I dislike Mr. Facing-Both-Ways in this matter of armaments more than I dislike him when I meet him on any other occasion.

I would say, in conclusion, that in my view the country, in fact the whole of Europe, is confronted with this situation. We have to take one of two risks. We have to take the risk of being unprotected by giving up our armaments altogether, or we have to take the risk which amounts almost to a certainty, of piling up armaments, with the almost inevitable consequence of another appalling war. Faced with those two risks, my view is that the lesser and the better risk to take is that of saying that we are not going to have any armaments at all. I believe that of the two risks this is the one which it will pay the people of this country very much better in the long run to take. I represent a great East End constituency, where the people are living huddled together in great masses, and I want to say that, if the House of Commons is content to go on building up a great machine, which in the end will make our great City of London some day or other nothing but a vast slaughterhouse of humanity, then, for my part, as a representative of a great mass of poor people in the East End of London, I refuse to have any lot or part in that proceeding; and, in the name of my constituents, in the name of the country as a whole, in the name of humanity, in the name of civilisation itself, I protest with all my strength against the piling up of these great armaments.

9.0 P.M.

The sentiments of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat clown have this advantage, that almost every- one agrees with them, as sentiments. In fact, I have never heard anybody in public, and hardly anybody in private, express any sentiment of a different kind, as sentiment. It seems to me, however, if I may venture some criticism, that they have this disadvantage, that they are too much in the air. We want to get them down to the ground and look at them close, and see exactly what they would entail. I dare say hon. Gentlemen opposite have travelled, as I have, in countries where, owing to the fact that law and order do not reign, men carry guns. If they have, they would know that it would be extremely unwise for a man walking about in a country like that not to carry a gun. He had better carry a gun. If he is not of an aggressive, temperament, and does not draw it, he will probably never need to draw it, but, all the same, that is no reason for his not carrying a gun, and he would be wiser to do so. The international situation, in our present stage of development, is an exact parallel to that. The countries of this world at the present moment all carry guns, and while that is the case it would be very unwise for any country not to carry a gun which it could use if necessary and if it were forced to do so. Until law and order have been instilled into the whole world, as I believe, and as I am quite certain the hon. Gentleman himself believes, and as' I think we all believe, they will be one day—until definite law and order have been instilled all over the world, it would be unsafe for any country not to carry a gun.

In face of the "No more War" gathering that I see in front of me, I will not risk bringing a conflagration into this Chamber, but will, if I may, deal rather with the more peaceful aspect of this Vote, and that is the question of civil aviation, particularly with regard to mails and commercial flying. There is one thing to be said about military aviation, and that is that, in the present state of aviation as a science, commercial aviation does not offer sufficient, temptation to civilians to carry it on and make it a really enterprising concern, developing the full art and science of aviation. For that very reason we may, in a way, be glad that we must at the present moment keep up an efficient military aviation force. I would take as an example the mail route to Bagdad. I was fortunate enough, some years ago, in the very early stages of the development of that mail route, to be able to cross from Cairo to Bagdad. In those days it was very elementary. You never really knew whether you would get to Bagdad that day or that week, and the route had only just been planned out. At the present time, that mail route is carried on regularly and efficiently without any difficulty whatever; and, further, owing to the development of that route, motor traffic is now in existence between Palestine and Bagdad, and anyone can go to Palestine, get in a car, and in a day and a half be in Bagdad. The whole route has been shortened, and the distances are practically nothing at the present time. That was all started by the military aviation service in the Middle East, and, if it had not been for that, there would have been no commercial development in Iraq. Therefore, I think hon. Members will agree with me that the whole development of the country of Iraq would not have come about at all. It would now, as the Secretary of State showed in his very able speech at the beginning of the Debate, be a prey to be divided between the Turks, the Wahabis and the Persians.

Now I will come to another point in connection with this question of commercial aviation, a point which. I think has not yet been touched upon, but which is a very important one for this country. That is the question of the development to the uttermost of our seaplane organisation for commercial flying. In this country, in my own constituency of Southampton, we have an ideal port for seaplane commercial aviation. Probably in very few other countries in the world could a finer port be found for seaplanes than in Southampton Water, for obvious reasons. That is being developed, and has been running for some years now. Seaplanes are regularly running from Southampton to the Channel Islands with mails and passengers. It was really only an experimental affair, but it was found to work, and has until now worked successfully, but it cannot be made a commercial enterprise unless it is developed very considerably further. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any information on the question, which I raised last summer, as to whether the French Government have given permission to the seaplanes from Southampton to land on the French coast, particularly at Cherbourg. I think it is most important that the service to France should be started as soon as possible. Hon. Members will know that private individuals often make excellent plans, perhaps in connection with buying a house, or something like that, but family lawyers and trustees step in and keep the thing hanging on for a very long time. It would be a pity if such should be the case in international affairs too, and if, through some delay that cannot be accounted for, this wonderful enterprise which has been started should be held up almost indefinitely, and possibly perilously, because, after all, others may step in and take the market from us. I am sure the French Government and the French people are too logical to see any objection to seaplanes using French ports and bring commerce and the assistance to the development of their own coast that they would, and indeed it is most necessary that the service should be started as soon as possible because, apart from the question of mails, apart from the question of bringing passengers from the liners at Southampton 24 hours earlier, there is the season at the French watering places, which comes in early spring, and we should like to see a service developed to take passengers from England, and they could land at Deauville or La Touquet or any of the French watering resorts in a very few hours after starting from Southampton, thus considerably fostering the tourist traffic, which is important on both sides of the coast. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can give us some re-assuring information as to the negotiations which have been going on for some considerable time on this matter.

I should further like to ask him if he can give us any information as to the development of seaplane services further afield. I believe there is a very great future indeed in the development of the seaplane as a sea boat, and not as an aeroplane, and perhaps in the future services might be started from Malta to Port Said or Alexandria, and even from Port Said to Suez, and from Malta to Marseilles, which would mean that a passenger in a hurry to go East, or to return, could possibly even catch a boat which had started a week before he left the country by taking a seaplane at Malta or Marseilles. Further there are great possibilities of development in the Greek Islands, and it has struck me that one of the best harbours for landing seaplanes that exist with great possibilities in front of it would be Lake Scutari in Albania. That unfortunate country has great resources but no means of developing them, and the people of Scutari are in a very difficult state because the River Drin has silted up by reason of the sands which have washed down in the heavy floods in the last two years, and they can hardly get any form of boats up into the lake of Scutari. The roads are bad and there are no railways, and there is no method of getting their produce, which is considerable, abroad, and in such cases practically the only method of transport would be seaplanes which have a natural harbour, with a natural base at Scutari, which could bring tourists, and mails, and produce and take them back to Corfu or to Italy. The question is one in which there are great possibilities. Even perhaps in future the great liners going across to America and other parts of the world will be able to carry seaplanes on board, because the seaplane does not require a landing stage. It has its aerodrome permanently underneath it, and can be lifted up by cranes on to the deck, and passengers from liners could be landed at almost any port they wish on route. It sounds like a dream, but I believe it is thought of very seriously indeed by many pioneers in the development of seaplane flying, and I believe it will very soon no longer be a dream but a fact.

The Noble Lord opened out his speech with an examination of the thesis on the carrying of guns. I found that thesis so interesting that I regretted very much that in the early stages of his speech he passed to quickly to some other subject. Even though it be the custom with many people in the world to carry guns because other people carry them, in a civilised community, even though there are cases of difficult individuals having guns, we still lay it down as a general rule for the community—

I was dealing entirely with an uncivilised community. Of course, in a civilised community there is no need for anyone to carry guns.

I was dealing with a civilised community, as was the Noble Lord, and, indeed, the Air Minister was dealing with a civilised community when he placed these Estimates before us. It is because we are becoming a civilised community that a different line of procedure ought to be taken with regard to the carrying of guns. I would recommend to the consideration of the Noble Lord and his hon. Friends opposite the consideration on that very point of such examples as David Livingstone, who in an uncivilised community, in spite of the very opposite teachings of H. M. Stanley, who worked in the same period, carried through an extremely great work for humanity, on no occasion using guns in the midst of what might be described as savage communities. Also the example of William Penn with an exactly similar problem confronting him, is not done with in this civilised world. It is with the belief that by a greater endeavour to get the principles applied that men on this side have lived for and have tried to work out in their experience, and other men's—it is because we believe these things can be done that we are here to-night pressing this Amendment upon the attention of the Committee. The subject which has been opened to us in the speech of the Minister for Air has been very considerably cleared, it seemed to me, by a statement I understood him to make in the midst of some cross-questioning, that even though you have now got a ratio of three to one, as far as the total number of units is concerned in this country and in France, it is not possible to feel satisfied that home defence is fully provided for.

Is the hon. Member treating it as three to one in our favour? The ratio is one to three against us.

I quite understood that, but I understood also that the Minister is not satisfied, in spite of the differences of quality that may exist as between our aeroplanes and the French, taking all things into account, that he has secured what might be described as an adequate home defence. Indeed, there is very little chance, with aerial warfare to-day organised as it is, of the Minister of Air or any hon. Member on that side feeling that under any circumstances he can get adequate home defence with the weapon which is being proposed in connection with to-day's Estimates. Exactly to what point you would have to go to secure this end, I cannot tell. However, valuable light has been thrown on the subject by my right hon. Friend's associates in the present Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who has given very distinguished service in connection with the Royal Air Force, laid it down in an article that he wrote in the "Empire Review" two years ago, that we should build an equal number of machines and train an equal number of pilots as against any other Power in the world. He even went on to suggest that, whatever the size a neighbouring nation thought it right to have its Air Force, we should make it obvious that we intend ultimately to have an equal force.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that view, put forward by one of his colleagues, or whether he would accept the view of another colleague. Lord Birkenhead, speaking in another place in July, 1923, gave it as his opinion that we must have an Air Force equal to that of any other country, in order that we might make our voice heard in the councils of the world. A curious attitude of mind, that you cannot make your voice heard in the councils of the world unless you can back it up with the mailed fist, with great armed strength! One of the great dangers in the world to-day is the emphasis that hon. Members opposite frequently place upon what is called the existence of effective diplomatic pressure in the form of armed force, to back up the will and the views that our diplomats from time to time put forward. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is modern Christianity!"] You may describe it as such, yet modern Christianity works equally effectively as between Canada and America, where the diplomatic view of Canada seems to be as well expressed in the direction of what they desire from the United States of America without any effective armaments to back up the views of the Canadian Government.

One of the reasons existing in the minds of hon. Members to-day for supporting increased Estimates, is that they honestly believe that in some way they are going to increase the effectiveness of the diplomatic approaches that this country may make to other countries. I suggest that, according to the view of hon. and right hon. Members opposite or, at least, according to the views that I have quoted, hon. Members do not expect to get effective defence at any point less than that of an Air Force equal in units and power to the Air Force of any other nation in the world. I wish hon. Members would frankly face the issue. They must be quite sure, as hon. Members 10 or 20 years ago were sure, that it is not merely a question of one country that has to be taken into account in considering the number of air units that we should possess, but that in the long run safety for this country cannot be guaranteed unless sufficient units are in existence to meet a large combination of units from many foreign lands.

It will be remembered by hon. Members who were present last year, that even if we possessed in this country as many units as, say, France, we should not be safe. I do not suggest, and I do not suppose that hon. Members would suggest, that France will become our enemy in the future. For the sake of argument I will take the case of France, because in discussing this question hon. Members have turned their minds towards France. If you have in this country an equal number of air units with those possessed by France, and it came to a question on the first dark night of the next war of defending a particular industrial area, whether it be London or one of the northern industrial districts, or the Midlands, where would you station your defending aeroplanes so as to guarantee adequate defence for whatever district might be attacked? I suggest, following this line of argument, that by the process of aeroplanes under no circumstances in modern warfare is adequate defence at all possible.

Since the last War, the most remarkable developments have taken place; not only with regard to aerial warfare but with regard to the use of poison gas and similar methods that can be applied by the Air Force whenever war comes. It was stated by Major Turner in an effective article written two years ago in the "Nineteenth Century Review," that such small raids as those that have been referred to in regard to London, where 12 tons of bombs were dropped in a particular period in the late War, really acted as stiffeners, strengthening the national resolve. But he said that we must not measure the air raids that will be made in the first week of the next war with the best that was possible in 1918. I have been told—I have no practical experience, as have other hon. Members, in regard to these matters—by air officers who worked in the later days of the great War, that there were about 1,000 raids on Rhineland territory conducted by allied airmen, particularly from the Nancy district, and that those raids, even when the Air Force was little developed compared with what it is to-day were sufficient, in the opinion of the officers engaged, to drive practically the greater part of the population underground.

What then, may I ask hon. Members, will be the position if we get into another war? May I again quote Lord Birkenhead on this issue? Lord Birkenhead, I assume, backed up by expert advice—I hardly think he would have made a statement of this sort without giving careful consideration to the experts—advanced it as an estimate, according to his view, that it would be possible in another war for London to be wrecked by aircraft attack in 12 hours.

Steel houses or not. If these steel houses were of the sort described by the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) they would, without an air raid, crumble up in 18 months from the time they were built. Not only Lord Birkenhead, but Mr. Edison, the American inventor—and surely I may quote him as an expert in matters of this sort—believed that the development of poison gas and aerial warfare would develop so rapidly that, in his opinion, it would be possible to poison the whole of London in three hours These statements hon. Members may look upon as exaggeration, but at least we may agree with Marshal Foch's views that the possibilities and potentialities of aircraft attack on a large scale are so great as to be almost incalculable. It is with that in mind that I bring to the notice of the Committee this view. Governments in future, with the terrible weapons of war that are now available for their use, Governments will have to discover in the prosecution of war the limits of resistance of the mass of the people if war is to be prolonged for any great period. If the weapons of war have become so terrible in their effect that in the early stages, almost in the first week, of a war you can wipe out whole cities, all that has been said about the moral of the people in the country comes to have the greatest significance for those who insist on making continued preparations for war.

I was very much interested in the close of the Air Minister's speech where he drew our attention to what he described as a fantastical proposal, the proposal that had for its object the securing ultimately of an agreement whereby to-day you would agree to drop bombs only in important industrial areas in which not very many people live. It is not the object of warfare to find the places where people do not live. The Air Minister might get far more valuable information on this matter if he would read the post-War edition of the Field Service Regulations, in which he will discover the opinions of our General Staff issued for the guidance of Army, Naval and Air Commands. In Volume 2 of those Regulations, on page 17, is to be found this statement: be secured by the development of a strong armed force, stronger in our hands than in the hands of any other nation, but I submit to hon. Members who hold that view that their views have been put to the test and have entirely failed. You do not secure peace; you do riot secure the development of international understanding by making your armaments strong. The only thing you can do with a strong Air Force in future is this: you will be able to take part in a gigantic plan of make-believe in which Governments conduct warfare from the point of view of damaging opposing Governments through terror and death, visited, not upon princes and Governments, but visited upon the doors of the common people in this land and other lands. It is because I feel that even though the Government have sincerely desired to make provision for the defence of this country, because I feel that warfare to-day has grown to such a point that its weapons can no longer be controlled in the interests of defence, that I am pleading that this House should consider whether the time has not come when weapons should be given up, as Denmark proposes to give them up, in order ultimately to effect the security that all desire.

I was very much interested the other day in discussing this matter with a friend to learn that in one of the most recent cases of fighting the world has experienced a very curious official view, especially curious in view of the proposition that to-day is put forward for defence with regard to aerial warfare. I refer to the lighting that recently took place round Shanghai and Pekin. It appears that when the Manchurian War Lord recently came down to Pekin the diplomatic body there, consisting of our representative as well as the representatives of other nations, sent a memorandum to the Manchurian General in Which they expressed this view. They said, "We view with the greatest concern the use of aerial arms against objectives other than military forces in the field, fortified places and naval units; the dropping of bombs on undefended towns is not only an act of wanton destruction, but a crime against a peaceful population." That is the official view of the diplomatic body in China upon which our official representative took his part. The memorandum goes on to refer to the impossibility in aerial warfare of picking the objective which is aimed at and the consequent danger to the buildings and residences in the immediate neighbourhood. It seems to have been the preoccupation of the diplomatic body in Pekin that the legations might get hit in this sort of warfare, indeed in their memorandum they specifically referred to the legations. I wish that when hon. Members come to discuss Air Estimates they could have as much in their minds their own houses and their own offices as evidently the Diplomatic Legation at Peking had these matters in their minds. Then probably we should be able to visualise better than we do to-day the real defensive needs of our people. Defence in my opinion will never be attained, especially in view of the developments through which we have passed, until nations as a whole realise it by a policy of international conciliation, by a policy that means the ultimate development of a powerful and all including League of Nations, a policy that will set down definite and final disarmament for all, a disarmament which I want to lead to by this country setting an example as Denmark proposes to do. With all that in view I hope that we shall lead in what I am sure will become a great movement in this country, working in the only way in which I believe it is possible to work for the end which all Members of this House desire.

In making my maiden speech, I propose to be brief, and not to tax the good nature of hon. Members of this House, which they are always so pleased to extend to a new Member. I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). I may say that I have listened with sympathetic attention, but I can assure him that I think that what he has said is, unfortunately, Impractical at present. We had this afternoon a Debate on the Air Force Estimates, in which I was anxious to take part. Unfortunately, I could not catch the Speaker's eye, but among those who spoke were one or two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have served in the Air Force, and their speeches made it very clear that it was necessary that we should keep an Air Force that is efficient, that is not only suitable for aerial defence and the security of the country, but is also suit- able for the defence of our larger possessions overseas.

The Secretary of State to-day gave us a very lucid and very clear exposition of the policy of the Air Service. He was the initiator, two years ago, of the expansion of the Air Force, which until I heard the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) speak, I always believed had been backed up by the right hon. and gallant. Lord the late Minister for Air. We have had, this afternoon, a discussion on the extra expenditure that is entailed by the Air Force Estimates, and I can assure hon. Members, having known several of the officers who are now in the Air Force, that our Secretary of State must have put up a very gallant fight to keep these Estimates down to such a low figure when he was faced by their energy and their keenness in each Department to develop the Air Service, as I think it should be developed to-day. We must recognise that Great Britain is not to-day protected against aerial assault. We have not sufficient aeroplanes, and neither have we a properly organised ground force to meet any aerial attack when it comes.

Two years ago it was decided that it was necessary for this country to have a force of 52 regular squadrons for home defence, and what was true then is true to-day. The home defence force was organised on the lines that at a certain time it would possess that strength. Two years have passed, and we find to-day that the home defence Air Force consists of 18 squadrons, and that it is intended during the present year to add to it two regular squadrons, three reserve squadrons and two auxiliary squadrons. Personally I do not approve of this organisation. I would much rather have seen four regular squadrons set down, and in addition six nuclei flights. That is a flight for six regular squadrons, so that at the end of the year we should have added to our 18 squadrons 10 more regular squadrons, which would have made a total of 28 regular squadrons, but for certain reasons it has been decided to organise on different lines, and, as the Secretary of State told us to-day, it was all worked with a view to economy and part of it is only experimental.

I am aware of the difficulties with which the Air Ministry has to contend in the formation and the expansion of the Air Force. There is the difficulty of the selection of new aerodromes. There is also the obsolescence of machines and pilots. Some aerodromes must necessarily he selected on account of tactical and strategical conditions, but I suggest that as regards other aerodromes, instead of looking about too much for them, the Ministry should consider the aerodromes that are now in use. Those which I have seen have been most carefully selected, and they are capable of and suitable for enlargement, and at them a good deal of training could be carried out without the trouble of purchasing new aerodromes for instructional purposes. As to the obsolescence of machines, it has to be recognised, as we were told to-day, that a large number of the machines left over after the War are worn out and are being replaced by new machines I would urge that in the selection of machines great attention should be paid to selecting those that are suitable not only for training but for fighting. In fact, what should be aimed at is to standardise a machine, and as regards other types of machines to work only on those types very slowly and not hurry to buy a large number with the consequent great expense.

A matter with which we have principally to deal is the obsolescence of pilots. The difficulty is to obtain reserves now that the pilots who were left over from the War are gradually becoming extinct. In the Air Force, entry is made through Cranwell, through short service commissions and through the ranks. On the question of the reserves, I do not think that the proposals for light aeroplane clubs and training in civilian aerodromes will of necessity meet the expansion of the large reserve that will be required. We have a very great field far the expansion of this reserve in our universities and public schools. The heads of the universities and public schools might be approached. What I hope is that aviation will become as much of a sport and game as cricket and football or any other game. I think the heads of the universities and public schools would be only toe willing to meet in conference and to discuss how light aeroplane clubs could be formed in connection with the universities and public schools. No doubt it will be said that in all probability parents would object to their sons flying because of the danger. But there is an Australian poet who said:

Anything that I have said which is critical of the schemes of the Air Ministry has been said with recognition of the great interest which the Secretary of State is taking in national economy, and I would ask hon. Members that, should the Secretary of State find it necessary still further to increase the Air Force and to spend more money on it, when he comes to this House for the sanction of the extra money they will give him the credit for having in this instance done his best to economise in every way by bringing forward Estimates that have been cut down to the lowest point. My other suggestions, I hope, will be considered—as regards the utilising of the universities and the public schools for flying, for I am sure that it is in them that we shall find our reserves. What is more important, we shall find there young men who will take a great part in civil aviation.

I am sure the Committee desire me to extend to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed it, the congratulations of hon. Members upon the success of his first effort at making a speech in this House. He has made a very notable contribution to our discussion and I am sure his intervention on future occasions will be welcome. My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, earlier in this Debate, spoke so fully for the Labour party on the main question which we have to consider, that I intervene now only in order to say a few words on the Amendment before the Committee. We have already recorded our view on the main question of the Government's policy in respect of the Air Force and its cost. We have now before the Committee a separate proposal which would virtually wipe out the whole of the Air Force which has been built up. I am sure every hon. Member who heard the Mover of this Amendment will approve of what I say, when I refer to the fairness with which the hon. Member stated his case, and to the known courage and honesty which he always displays in the expression of his views, not only in the shelter of this House but on the platforms of his own constituency. The hon. Member said he was speaking for himself and, no doubt, for a few others who sit near him, but not for the party with which he is associated.

10.0 P.M.

We have a great deal of sympathy with the views which he expressed and raise no objection to this labour of a pioneer in a good cause. We do feel that the building up of great air forces for military purposes is the most horrifying development, of modern methods of war, for, unhappily, it is no longer armies which are to decide the fighting, but women and children are to be attacked and slaughtered by these methods. I do not think the hon. Member overstated the case in the least in drawing our attention to all those aspects of this development. I suppose I am right in concluding that when, at a later stage, we have to consider questions relating to the Navy and the Army, my hon. Friend will feel obliged to take precisely the same line as that which he has taken to-night. Therefore, he has raised a question of the greatest importance and of the highest national and international interest, and I have plainly to say that the Labour party has not decided in favour of the complete abandonment and the complete cancellation of the Army, Navy or Air Force. I set against the argument of my hon. Friend this view: that we must travel along the lines declared plainly in recent Labour party conferences, on the Motion and initiative of its most militant section namely, the Independent Labour party. That party asked us, and we unanimously accepted their view, to seek a, settlement of this great question upon the lines of international agreement, indeed upon the lines indicated by my right, hon. Friend in his closing observations when he said that it was only by a policy of international disarmament that the peace of nations could be secured. That is the Labour party policy, and I set that policy against the Amendment, which, if carried, would mean national isolation and the enfeeblement of this nation in face of the troubles with which the world at the moment is contending. As I do not propose to address the Committee at length, my purpose being to state the position of the Labour party, may I read a resolution carried at one of the party's recent conferences. This is the resolution carried by the Labour Party Conference in 1923: Members of the Labour party can support him.

I desire the Minister or the Under-Secretary in reply to this Debate to shed light upon one or two points. As far as the object of the Amendment is concerned, I think some of the arguments to which we have listened from the other side, and the quotation read to the Committee by one speaker, give a complete answer to the case which the Amendment seeks to press. Therefore I am not going to waste any time upon it. I wish to put a question in relation to a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hallam Division (Sir F. Sykes), namely the disproportion of real effective strength to the total number which we are asked to vote. This Vote is for 36,000 men. I gather that the effective strength of the Air Force is the pilot. As in the Infantry, it is the bayonet strength that counts, so in the Air Force the only thing that matters is the pilot strength. The Minister told me on the 11th December last that at that time—and I suppose it is much the same now—there were 1.938 qualified officers and airmen pilots, 274 officers and airmen under instruction as pilots, and 548 officers qualified as pilots in the Reserve. 2,200 pilots, the effective flying men in a strength of 36,000, does not look too imposing, and 548 flying men in a Reserve which at present comprises 8,000 is equally unimpressive. On the financial side, £21,000,000 to provide 2,200 flying men seems to be rather an expensive basis of calculation, especially when, according to the White Paper, the number of machines available is only about 650, if we are to take the figures as 54 squadrons with 12 machines each. Compare that with the number during the War, when, I think, we reached an output of 1,000 machines per week. We are not getting the machines or the flying men in any way comparable with the total numbers which we are asked to vote, or the amount which they are to cost.

That is on the Air Service as a whole, but when one turns to its association with the older services, things are even more alarming. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday for the figures showing the number of Naval officers qualified for Air service when the last War broke out, and the number to-day.

The answer I got was that on the outbreak of War in 1914, 83 Naval officers were available, of whom 62 were Naval officers on the active list, and the remainder Royal Naval Reserve and Direct Entry officers. To-day the figure is 84, but whereas in 1914 the 83 were all available to fly, at the present time, according to the answer, of the 84, five are already qualified, 30 are undergoing a course at No. 1 Flying School, 49 more have undergone a six months' course at No. 1 School, and are now undergoing further training. When all has been put into the air of the Naval Air Service to-day, is that the whole personnel that can be carried upon any new scheme, whereby the Air Force is to provide the equipment, and the Navy is to provide the personnel? I think those figures a-re the reverse of reassuring, and I hope the Minister will give us some more information.

As regards the Army, according to the answer on the 11th December last, 45 officers were qualified as observers in the whole of the Air Force. In order to augment that figure, I asked the Secretary of State for War what was being done in the way of training the Army personnel for air duties, and the answer was that 28 officers of the Royal Artillery were attached to the Air Force for four years. Are we to understand that 45 observers of the Air Force and 28 officers of the Royal Artillery are all that are at present trained for observation duties on the Army side of the Air Force? These figures require some elaboration from the Minister, especially when looking down the Votes I see that the Air Force is asked to maintain 247 medical officers. 247 doctors to look after 2,200 pilots! Of course, the answer is that there are 36,000 men on the strength of the Air Force, but they are non-effective, judged from the bayonet strength point of view.

The point I want to put is that, just as the Navy has found that an independent Air Ministry has absolutely failed to deliver the goods, so an independent Air Ministry is absolutely failing to provide for the air requirements of the Army, and I venture to suggest that if the Admiralty were made completely and entirely responsible for the Naval Air Service, it would be able to adjust and create that service to meet requirements. So, if the Air Force were merged with the Army, a great many of these ground ser- vices which absorb the money, and account for a large number of men in the Vote, would be reduced. By amalgamation of these ground Services lies the surest way to economy. I suggest that this question of separate Ministries must be re-opened on every ground. Efficiency, economy, and ample security demand that this question should be fully reviewed, and the real effectives should be considered in the light of these somewhat startling figures. At this time of night, I do not want to elaborate these figures further, but I do think that this question does require—especially the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hallam Division (Sir F. Sykes)—some further light thrown upon it. Do not let my right hon. Friend the Minister misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the Air Ministry should be absorbed by the War Office. I would much rather see the War Office, obsolete as it is in many respects to-day, absorbed by the Air Ministry, but, so long as we have these separate Ministries overlapping at so many points, duplicating ground services, duplicating all kinds of common departments, which should be maintained under one control, we cannot get either the efficiency or the economy which, in these days of a straitened Exchequer, I venture to suggest the taxpayer has the right to expect.

I should like to join with the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Mid - Bedford (Brigadier-General Warner) on his maiden speech, if he will allow me to do so, and I am sure the whole of the Committee was very informed by what fell from the hon. and gallant Member. I would like also to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) for his pioneering movement on that side of the House, a movement with which I have much sympathy, looking at it from his point of view, in following the example of the Admiralty in foreshadowing a successful assault on the Air Ministry and the realisation of the old ambition of the two older Services finally to disrupt and disband the whole Air Force—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are you in favour of it?"] I am in favour of keeping the Air Force under the Air Ministry, and having the whole of our aerial forces under one control. I realise that there are many defects in the present system, but I think that can be improved by a Joint General Staff and something in the shape of a Ministry of Defence; but that is a large subject on which I do not wish to open out on this occasion. The most interesting departure of the present Government in regard to the Air Force is the insertion of advertisements in the Air Estimates, which is the only difference that I can see between the Air Estimates of the late Labour Government and those of the present Conservative Government. The hon. Members responsible for the Amendment have my sympathy, and I wish they had made out their case as strongly when their own friends were on the Front Bench.

I have never run away in this House, but the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood), on another armament Debate, ran away. He was going to support us on the question of the five cruisers, but he was got at in the Lobbies. He will not, however, do it again, as he now knows better. These advertisements are the most interesting phase of the Air Estimates. I think that every penny of the Estimates is required, although, in my view, the money is not properly expended, but, is frittered away in wrong directions. On the back page of the Estimates hon. Members will see an advertisement of "Official Publications on Income Tax," where we are given advertisements for "Ready Reckoners and various methods of drawing up Income Tax forms, and, I suppose, of evading Super-tax, and so on, to the number of about eight, ending up with how to avoid payment of Death Duties!

On a point of Order. I submit that it is not in order, on Vote A, to go into the question of the advertisements at the back of the Estimates.

That is what I was about to say myself. I invite the hon. and gallant Member to come to the point.

I was coming to the point, and was going to connect my remarks at once with the whole question of aerial defence. Might I put one or two questions to the Air Minister? What contribution is he making, from an aerial point of view, to the great new naval arsenal and dockyards at Singapore It is obvious, it you are going to spend £10,000,000 in expanding the naval dockyard at Singapore, and making a brand-new dockyard on the other side of the island, that very extensive and powerful aerial defences will be required, but I can find nothing in the Estimates about extra provision for Singapore. That will have to be faced, nevertheless, and I invite the Air Minister to give us some explanation on that matter. Secondly, I would remind the Committee that there are thousands of citizens of this country who are unable to obtain houses, or who are living in one room, with their families, under horrible conditions, but, if hon. Members will turn to page 45 of the Air Estimates, they will see that at a holiday resort known as Basra, in Iraq, we are voting this year, if the Estimates go through, no less than £145,000 for the building of barracks and accommodation for the Air Forces in the Middle East.

On a point of Order. I understood that we were dealing with Vote A.

The hon. and gallant Member has been verging on the fringe of disorders. I should like to ask him to get back within the fold.

I did not want to use up the time of the Committee by discussing these items separately, though I am quite prepared to do so if necessary. My idea was to save time, but I will not detain the Committee very much longer. I should like to deal with two or three more points. The item I am referring to is in addition to the sum already spent on Basra of £191,000. I think it is perfectly ridiculous. We are told in the explanatory White Paper that, while the Air Ministry is not responsible for Iraq policy—and I quite agree—and that the policy of the Government is to evacuate the country as soon as possible, yet we are building these apparently solid permanent structures at this enormous cost at Basra. Then I turn to the next page of the Estimates, to another place in Iraq known as Hinaidi. Here we have additional prospective accommodation and improvements to existing places, and are spending about £522,000—over half a million of money, that is—in addition to the money already voted of £661,000, some apparently re-voted. We are thus going to spend about £1,000,000 in providing buildings, bungalows, offices, canteens, barracks, etc., while the inhabitants of this country cannot get houses to live in. I think it is perfectly iniquitous. There is a more serious matter still.

An Amendment has been moved to reduce the number of men by 35,000. I will wipe out the whole of the Air Force. But that is a perfectly logical position to take up. There is no half-way house between complete disarmament and having an efficient and sufficient Air Force to guard the country in time of war. If the hon. Gentleman will put forward a Motion for complete disarmament, I do not know but that I shall be prepared to be with him, but, as the right hon. Gentleman speaking a few moments ago said, that is impracticable: you cannot get away from that position. But what are the facts? The first is this, that we have only 30 squadrons of 12 machines each at the present time, and some 41 squadrons earmarked for the Navy, and which cannot be taken away from the Navy without imperilling the efficiency of the Fleet. In France there are 110 squadrons of 9 machines each in Europe alone, and a large extra force in the French colonies in North Africa, which could be quite easily brought home if required; much more easily than our extra forces in the Middle East can be brought home, as the former are very much nearer to France than our forces in Egypt and Iraq are to this country. There is here a clear superiority of three to one of the French Air Force. The right hon. Gentleman uses a formula for our Air Force which reads remarkably like the Preamble to the German pre-War Navy Billl—Air Force of sufficient strength that the strongest Air Force in existence will hesitate to attack us. That policy was followed by Germany with regard to her fleet with very disastrous results. It showed the German fleet in a ratio to the British Navy of 6 to 10; but we are only in a ratio compared with the French Air Force of 1 to 3. It is quite obvious, in spite of this vast expenditure—it is a vast expenditure, but I am not going to vote for a reduction at all—that in the present circumstances we are not secure in the air against our nearest neighbour, who happens to be also the most powerful aerial Power in Europe that is, France.

am not ready for war with anyone, but while things are as they are at present, and while we rely on wars as the means of settling disputes between peoples, we are at the mercy of France, and whether the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) likes it or not it is the fact. He recognised that when his own people were in power.

I must repeat what I have said in this House before, that I believe aeroplanes are no defence against aeroplanes. The main fighting will take place at night, the main operations will take place at night, for obvious reasons. Lt is almost impossible for war vessels, especially destroyers, to find each other at sea at night, and they are working in two dimensions. I do not think aeroplanes, which work in three dimensions, can reasonably be expected to find each other at night, except by the merest fluke; and, therefore, as a defence against other aeroplanes, our own aeroplanes will, I think, prove to be quite useless. All that they can do is to counter-attack, and the only comfort we will have in the awful catastrophe of war will he to know that while our people are being bombed and gassed, and our centres of communication are being destroyed at home, our squadrons will be doing the same thing in the towns and villages and cities of the enemy.

No, I certainly will not vote with you. The vote, of course, is only a gesture. The reduction will be voted down by about three to one majority. Half your own party will not go into the Lobby with you. I prefer something more practical, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), when he demanded of the Government what they were doing with reference to a general conference on disarmament. I have addressed a number of questions to the Government on that subject, and so have other Members, and we can get no satisfactory reply from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He is the person concerned, not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, who has got to do his best for the efficiency of the service he is responsible for, as I believe he is doing. All we can do if we are dissatisfied is to work for the downfall of the Government, and that I will have much pleasure in doing.

I am sorry this discussion has gone all over the question of the Air Estimates, because those of us who were responsible for putting down the Amendment for a reduction wanted very much to concentrate the attention of the Committee on the question of the utility, or futility, of armaments for the purpose of safeguarding the nation. The discussion, so far as there has been discussion on that subject, has been very much one-sided, because hon. Members on the other side, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, have devoted themselves very largely to questions of detail in connection with the Air Service; but those of us who are going into the Lobby against this Vote want quite definitely to challenge the idea that you can make for peace by building up armaments. Those hon. Members who have been in this House any length of time, especially those who were here in the years immediately preceding 1914, must have been struck with the repetition of the sort of statements that were made during those years, only on those occasions it was the Navy that was the sure shield and defence of the British people, and that if the Navy was kept at a high point of efficiency no other nation would dare attack us, and therefore we could sleep soundly in our beds, as one gallant Admiral said. You did not preserve peace by the race of armaments which took place prior to 1914. That war which the young men and the nation generally were told would be pre- vented if we spent millions on the Army and the Navy, cost in human life in Russia 3,000,000 of people; in. Germany 2,400,000; in France 1,885,000; Great Britain and Ireland 1,184,000; Austria-Hungary 1,000,000; Italy 615,000; Turkey 310,000; Rumania 189,000; Serbia and Montenegro 150,000; Bulgaria 130,000; and Belgium 63,000. The combined losses of all the belligerents in that War were 11,115,000. That total was in connection with those actually engaged in the War. Russia lost 1,300,000 people by disease. Germany from a similar cause lost 400,000; France 500,000 and Great Britain 250,000. That is a total which must have been arrived at by estimates, because no one can really tell the enormous number of people who died from causes indirectly connected with the War.

I should like to ask the hon. Member what was the peace strength of the British Army before the War, and the peace strength of the German Army before the War. I would also like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of conscription before the War?

The hon. and gallant Member knows the truth of Bismarck's saying that on the side of peace. When 11,000,000 of the flower of Europe have been destroyed, to come and tell us within five years of the end of that slaughter, "Yes, we have had a Great War, now let us prepare for the next war that shall be ever so much more deadly than anything that has gone before," is sheer lunacy.

I would point out to every military and naval man here, that every war produces some more terrible weapon than those which have preceded it. It was the crossbow used by our people in France that unhorsed and destroyed some of the best of the French nobles centuries ago. Someone invented that Later, someone invented the needle gun for the Prussians, and that helped them to overwhelm the French in 1870. Go to the end of the corridor outside and, in the Royal Gallery, look at the picture of Waterloo, with Blucher shaking hands with Wellington because the Germans and the British had destroyed the French. Within 100 years French and British were engaged, within a mile of two of the same spot, in destroying the Germans. Now we are told in this House, after fighting as Allies with the French—and if any Frenchman reads these Debates he must know that this is the idea that is running through them all—that one of these days we shall be fighting again with the French, with whom we were Allies in the last war.

Somebody said, let us be straight with one another. Let us be straight. Why is it that you are comparing the French Air Force with the British Air Force? Why is it that we are continually told, as we were told just now by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that we are so weak that if he had his way and we could afford it he would make our Air Force much stronger than it is, because the French Air Force is so much stronger? If in 1815 you were joined with Germany to destroy France, and then in 1915 you were engaged in the pleasant task of destroying your Allies of 1815, is it not logical for us to say that in a few years' time you will be fighting again with your Allies of 1914–18? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no use saying "No." Anyone with common sense knows that there is no other enemy in the world to think of except across the water, where they are building these aeroplanes and other aircraft, and you are building against them.

It may sound ridiculous, but I am one of those who believe that all history teaches that wars cannot and never have permanently settled anything. They always leave behind them the seeds of more wars, and this last War has already shown us quite distinctly that it, too, has left, behind it the seeds of more war. Those who went about recruiting know it is true that they not only talked, but put up huge posters, "Join the Army; join the Navy; join the Air Force, in order to fight in the War to end war," and every sensible person ought to know that millions of men were taken out who were imbued with the idea that they were engaged in a great campaign that once and for all would destroy war. Read their letters. Many of you must have had letters from them when they wore going into battle, hoping and praying that they were going in to help to make that fight the last fight of its kind. And yet now we are told that we are to face this horrible barbarism of war against women, children, old men, sick people, and so on. When the Germane first bombarded London from the air they were called baby-killers, they were called inhuman, they were called Huns. Now we use the same weapons, the same armaments and the same manœvrings, and, according to hon. Members here, we are to use the Air Force, at night to do exactly the same things that we denounced these other people for doing. As the days go by war gets more inhuman than ever before.

Every year that passes, instead of being civilised it becomes more and more uncivilised, and all the past things which were said about the Germans any poor ignorant person in Mesopotamia is entitled to say about us. They at least have not bombed any white people, they at least have not destroyed any white man's home, and yet in this Estimate you have something like £3,000,000 being voted in order to supply a destructive Air Force for use in Iraq and Palestine. How can you consistently do that and support it and at the same time send your missionaries to these people? I may be as bad as the worst man in this House. I am not going to stand here and pretend to be anything different from an ordinary person. [ Interruption .] If you cannot understand that, I cannot give you the brains to understand it. I stand in this House with a lot more of you at a quarter to three and you say prayers, or you profess to do so, and every time religion is mentioned all you can do is to jeer at it. Abolish the chaplain and the prayers or treat the subject with a little decency. When the Germans bombed us we denounced it as unchristian and inhuman and a most barbarous thing. If I lived in Iraq and you sent a missionary to teach me about Christ and religion I should fling it back in your teeth and tell you that you were downright arrant humbugs if you were bombing me from the sky. It is no use getting round this by saying it is all for self-defence. It is no self-defence at all. If it were not that we want to hold territory across the seas, if it were not that we want to hold Colonies, if it were not that we wanted to be parasites on the people living in those countries we should not need bombs, and they are beginning to understand and revolt against it. I am as certain as I stand here that in the days to come this business of an Air Force organised by people like the Japanese, by people in China and by the people in India, will pile up a problem for the white races that they will not be able to face and overcome. Remember that you are a dwindling quantity in Europe to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get out of it!"] Why should I get out of it?

I must ask hon. Gentlemen on all sides to allow the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to proceed with his speech

I was saying a perfectly simple thing, which was that in Europe the white population is a dwindling quantity. It is no use an hon. Member saying to me, "Get out of it then." I am not pleased to get out of it. I was pointing out that the people in Asia are not a dwindling quantity, that we are teaching them how to make aeroplanes and poison gases, and that it is a problem which tire next generation, if not this generation, will have to face, if this race for armaments goes on. I can see no end to the race for armaments if our country is not going to take the lead in stopping What I cannot help but call the insane race for supremacy.

I want to say a few words with respect to what was said by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). We are acting contrary to the Resolution or, rather, we are acting without any mandate from our party outside; but a Member in this House, and a man everywhere, owes duty or allegiance to other things besides a party caucus or a party conference. I have never held the view that I want everybody to think and speak just as a conference tells them they ought to speak. I think my party is wrong on this subject and, therefore, I have taken the line which I am taking to-night of speaking and voting against armaments of any sort or kind.

If I believed that armaments were good, I should not want to arm against the people in Germany. I would arm, definitely and finally, against the capitalist system in this country. [ Interruption .] I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension about that. I would join the party of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Saklatvala. [ Laughter .] Yes, you may be quite sure about that. It is as certain as the day that unless we do very soon deal with social problems more people will believe in violence, and more people will go on believing in violence the more the two Front Benches tell them that it is inevitable if you want to get your own way, and if you want to preserve your own position, that you must be ready to fight for it. If you teach the workers that, I am certain that some day they will turn the guns and the bombs in a direction you will not like. I do not believe that, even if we could destroy the capitalists in England, Scotland and Wales, wipe them all out, that we could settle the problems of life as concerns riches and poverty, capitalism and labour, because you cannot settle anything that has to do with human relations by thinking that you can impose your will upon somebody else. Every great Empire has striven to do that, and every Empire up to now has failed in doing it, and you will fail as inevitably as the others have failed. Therefore I put myself against my right hon. Friend's doctrine that we must do this little by little. I beard John Bright speak on that question in a Debate, after someone had made a speech similar to the speech made by my right hon. Friend.

He said quite clearly something like this; that some time or other human beings, men and women, would have to make up their minds to give up force, and when they did so they would have to give it up altogether. That is the position we take up. If you dally with force at all, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, you must do it efficiently. I disagree with those who quarrel with you for having a great Air Force, a great Army, because it is tomfoolery to believe in having an Army, and then have only part of one. It is because I hold that view I am against any Army at all.

There is a sort of idea that people like myself and others are cowards in not wanting to fight and take up arms, and there is a glorification of war, which I thoroughly and entirely disagree with. That there is personal bravery, there is personal chivalry, personal devotion, I do not deny, but I do deny that organising killing, the organising of slaughter is something of which mankind ought to be proud. Very humbly, whether hon. and right hon. Members believe me or not, very humbly I believe that the biggest thing in life is always what the man and woman give to life rather than what they take out of it. I never believe that what has dominated the world roost up to the time I have lived has been the great warriors or the great persons who have dominated the world. I am going to say—although know that many of you will think that it does not apply in an Assembly like this, but I am going to say it, because I have said it outside many times, and because it is something I believe as surely as I am standing here—that I am sure, if standing at that Bar to-night there were Napoleon, Wellington, Caesar, and all the greatest conquerors in the world, and side by side with them there were Buddha, Christ, Father Damien, Tolstoy, and Elizabeth Fry, all those people who we know, not as great persons ruling in the purple or by force of arms, the ones we should instinctively rise to are not the conquerors, but. Christ, Buddha, Father Damien and the rest of them, because deep down in the human heart there is the feeling that it is a big thing to give yourself to the service of your fellow men. I want the democracy of Britain to lead the world in the paths of peace. I believe our people have got the greatest God-given opportunity that the masses of no other country have ever had. No democracy has ever had the opportunity our people have. You have given them education, you have given them municipal administrative powers, you have given them the right to organise, the right to vote, the right to come here. What for? Is it to let the world be as it has been? No. We are here to say that all mankind is one, and that the oneness of human life is sacred, and that the lives of the black child and white child are equally sacred because Christ was born and because Christ died to make those lives sacred.

Once again I feel happy to stand up as a member of the Communist party who does not possess any front bench. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), in introducing this Amendment, said that he did not like Mr. Facing-both-Ways. I am not in a position to-night of having a party facing two ways. I put it seriously to this Committee that we are not here to afford to the country some amusement every night. It does not mean doing patriotic duty simply to jeer at minorities in this House. We are here to discuss problems which, in the hands of the older parties, have failed and have brought on the world misery, ruin, murder, degradation, Unemployment, starvation and everything else that is evil. We are here to review the policies of the past and to apply to them a new outlook, a new vision and a more daring thought than you were accustomed to in the past. It is no use talking of the Air Force Estimates in the terms of a patriotic duty as you understood it in the past, and I also agree that it is no use merely blindly voting against it without showing the new way, without disguise and without putting a cloak of phraseology upon it. We must be perfectly clear and honest in our future vision when we are out to destroy the policies of the past.

11.0 P.M.

Hon. Members have spoken of the alliance with France. Hon. Members opposite protested, and perhaps sincerely, that we were never going to be enemies of France, that France was never going to be an enemy of Great Britain. If they were as intelligent and as logical as they claim to be sincere, I would then put it to them that if France, being your friend, inseparable and in all perpetuity, has already got 120 squadrons of an Air Force, that is quite enough to protect you as their friends, and you will not require any more. If the French Air Force is the biggest Air Force in the world, if France is only 20 miles away from you, even not as far away as some of your aerodromes in Scotland, then, if you believe sincerely in the friendship of France, we should have no Air Force at. all, but we should have simply an agreement with France so that they should assist us in our time of need. But it is not so. As the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) pointed out, history will repeat itself. It was Germany and Great Britain destroying France 100 years ago. It was France and Great Britain destroying Germany in the late War. Now in the cycle of events it may be France and Germany attacking Great Britain and destroying us. One can never tell. Right hon. Gentlemen are so very confident, so trustful of France. Then they are doing exactly the opposite of what they ought to do in building up an independent Air Force instead of relying on the Air Force of France. You do not look upon the Air Force of France as your protector, but you do look upon it as your future enemy, and that, and that alone, can justify the Estimate that you are submitting to the Committee to-night.

It is said that we of the Communist party are the enemies of the Christian Church; that we are out to destroy all Christian churches. I submit that the foundation stone of the Christian Church is, "Thou shalt not kill." You who pretend to be the supporters and faithful upholders of that Church, come and tell the nation to-night that the biggest function of the Government and of the State is to organise the most efficient weapons for murder and killing. Organised murder, you say, is the duty of the State, and preaching "Thou shalt not kill" is the duty of your Church, and you pretend that Church and State are the best friends of each other. They are nothing of the kind. You must wind up either the Church or the State. We would request you to wind up the present form of your State rather than to wind up the Church. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was trying to mislead the country, through this House to-night, that the voice of Labour and of the working-classes is not in favour of abolishing warfare and armaments. I would mildly put it to my right hon. Friend that he should present himself either in his constituency or in mine, and put to the vote the question of the opinion of the working-classes on the subject. I confidently believe that the right hon. Gentleman would not gain his point in any working-class audience. He read to us a resolution of the Labour Conference of 1923. We know that these resolutions are framed with one meaning on the surface and another convenient meaning to suit the future moment when it, becomes necessary to use it. The resolution that was put to the Labour Conference, and was understood by the Labour Conference, contains distinctly the words that the Labour party and the country desired a conference for immediate and universal disarmament. I would like the right hon. Member for Platting to explain the force of the words "immediate and universal disarmament." Of course since that conference the right hon. Member for Platting and Es colleagues have been responsible for going back on that Resolution and acting contrary to it. Surely, the construction of the five cruisers was not a step towards immediate and universal disarmament. Surely the use of the Air Force in Iraq to bomb Arabs, who did not possess even a long range rifle, was not a process of calling together a conference of British and Arab workers in order to have immediate and universal disarmament. Surely the insolent letter to Zaghloul Pasha stating that the British sword would remain fully drawn in Egypt—

It is intended that the Debate should be wide, but it must have some relevance to the Air Force.

The Air Force is a wing of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting read a Resolution of the Labour Conference demanding immediate and universal disarmament which included and covered all the various wings of the Army. I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), speaking at Swindon the other night, said, in the usual dramatic fashion, that whatever was won by the sword and was attempted to be kept by the sword would perish by the sword. Was he intentionally sending the British interests in Iraq, in Egypt and in India to perdition when he was trying to defend them by the British sword? We have to study the question of disarmament in the new light of conscience that we should possess, and not in the light of party wrangles, party dicta and, party dogma which can be interpreted either way to suit the convenience of the moment. The argument which we put to the Committee is proved by illustrations from history. if you go one inch along the road of armaments, there are others to go six inches further still. To-day we argue that we must increase our Air Force immoderately because France has increased hers immoderately. That is not a communication to France asking for immediate and universal disarmament. It is a gesture to France that she may now go another mile on the road. The history of armaments is that, in this way, they increase numerically and multiply in variety and become more in tense in their deadliness. The Vote which we are discussing does not lead towards disarmament, but leads towards the growth of armaments. I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting can say to us that though the Labour party intends complete disarmament, it is by acting in support of this Vote,. that he is going to achieve that end.

We have had from the Government one serious argument to which I am prepared to give serious attention. There is a fear in the minds of men and women, which we cannot discard as of no account, that if you had no Air Force somebody else would pay you back the same coin which you are accustomed to deal out to other nations in the world. What are we to do, then? What is the position Hon. and right hon. Members who are supporting these Estimates, and who are not even fully satisfied with the full measure, dictate the view that there is nothing but annihilation, destruction and demolition in store. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] We do not agree. You cannot laugh away the convictions of men whose convictions are as strong as yours. If you have not that knowledge now, from next week you will begin to acquire it, if you read the new "Lans- bury's Workers' Weekly." Perhaps there are in this Committee very large numbers of Members who hold the conviction that it is mere nervousness that sees shadows of destruction in disarmament, when historic facts prove that murder and destruction are visiting the nations of Europe through armaments. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley gave a list of 11,000,000 slaughtered human lives amongst the nations that were armed, and not among the nations who were not. Switzerland, Denmark, Scandinavia, the poor negroes of Africa—those who are not armed so madly never show such destruction in their national life. We have large masses in this country amongst the working classes, in spite of the diffidence of the right hon. Member for Platting, who are quite prepared to take life calmly, without seeing ghosts and shadows of war, without air forces, battle— ships and armies.

My hon. Friend is a prophet; he has read my thoughts. I was coming to the Red Army. The Red Army raises ghosts and makes uneasy the minds of those who are believers in piling up armaments—[An HON. MEMBER: "With its Air Force."]—the Red Army, with its Air Force, with its composition, and with its purpose, does not frighten a few million workers of Great Britain and Europe as it frightens the hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House who are believers in armaments. You are simply determined to believe in armaments, and in order to buttress up your belief, you want to point to the examples of those who have got to arm in defence against yourselves, just as you find an excuse to arm yourselves in defence against someone else, and that is exactly the race of armaments which we who talk of complete disarmament want to stop, and we are not disturbed by the apparition of the Red Army or the Blue Army or the White Army.

Here we have the product of human brains like the aeroplane and the airship. There is famine in Ireland to-day, and no aeroplanes are going over to the West of Ireland immediately with food for the little children and scattering and showering that from the air. There are many uses to which the Air Service could be put, and we all know it, but the first and immediate use to which all nations want to apply it is the use of destruction and killing one another Why? Because you insist on maintaining your system of Imperialism, of Imperial trade, of Imperial trade routes, and your hereditary and God-given right to raw products growing in other nations' countries; your right to cotton in Rhodesia and Mesopotamia, your right to oil seeds in India, your right to cotton in the Sudan and to rubber in Malacca. Therefore, you want now an efficient Air Service because you believe that the mode of killing human lives and of terrorising human lives through a sea Service is no longer up-to-date and efficient.

We suggest to you that you now begin to think out ways and means of how to employ scientific progress and how to employ growing human knowledge in reversing those systems. Hon. Members on this side who are opposing this Vote. see that one excuse for to-night's Estimate is that other nations are arming themselves. It becomes the duty of this nation, just as clearly towards Great Britain as towards any other country, to begin to preach to the peoples of other nations, just as well that aerial forces and armaments are not for the happiness of nations, but for the disgrace and misery of nations. But when somebody does that, you say it is the Russian and Communist. Government foreign propaganda. Yes, if we want to live in a human world like human beings, it is our bounden duty now to have international propaganda just as much as anything else. Instead of spending £20,000,000 on arming yourselves for the air against your neighbours and against the helpless, unarmed Arabs and negroes of the East, if you could spend that money on what you term foreign propaganda for peace and goad will and international relationship and brotherhood and equality, you would be making better use of that money; but you hold to your old-fashioned ideas of the last hundred years and consider it is a great vice and a great crime to conduct such an international propaganda. You must take care of yourselves and not allow international jealousies to make you increase your air forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Brigadier-General Warner) gave voice to another note that is alarming. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) will seriously consider the significance and implications of that new note. He appealed to the Universities and to the public schools—I do not know, Mr. Hope, whether I may be permitted to speak of "these 'nobs' of society"—to start their aero clubs and to perfect themselves in the art of flying. I can visualise my constituency and other constituencies in Great Britain where there are millions of working-class boys and girls who will not have the opportunity of being experts in flying. This is the new class that is going to assist the ruling class. [ Interruption .] It is all very well to try to drown the voice of the speaker. But it is bound to come out in the next few months when the nations of the world through the working classes are going to get closer and closer together in opposition to armies and air forces; and they will take, rightly or wrongly, thought it may not be the intention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, an attitude of opposition to the Air Forces, the Naval Forces, and the Armies of Europe. This gathering together of the working classes, especially within Great Britain and Russia, will have its unavoidable influence upon the front benches of parties generally. A study of armaments and national forces will take place and these various schemes will be looked into in a different spirit and from a different angle from that which we are taking up to-night, and it would then be realised that the Vote which you are asking for to-day, and the additional force that you are creating to-day, will be, rightly or wrongly, put under the microscope and analysed quite differently from how you are trying to look at it to-night. It would be found out by working-class conferences, or gatherings, or committees, that the armaments of the future are so devised that by a handful of persons, the controllers of the working class, large masses of the working class in Great Britain and all over Europe could be controlled and kept in check, as well as kept under terror, and kept in the right place; and when that view begins to spread, I put it to the House that this House will not be as joyful and as cheerful and light-minded as it is to-night.

I only want to say in a sentence that if the vote we are about to take was to be determined and understood by those who have listened to the Debate, there would he no need for one word to be added. But it is because the importance attached to speeches in this House may be misunderstood that I rise to say at once that I propose to vote against the Amendment. I do not think those who supported the Amendment will disagree with what I am now going to say—that they did so, not only because they are genuine lovers of peace but because they sincerely believe in universal disarmament. In other words, they moved this as a serious Amendment, and deprecate its being turned into a comedy. I refuse to make any defence for my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). Those who know his life work, and also the life history of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), will be able to judge accurately as to their respective merits, their sincerity and their record on behalf of the working classes. When that analysis is made I am sure no apology will be needed for the defence that can be made for the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Platting. But if it is to go forth that the Labour Government used the Air Force, or that the Air Force in Iraq at the present moment is used, for the purpose of merely killing the native population, as is suggested, I give it the lie direct. I can only conclude that the hon. Member who has just spoken either spoke in ignorance, or deliberately intended it for consumption in other countries and not here. No, Sir. We who do represent the Labour party, those of us who have been workers in the country, those of us who claim to speak for the working classes, say "Yes, we hate war and armaments because we know that we have to suffer. We will do all we can to make peace possible and to bring about peace. We do not subscribe to the policy of those who give lip service to peace because of our genuine anxiety for peace and because we still believe that war is something that we must all avoid." The sentiments just uttered by the hon. Member for North Battersea do not represent any material force in this country. I do not propose to vote for the Government, but I propose and urge my friends to vote against the Amendment now before the Committee.

I have already taken up the time of the Committee to-day, and I do not intend to take up much more. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has made an impressive speech, and it is almost unnecessary for me to add anything to what he has said. I think he has expressed the view of the great majority of the members of the House upon the Amendment. Lest hon. Members who have supported this Amendment may think it is discourteous on the part of Ministers on this Bench to say nothing in reply to their speeches, let me say this: no less than the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who have spoken, we appreciate their sincerity, and we know that they moved this Amendment with nothing but sincere feelings in their minds. We ask them to give us credit on our side for also being sincere. No less than they, we desire to see the abolition of war. We, no less than they, desire to see a restriction of armaments and a gradual process of disarmament set up all over the world. Where we part company is in regard to the methods they suggest. They say that the best course for this country to pursue would be abolish the Air Force altogether, but we take the contrary view. We hold that partial disarmament of the kind would have no such result. If we needed any evidence of that fact, we only need to point to what happened after the War, when we actually reduced our Air Force to an almost insignificant size, and all that has happened since during the last five years has been a gradual increase of armaments over the whole of Europe. We are just as anxious for a reduction of armaments as they are. I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say, that we mean what we say, and we shall take the first possible opportunity, whether it be by conference or by any other methods that can be suggested to carry into effect what I believe is the wish of every single Member in this House. I am not going to say more now, but I am going to suggest to the Committee that we should leave the very important questions more directly connected with Air Force administration which have been raised during this Debate until next week, when we shall resume the discussion of this Vote upon the Report stage. The Debate then will, I understand, be of a very general character, and I shall be quite happy, and so will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to deal with any of the questions that have been raised to-day. I suggest that it is the general wish of the committee that I should postpone those details until that day. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] I am quite ready to deal with them now, but I should have thought that, as the Debate has been mainly restricted to questions of disarmament, it would have been better to leave the details of air administration to the Report stage. T am not going to take up the time of the Committee any longer, but will ask them to come to a decision on this Amendment.

I assume—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]— I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of disarmament, which is certainly reassuring, but the proposal contained in this Vote—[HON. MEMBERS: Divide!"]

On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen standing at the Bar, and not in their places, to take part in a Debate by using the Parliamentary cry of "Divide?"—[ Interruption .]

The proposal contained in this Vote to increase the personnel of the Air Force is important, as indicating the trend, notwithstanding the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, because I would point out that the position of the Air Force is totally different—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]

The position of the Air Force is totally different from the position of the Army or of the Navy. While I cannot vote for the Amendment, yet this is an opportunity when one must bring to the notice of the Government, and press upon them, the difference between the Air Force and the other two arms. Ever since the time of Hugo Grotius there has been among international lawyers a persistent attempt to settle international differences by means of international arbitration, and even military and naval leaders have taken part in setting up some sort of international tribunal. Those efforts have resulted in bringing about the passing of Measures for the purpose of humanising warfare, and certain things, even at present, are outside the pale in time of war. It is possible to regulate and carry into effect these international agreements with regard to the Army and the Navy, but with regard to the Air Force that would be a practical impossibility. Take, for instance, attacks upon defenceless towns and civil populations. Those are outside the pale of warfare at the present time, but what security is there going to be in the future that that enactment of international law can possibly be observed? It should be pressed upon the right. hon. Gentleman and the Government that a conference should be called, especially with regard to the Air Force; some agreement between different countries as to the limitation of armaments as far as the Air Force is concerned is a matter of urgent importance—one of greater importance even than a limitation of military and naval armaments in order to give security in the future with regard to the maintenance of international law. It is for that reason that I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, by means of a conference or whatever means they think best, to come to some arrangement, especially with regard to limitation of the Air Force.

I know the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended, but hon. Members have had an assurance that that was a mere formality, and that they would get home at a reasonable hour. I want that arrangement to be carried out, and I would not have come in at this stage had it not been that I represent a few hon. Members whose point of view has not yet been put by anyone, and if it is stated now there will be no need to repeat it on subsequent armament Votes. We do not claim to be on a very high ethical plane. We are not pacifists who turn the other cheek. But we think it has been amply demonstrated that war between nations achieves nothing. I am not quite sure whether it has been absolutely demonstrated that physical force of one kind or another can achieve nothing, and the view we take in supporting the abolition of armaments is simply because we are going, as a House of Commons, to ask the working class population of the country for their share of £20,000,000, which is a large sum of money. We are asking so many more millions for the Army and the Navy, and we say the money is urgently required to protect their homes, their rights and their liberties. The majority of these people have no share in the ownership of this land. Their livelihoods are never secure. Their homes are never secure. Imagine me going down to Clydebank to a man who has been turned out on to the street with. his wife and children, the doors and windows taken out of his house, and his miserable goods and chattels turned on to the pavement imagine me saying, "My dear fellow, I want from you your share of the £20,000,000 which are required for the Air Force to defend your homes, your lives and your liberties." I cannot do that. Am I to go and ask the worker to defend his liberties when Lord Weir, one of the big captains of industry of the West of Scotland, tells him that if he is to be allowed to build houses for his fellow workers he cannot be guaranteed the very low minimum wage—

Lord Weir was Air Minister at one time. I think I have made my point clear. The group of men I am speaking for are not going to vote one penny for armaments until the working classes have something worth defending, which they have not got now.

It is quite a novelty for one of the great fighting forces to try to get the Speaker out of the Chair and get four principal Votes in one day. Therefore, I make no apology for rising to ask the Minister for Air one or two questions. I am not going to vote for the Amendment; I cannot vote for it. I understand that it is a demonstration. Hon. Members desire to vote upon the Amendment, and I am not anxious to stand in their way; but I do not consider that the debate on the general Air policy is complete. It is not sufficient for the Minister to tell us that the Report Stage will do. The Air Minister has not made any reply to the criticisms. We were told that the Under-Secretary was going to speak. I will resume my seat, but when this Vote has been taken and, if necessary, Vote "A," I shall, if I am in order on Vote 1, raise again the general question with a view to extracting replies from the Minister. Shall I be in Order, Mr. Hope, in raising on Vote 1 the general question?

In. that case, as sow, as the Amendment has been disposed of, I propose to rise on Vote "A."

May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member? It was not with any desire to be discourteous to hon. Members that I made the suggestion I did. I thought it was for the general convenience. Quite obviously the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to an answer to any question he may ask. We are giving a great deal more time for the Air Vote than on any occasion since the War. The year before last, the House took all the Committee votes on the first day. In view of these considerations and in view of the fact that owing to nothing over which we had control, the Debate has been almost entirely on the question of the abolition of the Air Force and the reduction of armaments, I thought it would have been for the general convenience if we resumed the Debate on details of administration on the next occasion.

The questions raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. (Brig.-General Warner) and myself, are not questions of detail of administration. We raised definite questions of policy. I do not want to stand in the way of the Vote, but I do not think we are being treated fairly.

I am anxious to remove any impression of that sort. The hon. and gallant Member asked me certain questions, which I will answer. He asked why there was no figure in the Estimates for an aerodrome at Singapore. The reason is that we ere doing nothing this year, and therefore we are not asking the Committee to vote any money. He went on to refer to Basra, and said we were spending £145,000 this year. He is in error. If he looks at page 45, he will find that we are only spending £2,000, and that is to complete work mainly carried out last year, when the party opposite were in office. He asks a further question in which he said we are spending £522,000 upon accommodation near Bagdad. There again, we are spending only £1,650, to complete the work that was largely carried out last year when we were not responsible. I think the hon. and gallant Member will see that so far as his specific questions are concerned I have answered them.

On a point of Order. I believe it has always been the practice in regard to the Navy Estimates, to allow a general discussion on Vote 1. I understand that on the Air Votes a general discussion may not take place on Vote 1.

While we are on Air Vote I or Air Vote A, but not on both.

Question put, "That 1,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 25; Noes, 260.

Division No. 23.]

AYES.

[11.54 p.m.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Barr, J.

Kirkwood, D.

Stephen, Campbell

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Lansbury, George

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Buchanan, G.

March, S.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maxton, James

Windsor, Walter

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Riley, Ben

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Mr. Scurr and Mr. Thurtle.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Albery, Irving James

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hanbury, C.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Harland, A.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

Compton, Joseph

Harlington, Marquess of

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Cooper, A. Duff

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cope, Major William

Haslam, Henry C.

Ashmead-Bartlett, E

Couper, J. B.

Hawke, John Anthony

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander. F. W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Balniel, Lord

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Bellaire, Commander Canyon W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

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

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Blundell, F. N.

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

Homan, C. W. J.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Drewe, C.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Brass, Captain W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Ellis, R. G.

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Elveden, Viscount

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Briscoe, Richard George

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

lliffe, Sir Edward M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Jackson, Sir H (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Jacob, A. E.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Bullock, Captain M.

Fielden, E. B.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Burman, J. B.

Finburgh, S.

Lamb, J. Q.

Burney Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Fleming, D. P.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col, George R.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Ford, P. J.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Butt, Sir Alfred

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

Loder, J. de V.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Ganzoni, Sir John

Looker, Herbert William

Campbell, E. T.

Gates, Percy

Lougher, L.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

Charteris, Brigadler-General J.

Grotrian, H. Brent

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Christie, J. A.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Clayton, G. C.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

MacIntyre, Ian

Ropner, Major L.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

McLean, Major A.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Tinker, John Joseph

Macmillan, Captain H.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tinne, J. A.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Macquisten, F. A.

Salmon, Major I.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sandon, Lord

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

Margesson, Captain D.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Savery, S. S.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Merriman, F. B.

Sexton, James

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Meyer, Sir Frank

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Watts, Dr. T.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shepperson, E. W.

Wells, S. R.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Simms, Dr John M. (Co. Down)

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

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

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Naylor, T. E.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Smithers, Waldron

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Neville, R. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Wise, Sir Fredric

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Womersley, W. J.

Oakley, T.

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

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Storry Deans, R.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Philipson, Mabel

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Radford, E. A.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Wragg, Herbert

Ramsden, E.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Remer, J. R.

Sutton, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Templeton, W. P.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Original Question again proposed.

In the Debate to-day, several questions of great importance were raised. I do not want to travel again over the ground which has been adequately covered earlier, but two matters of great importance I will refer to generally, without going into details. The first is the policy of the Government with regard to civil aviation. That topic has been dealt with with great authority by hon. Members on the same side of the House as the Secretary of State. The second is the policy of the Government in regard to disarmament by agreement. Those of us who could not vote for the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) were not out of sympathy with his aspiration for disarmament, but did not regard his proposal as a practicable one. The plan that we support is that of disarmament by agreement. You cannot have that unless you pursue a policy of agreement actively. The Government have been repeatedly asked what their policy is.

On a point of Order, I would like to know whether the under- standing with the Government is riot this—that the additional day—

My hon. and gallant Fri-end will be able to see whether it is or not after I have stated it. I submit that the questions now raised can be raised again when the Vote is debated further on the day to be allocated, and that being the case, is it not out of order to discuss them at this stage?

Is it not the case that any discussion on the Report stage will be under limitations which are not imposed in Committee?

Naturally, the Report stage is not limier my control, and I can only speak in reference to the Debate now taking place. It is customary, as hon. Members know, for full debate to take place in Committee on Vote A. I have no doubt an opportunity for fairly full discussion will be given 015 the Report stage, but that will largely depend on the extent to which it is discussed on the present occasion. If the discussion be prolonged on this occasion, obviously there would not be the same opportunity on the Report stage.

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) if I seemed to interrupt him rudely. I did not intend to do so. It is no good for the Government constantly to say, "To-morrow, to-morrow!" We want an answer to these questions to-day. If the Government insist on suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule and demand from the House so many stages of these Votes at one sitting, it is not for us to apologise because we are here to this hour, and are repeating questions which to this moment remain unanswered. Is it not the fact that the Minister, earlier in the day, said the Under-Secretary, who is charged with the supervision of the Civil Aviation Department, would give a reply? I also put to the Prime Minister this question: Will he now, or on the Report stage, make a clear statement as to what steps the Government are taking to promote international disarmament by agreement? We have not had a single word on that subject so far, except an obiter dictum from some legal writer quoted by the Air Minister, which was an interesting but by no means convincing or clear contribution to the Debate. I am not merely trying to keep back Government business. I have no good will towards the Government at all and never pretended to have—otherwise I would not be sitting on this side of the House—but this is not a matter of pure Parliamentary opposition. It is a matter of substance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of principle!"]—and of very great importance. We can never get rid of these swollen armaments until there is some international agreement for disarmament, and this is the proper occasion on which to ask the Prime Minister what is the Government doing in that matter? We put these questions last year to the Labour Government; we are entitled to put them now, and the more time elapses, the more urgent they become. If they were urgent last year, they are still more urgent this year. So far, we have got no information; we do not know what is going on, what were the conversations between the Foreign Secretary and the American Ambassador, or what are the views of the Government on the Protocol. It is not by mere demonstration but by actively pursuing a policy of international disarmament that you will get your way in this matter. That is why we want a reply from the Prime Minister to the question I have asked. We do not know, for instance, what is going on with regard to conversations for some regional agreement in West Europe to reduce armaments. I beg of the Prime Minister to consider whether he cannot give a pledge that, if not now, on some future occasion, like the Report stage, so dear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby—

And so appropriate, in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment—he will give us a definite statement on this subject? We are in earnest in this matter of disarmament. We want to know what the policy of the Government is, and we demand that it should be stated in the House of Commons.

One of the greatest difficulties confronting us is to pin the right hon. Gentleman down to a specific statement with regard to policy. We ask questions, and we are told that they are not relevant, or pertinent, or opportune. But this seems to me to be a fitting occasion when we can ask the Prime Minister whether he will give us a specific statement as to what the Government propose to do to call a Conference of the Powers, to decide what is to be done to reduce air armaments, or to restrict deadly aerial warfare. Until that is done, I, for my part, speaking in all sincerity, though I am a keen advocate of security by other means, if it cannot be obtained by disarmament, shall not be able to vote for a single penny to be paid to the Government to carry on the Air Force.

I am to blame, if there be any blame, for I told the Under-Secretary for Air that probably he would be dealing in detail with civil aviation when the Debate was resumed on another occasion. On the strength of that statement, he has left his notes outside, but has gone to get them, and will give the hon. Members any information they may desire on the subject.

On a point of Order. The Prime Minister is in his place, and I want to submit that on an important Estimate such as that for the Air Force every Member putting questions desires not only an answer, but the fullest possible information. It must be obvious to everyone, in view of the length of the debate and the lateness of the hour, that if we can get satisfactory answers under other and better circumstances, that is all we should wish. Therefore, I put it to you, Captain Fitzlloy, whether the Vote that will be taken next will not permit an answer to the specific questions put by my hon. friends being given.

On the point of Order. Is it not a fact that Mr. Hope, in the Chair, gave a ruling to me, when I put the inquiry specially, that on Vote 1 he intended to restrict the debate narrowly to the purposes of the Vote?

I was going to ask the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) to which Vote he referred.

On the Report stage. You were not in the Chair, Sir, but I would suggest that an additional day was given on the understanding that these details would then be gone into. To-day we have discussed the general principle, and I submit that that extra day which has been promised would be sufficient for answers to be given to the specific points raised.

We have had an answer about the Under Secretary's notes and so on in regard to civil aviation, but a much larger issue was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). The Prime Minister is in his place. When does he expect to be in a position to deal with this matter, which is the most vital of all—I mean the Government policy in regard to calling a Conference on disarmament? I have put questions to the Foreign Secretary, and have been unable to get an answer in any specific terms at all, but now we have an opportunity of asking this question, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, either to-night or on the Report stage of the Vote, whether he can see his way to make a statement on this matter of high policy, namely, the possibility of getting together an International Conference to limit armaments? We cannot go on voting £21,000,000 every year with the present state of taxation in this country.

I should be glad to respond to the point that has been put to me, but, of course, a Debate on the Estimates for any of the fighting Services is not the occasion for a Debate on foreign affairs. I understand that the party opposite below the Gangway desire to raise the question of foreign affairs next Thursday on the Vote on Account, and that would be a very suitable occasion on which to put questions with regard to armaments, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be glad to give whatever information he will have by that time. With regard to the main question, I have nothing really to-day to add to what has fallen from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, except that we are equally desirous, with hon. Members opposite, to come to any agreement that may be reached, but at the moment I am unable to make any more definite statement.

I would like to remind the Committee of one thing that took place at Question time. As Leader of the House, I feel it my duty to try to arrange the business, or to give the House the opportunity of falling in with an arrangement of business, se as to suit the general convenience of hon. Members. That was why I suggested that, although we put down a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, it was done, not with a view to keeping the House sitting late, but in case a little extra time might be wanted to secure the Votes which are usually taken on the first day. Knowing, however, that there was a subject such as the one which has been raised this evening, which creates a considerable amount of interest in the House, I made an offer—a more generous offer, I may say, than has been made for some years—to give a whole day to the Report stage, in the hope that those who were specially interested in the details of the technical side of the Air Service might be able to take advantage of it, and have a Debate unencumbered by any other subject, and have it during the day time, when the Debate would be more fully reported and the House would be somewhat fresher than it is now. I still hope that that offer may be accepted in the spirit in which I made it. Of course, if it is not, we are perfectly willing to sit on to-night, but I cannot, in that event, hold out any hope that I shall be able to give a full day for the Report stage.

The Prime Minister has accurately stated the terms and conditions upon which he has given [ interruption ]—I am quite sure the fighting instincts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) are fully appreciated in all parts of the Committee, but if his interruption means that some concession was given that we readily acquiesced in without any protest or anxiety, I have only to say that we considered that an additional day for the details would adequately meet the situation. If, on the other hand, the Committee generally feels that the details to which I have referred could be more adequately discussed at this time than with a full day, then the Committee must judge the matter for itself. Having been one of the party, and speaking for those who made the arrangement, I do submit there is no reason why these technical points should be raised at this stage, when there is sufficient scope on the additional day to raise them. If I had to choose between going on all night or having a full day when we are all fresh, I know which I should choose.

I hope that the Committee will realise that I did not intend any discourtesy to it by not rising before in this Debate. It was only that it was thought that the Debate had gone on to such very different lines that in regard to the questions put to me it might, perhaps, be a convenience and advantage to Members if the discussion was postponed till the Deport stage. I have a certain amount of information here upon the subject of civil aviation, and if it meets the wishes of the house to have it now I shall be very pleased to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes," and "Another time."] There seems to be a division of opinion as to whether the Committee wishes to hear me or not. I had, therefore, perhaps take the oppor- tunity of giving out the information that I had intended to give earlier in the day.

I should like to ask the indulgence of the Committee—that indulgence which it is usually wont to accord—to one who like myself is addressing it for the first time from this peculiarly exposed and windswept geographical position from which I am attempting to "take off" on my first flight as a junior Minister. One of the points raised this afternoon was that of the regrettable accident at Croydon, with its terrible loss of life. My right hon. Friend has explained to the House the unremitting efforts that are being made by the Research Committee to mitigate the causes of these accidents, and I think it is only fair, on behalf of the company in question, to bring to the notice of the Committee the excellent record for safety and reliability which the company has hitherto attained. So much so, that an accident like the one that occurred comes as a shock because of the comparative immunity from serious accidents hitherto enjoyed. It must not, however, be forgotten that the history of flying is so short, and the development so rapid, that it is almost impossible to avoid accidents of this sort on occasion. There are still many air problems imperfectly understood. The solution of these problems is often made much more difficult when, as happened in the case at Croydon, the destruction of the machine by fire makes it difficult. When as certain exactly the true cause of the accident. And even After the various problems, both aerodynamic and mechanical, with which we are at present confronted, are far nearer to solution than they are to-day, there will still be the human element to consider. Improvements on the scientific side, both in knowledge and material, will not always prevent a mistake being made on the ground or in the air. The only remedies, if remedies they be, are the careful and thorough selection of pilots and the exhaustive and systematic overhaul of machines. From what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air told the House this afternoon, I think Members will realise that the Air Ministry is fully alive to its responsibility under both these heads.

I should like to turn next to another side of civil aviation which I think will interest the House. It certainly shows the care taken by the Air Ministry in the overhauling and inspecting of machines for civil aviation. Since the war a certain number of ex-officers have bought machines and have been going up and down the country in the summer time giving short joy-rides, for payment, to all those who care to take the opportunity, for a short period at any rate, of a rise in the world. When one realises that those machines are all war-time machines, that they have seen and are seeing very severe work, it shows there must be very exhaustive inspection on the part of the Air Ministry to guard against any serious accident. That the arrangements have been adequate is shown by the fact that in the course of the last season 52,000 persons were taken on flights, 2,400 hours were flown, and although there was a good deal of stress and strain on the machines owing to the frequency of landing and taking off places, these flights were carried through without a single injury to a passenger. This joy riding may perhaps be considered a minor part of civil aviation, but it does have the effect of popularising it and bringing it within the experience of a large number of people who otherwise would take no interest ill flying at all. It familiarises a section of the population in aviation and in the safety of aviation, and proves care taken by the Air Ministry in inspection and overhaul of civil aeroplanes.

My right hon. Friend has shown that we must rely more and more on the pilots of the next generation, that the ultimate strength of the Air Force must depend a great deal on popularising flying not only for business purposes but also as a legitimate sport, and it is with that end in view that the question of light aeroplane clubs has been brought forward. It has been regrettable that owing to the difficulty of getting an engine suitable to a dual-control machine improvement has been checked up to the moment, but I think these difficulties will be overcome in a very short time, and. that then the Air Ministry will do everything they can within their financial capacity to improve it. I see no reason why the owning and flying of light aeroplanes should not be found as common as riding to hounds, and even less dangerous. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who is always the first to launch himself into any new field which requires skill and daring, will not be slow to avail himself of the opportunity of having a light aeroplane.

I think there will be no difficulty in getting up a public subscription. I am sure that if the hon. and gallant Member had his own aeroplane his constituents would see even more of him than they do now. Another matter which affects civil aviation is the development of airships. My right hon. Friend has given to the House the reasons upon which the policy has been based, and I think there is nothing I can add to it. All I should like to say is that apart from the difficulties and disadvantages of change of plan at this time, and apart from the disadvantage of having a monopoly of design, the determining consideration seems to me to be a growing appreciation of the military possibilities of airships in such an Empire as this is. It has been proved that the utility of the airship extends far beyond long-distance (reconnaissance at sea. On the one hand there is the probability that the airship can be made less vulnerable to attack in the air because of its own protective aeroplanes, or some use of non-inflammable gas; on the other hand there are the enormous advantages which have been mentioned this afternoon—the use of airships to enhance the mobility of our land and sea forces over our Empire.

But I do not wish to break away from the civilian aspect of the subject. I should like to turn to another side of that development of flying and the use that has been made in the Empire of the aeroplane for solving the questions of time and space in the vast territories of our Dominions (use of the aeroplane for surveying large tracts of hitherto unexplored territory: use of the aeroplane for notifying forest fires; for conveying machinery from place to place and for bringing urgently-needed medical assistance over tracts of country where neither road nor rail communications are available) has opened a new chapter in our Empire development. and, when one considers how much has been already done with the vastly less capacity and range of aeroplanes, the possibilities, both military and commercial, of airships is nothing short of wonderful.

Some figures have been given to the House regarding our commercial air lines. I should like, very shortly, to give one or two more. Our transport lines have, since they were inaugurated, done, I believe, something like 3,500,000 miles, which is equal to 134 times round the world with only 13 accidents. Their enterprise has been magnificent; their cargoes have consisted of anything from zoological specimens down to bullion; thus pigs have confounded the prophets, and a new meaning has been given to "the flight of capital." Nor has the limit of the development of the heavier-than-air machine been reached. It may well be possible to produce a machine with a ceiling of 40,000 feet and a speed of 250 miles an hour. In fact, the ultimate limit of the aeroplane is likely to be the bursting resistance of the pilot rather than the failure of the engine or machine. Undoubtedly the range and flying capacity of the aeroplane will vastly increase. It has been mentioned that Africa is only distant now by one day, and, when the airship comes into cooperation with the aeroplane, the question of Empire communication will be very nearly solved. Once the flight Cairo-Bombay has been easily accomplished the next stage on the Imperial air line will be Melbourne, the Imperial air line which, I hope and believe one day will link the Empire round the world.

I rise for a minute or two to further the arrangement offered to us by the Prime Minister. May I say—[ Interruption ]—I understood the Prime Minister made an offer to the House of a further occasion on which we could discuss this and matters concerned with it. May I say that it is greatly to our regret that the interesting speech which we have just heard should not have been delivered earlier in the day. It is of especial value. I do not want for a moment to compare the quality of the speeches of the Under-Secretary and the Minister, for I am sure the Minister will be the first to admit that we have had an interesting contribution from the Under-Secretary, who, I much regret, has not had the opportunity to go into the matter at greater length. We listened with great interest to the Minister himself, and I am sure he will not think me discourteous when I remind him of the fact that he occupied one hour and 38 minutes of our time. That was the exact time; I have had it checked.

I listened with great care and benefit to what the Minister had to say, but he did occupy a very large amount of the time of the House, and I do not blame him for having done it. But if there was so much ground to be covered, he cannot blame us for wishing the Debate to be complete. I understand it is suggested that the matter should he reverted to on Thursday. I believe the business to be taken on Thursday next is Foreign Affairs, and that the promise is that in the course of the discussion a Statement will be made on behalf of the Government with regard to disarmament, as one of the most important aspects of foreign affairs. With that promise in mind, I can only say that we shall do our best to facilitate business. I hope that when the Speaker takes the Chair, we shall not find that there is an undue curtailment of the discussion.

I quite understand, Captain FitzRoy, that in your present capacity you can make no prophesy as to what you will do on the Report stage if you happen to be in the Chair behind you. But we are limited. When the Report stage is reached, it is impossible for anything like a conversational Debate, which is necessary in Committee, to be taken then. I understand arrangements have been made and assurances have been taken so that when we reach the Report stage there will not be too narrow a ruling as to the subjects that can then he discussed. With that in our minds, and with the Prime Minister's assurance that on the Foreign Affairs Vote a statement will be made on behalf of the Government with regard to disarmament—[HON. MEMBERS: "When"?]—on Thursday—well, on the foreign affairs discussion, whatever be the occasion on which the discussion is to be taken which deals with foreign affairs—the Government will make a statement with regard to the great and difficult sub- ject of disarmament. If the Prime Minister will do that I am sure he will meet the convenience of the whole House.

Just one moment. Let us just be quite clear on this point. When the Civil Service Vote on Account is taken, I understand that my right hon. Friend's party had asked that foreign affairs should be the subject of discussion which they would bring forward. That being so, it is open to them to raise this question. If they do that, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will, of course, be prepared to answer them, and he will then give the House such information as is possible for him in the present position to give with regard to the prospects in Europe, and to state generally what the views of the Government are on the question of disarmament.

After that statement from the Prime Minister, I do not wish to press him further, but I presume in making his statement the Foreign Secretary will do it also with special reference to disarmament.

I am sorry if I seem to be a little slow in quite taking the point, lint if my right hon. Friend raises that point, or makes it part of his speech that he desires information on that, it will of course be the duty of the Government to reply. We will certainly prepare to meet any point that may be brought forward or any question that may be raised. If disarmament is to be raised, my right. bon. Friend will obviously speak to that. There is nothing really between us.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to be making arrangements by which I shall be expected to be honourably bound, because I am afraid I have very great difficulty in agreeing to honourable engagements that are entered into by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this bench. I should find it quite impossible to agree to an engagement entered into by right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, particularly when I and those around me, have never been consulted in any way at all through our usual channels.

I want to raise this in all seriousness. I think this ought to be made a protest in this House. Everybody knew after the speech was made and the vote taken, the exact position as the Prime Minister had stated it. I protest to Members below the gangway honestly and seriously against keeping me and other Members who are active in attendance in this House waiting and cross-questioning and listening to speeches for close on an hour when they were not serious in raising anything at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] May I just say that nobody regrets having "hear, hears" and cheers from the other side more than I do, but I have always said, whether down here or there, they get it from me. I think on this occasion hon. Members have kept us here fully three-quarters of an hour on what you know was flippant and foolish, and I think a protest ought to made in this House against it.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Pay, Etc., of the Air Force

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,112,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

Works, Buildings, and Lands

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,572,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

Quartering, Stores (Except Technical), Supplies, and Transport

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,459,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

Technical and Warlike Stores (Including Experimental and Researchservices)

Resolved,

"That a sum, not exceeding £5.650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

How many Noes do you, Captain FitzRoy, require to have before we can have a Division?

The question is, "That I report these Resolutions, without amendment, to the House."

On a point of Order. I put it to you, Sir, that the point of Order of the hon. Member for Dumbarton is a legitimate point of Order. On each vote we have had at least two Members have signified dissent.

If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had suggested that he was putting a point of Order, I would, of course, have listened to him, but other wise I had to put the Question before the Committee, and there was one at the time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow (Friday): Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Consolidation Bills

Ordered, "That the Lords Message [18th February ] relative to Consolidation Bills be now considered.—[ Colonel Gibbs .]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session."—[ Colonel Gibbs .]

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury why there is only one Labour member on this Committee? I do not want to be suspicious, but has it been arranged through the usual channels? If so, have no objection. Only it looks peculiar that there is only one Labour member.

Yes, like all Committees, it has been agreed to through the usual channels.

May we take it, then, that this Committee does not require any brains?

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Colonel England, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Reginald Neville, Mr. Short, Mr. Robert S. Hudson, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— [ Colonel Gibbs .]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday Evening , Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order .

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before One o'Clock a.m.