Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1936/may/25/clause-2-delegation-of-certain-functions
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:20:31+00:00

Document:
I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "appearing to him to be," and to insert "to be appointed by him and being."
We all know that appearances are deceptive, and we want to know what is the reason for the use of the words "appearing to him to be." The words are misleading when read with the rest of the Clause. We desire by our Amendment to make the Clause positive, and not to leave this matter to supposition. We want whoever is delegating these powers to be in possession of the facts and to see that the persons concerned are suitable for the purpose, not in appearance only but in knowledge. Someone who was very well dressed might come along and might appear to be very capable, but mere 1735 appearance is not sufficient. Our Amendment seeks to mark the difference between "appearing to be" and "being" substantially representative of the interests concerned.
I am sorry that the last Amendment was withdrawn, because it was a very important Amendment. Here again we have the question of services mixed up with the question of subsidies. No part of the Bill says what the word "services" means and I am trying to get an answer to that question. Does it mean the same thing in this connection as it means with regard to postal services where we use trains and boats to carry mails but we do not buy the trains and boats. I understand that the word "services" as applied in this Bill, in relation to air navigation, means that money is to be given to firms to build their aircraft and presumably the interests concerned with civil aviation are those connected with the people who are building the aircraft. It is not to be a question of services in connection with civil aviation but a question of the construction of airships or aeroplanes. The Minister ought to give the Committee a clear state-men in regard to these words.
What is meant by "substantially representative"? Indeed, these words taken together really amount to an insult to the Minister. The Clause uses the words "appearing to him to be". The Minister ought to be qualified to know whether a man fulfils the conditions or not. He ought to be able to see through appearances and to be able to tell at once from conversation whether a man is technically efficient or not. If the Minister is not himself acquainted with figures he ought to be able, with the aid of an accountant, to tell definitely whether a man is financially sound or not in relation to the words "substantially representative" which follow. The Minister has now a chance of wiping out that insult. In providing for the delegation of these functions to such a body we ought to give serious consideration to what we are doing. It is not only a, question of delegating responsibilities to these individuals but of delegating public money which must pass through their hands and I hope that in dealing with such an important matter, the Minister will take the view implied in the rest of the Clause. But unless some alteration is made in 1736 the wording on the lines of the Amendment it seems to me that anyone without knowledge but with an appearance of knowledge could come along and that a Minister who was not able to see through appearances could be "hocussed."
Our Amendment would make it definite. We want these functions to be delegated to people who are substantially representative of the interests concerned and not people who "appear to be" substantially representative of those interests. We want not appearance but reality. We want to try to make the Clause what it ought to be and to prevent the Minister from having to take all the responsibility of failure if some well-dressed silver-tongued individual came along and made a mess of things. By inserting these words we would make it clear that the Minister ought to know to whom these functions are being delegated. If he does not know it himself, he ought to get someone who does know and who will be able to see through people such as I have described.
I support the Amendment, which strikes at the root of the whole matter. The Gorell Committee made certain recommendations with which I am in complete agreement in principle, namely, that at the suitable date large blocks of control of civil aviation should pass from the military side of the Air Ministry to the care of those civilians who were fit and proper persons to carry on this business. They deal more particularly with the service of airworthiness and that word, in itself, contains the germ of the whole Debate. It is the public interest with which I am concerned in this matter, and I hope that considerations of pubic interest will have the effect of making those who are inclined to support this Amendment, do so with vigour. The public use commercial aircraft, and it is the lives of the public that are at stake, no'; those of the directors or the operator. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider what is being said by the Secretary of State on this subject, in rather disjointed language if I may say so, through his spokesman in the House of Commons and through other expressions of his views. He does not seem to have come down on one side of the fence or the other. The Tinder-Secretary a few days ago said: 1737 Of one thing the House may be assured. The persons appointed will be men who really know the essentials of the aircraft industry and air transport"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 1044, Vol. 312.] But as the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, the wording of the Clause is practically the same as saying that men who appear to be knowledgable are to be selected and I do not think that language is anything like a close enough definition for our purpose. Either this board is already appointed or else the Secretary of State has to appoint it. I have never known of a case in 25 years' experience in which a Ministry has thrown off its own shoulders such a grave responsibility as is involved here and put it carelessly on a body of people of this kind. I shall deal more in detail with that body in a few minutes. The board, apparently, is to have representation from the constructors. I ask hon. Members opposite to support me in saying that that means the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. It is well known that that is a ring, which will be a very tight ring. Nobody will be able to come into that category who is not in the gang. I need not mention the names of the gang, because they are too well known to my friends on the Treasury Bench. I am sure this is not the way in which to handle this difficult subject. If you pass from the word "constructors," you come to the word "operators," and who are they? There is one great operator, supported by the State, Imperial Airways. As to those who are struggling along without similar assistance, what hope have they of having their voices heard?
On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss, on this Amendment, the entire composition of this body? I, personally, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends also, have no objection whatever to that, but either we are to be confined to the Amendment before us or we may bring in all the various classes which we think ought to be on this board, and which are the subject of subsequent Amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point that had come to my attention, because it had struck me that we cannot discuss the words of the Amendment unless we also discuss what follows. The words 1738 themselves are meaningless, and I was therefore thinking it would be best if the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) would carry on with his argument, but without going too wide.
On the point of Order. May I take it that if any of the later Amendments are to be called, we shall be allowed to discuss the merits of each individual class of persons mentioned in the lines immediately below this Amendment when we come to them, and that we shall not be told that the general discussion has taken place and that the Amendments must be put pro forma?
I am put in a little difficulty, because I may not be here when the next Amendment is called. I think we had better keep as narrowly as we can to the words that are now before us.
I thank you for your assistance, Sir Charles, and I have no intention of going beyond the scope of the Amendment, but when you find words such as "to be appointed by him," and when you refer to line 15, which says: for delegating to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative of the interests concerned, it seems to me hard to say anything unless you are allowed to deal with the composition of this so-called body. I therefore ask the Committee to be patient with me while I draw attention to the fact that this so-called body is a self-appointed body and that the Ministry has divested itself of any responsibility for it. In my opinion it is very little more or less than a ring put up probably even before this Debate took place as between the Secretary of State and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. If you have that kind of so-called body set up behind the scenes, I submit that you will keep out from the most important body controlling certain sections of civil aviation all chance of criticism, all chance of innovation, all chance of improvement, and all chance of progress. Therefore, I submit that it is not right to set up this committee without a great deal of discussion and searching. I could go on further, but as you have rather warned me, Sir Charles, not to do so, I will leave the question of the insurers, who are referred to specifically in this Clause as 1739 being another member of this board, and then we come to the independents.
As I have already said, this is the most loosely framed Bill that I have ever seen presented to this House, and I do not think the Committee ought to pass it without the most careful inquisition and a most careful statement on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State. I challenge the Ministry to deny that the whole of this so-called body has already been set up behind the backs of Parliament, and is already in the hands of a limited and narrow group of persons, and that any outsiders, whether constructors, operators, or independents, or any other section, have little or no chance of getting through. I may be told that this is all nonsense, and, if so, I shall be delighted to hear it. I have never known a Department of State responsible for obtaining money from the Treasury, and obviously from the taxpayer—a large sum of money, very nearly £1,500,000—that has tried to exonerate itself in this way. It says to the House of Commons, "Criticise us, but we are not responsible. We have delegated our authority to a body that we have not even had the courage to appoint. We have allowed these so-called organisations to appoint themselves." I think it is a travesty of legislation.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) has drawn the attention of the Minister, with no party motive whatever, to a very serious defect in the Clause. I would ask the Committee to look at the word used, which is "delegating." I do not claim to be a great expert on the use of the English tongue, but it would appear to me that this is not a delegation that is proposed at all; it is rather a surrender or a transfer of his whole powers under this Clause. After these powers have been delegated, as it is called, it appears to be impossible for the Minister to reclaim them, and in these circumstances I submit that there is at least an error in drafting, if not in intention. I hope that when the discussion on the Clause standing part of the Bill takes place, the Committee will devote its attention to that point.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me for how long these powers are being transferred?
Will the hon. Member recd Sub-section (2)?
I see. If the Minister has power to revoke this Order, that removes one part of my objection to the Clause. That brings me to the next part of my objection, and that has to do with the nature of the body to whom it is proposed to transfer these powers. Everybody who is connected with these matters knows that the people to whom the powers are to be transferred are Imperial Airways and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. These are the two bodies which are to control this so-called advisory body. There is to be nobody who can look at civil aviation 1741 from the national or public point of view. Whenever a question concerning civil aviation comes up in future, it will be decided wholly by its repercussions on trade interests and the interests of Imperial Airways. If the Minister is genuine—and I make no suggestion that he is not—in his repeated expressions of concern about the necessity of civil aviation in the national interests, he should be the last person to see these great powers handed over to a body whose motives must be dominated by cash motives.
We must have on this body people appointed by the Minister and not appointed by these two sectional interests. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. What will happen, if I understand anything about the practical procedure, is that the Society of British Aircraft Constructors and Imperial Airways will cause somebody to appear. Nobody knows who will initiate this matter. We shall wake up one morning to find in the Press that a body has been set up. I believe, with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division, that it has already been appointed. By some process of spontaneous evolution there will be a body appearing in mid-air, and the Minister will say, "That is the body to whom I am going to transfer all these powers." It would be more rational and more in the national interest for the Minister to say, "Rather than allow this body to arise from obscure sources, of whose motives and interests we know little, I am going to agree with the Committee and appoint it; then I shall know where these people come from, and I shall know that there are no secret controlling hands on this body governing the whole civil aviation of the Empire by trade interests."
I am sure that the Under-Secretary, after having listened to the last two speeches, will realise that this Sub-section creates a much more serious situation than he imagined in the first instance. We have discovered in the Debate to-night that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make concessions when the concessions asked for appear to him to be reasonable. We have had one concession from him, for which we are grateful. Surely this is an occasion upon which a concession is even more necessary than 1742 on the previous occasion. I hope that he will not consult his two learned colleagues, because this is a matter in which the departmental prestige is at stake. He is giving away in this Clause a considerable amount of importance which attaches to the Air Minitry in its control of civil aviation. I am not sure that under the duties which are delegated to this board there will not go the right to issue licences to pilots, and to decide on the airworthiness of aircraft—matters upon which the Minister has been, probably by common consent all over the world, the most competent authority that any nation has possessed. These considerations induce me to believe that the Under-Secretary will see that the undermining of the prestige of his Department, which will follow the passage of this Sub-section, does not take place.
I wonder whether, on this occasion at least, we may have a clear statement from the Government as to how far they are going to syndicalism this business. Here is syndicalism with a vengeance. The Government are under this Clause handing over the appointment of the body controlling the industry to private interests, and they are divesting themselves of the right to nominate the individuals who are to comprise this board—a board which is to have a definite, clear and extensive control over the aircraft industry for a long period of years. Could anyone have believed that in cold blood the Under-Secretary and the Government would divest themselves of their power to nominate the persons concerned? I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Sir Charles, but it is obvious from a later Amendment on the Paper that we have actually to ask that some personal representatives of the public interest should be on the board. Whether that will be called or what the attitude of the Government is, I do not know. What we are pleading for at this moment is that the Government, in handling this public money, should, at any rate, nominate the board. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) says specifically that the board is already appointed. We have heard this kind of thing already this afternoon in another connection. We have been told by other hon. Members 1743 who have considerable knowledge of the aircraft industry that arrangements and commitments in other directions have already been made.
We have it now from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division that the board is actually appointed already. The Under-Secretary is not to appoint this body. A group of private vested interests are actually to appoint the governing body to control civil aviation. I never thought that I should live to see the day when a Conservative administration would put forward the most naked syndicalist proposal that it was possible to put upon the Statute Book. Parliamentary control will be gone and private vested interests, interested in the finances and profit of the industry, are openly and nakedly to have control, and all that the Secretary of State is to do is to be concerned that the body should appear to him to be substantially representative of those private vested interests. I see that the Home Secretary has come in, and I am going to make an appeal to him. It is only when the right hon. Gentleman has been here to-day that any conception of public interests has appeared in the discussions. May I put the point to him? It is that the Government are divesting themselves of their power to nominate the board controlling this industry. They simply say that the vested interests, which they specify, shall nominate the members of the board. That appears to us to be syndicalism, and it is syndicalism with huge Government subsidies. We are asking by this Amendment that the Government should in the public interest maintain and exercise the right to nominate the governing body of this industry and that it shall not hand over that right to vested interests. The Government may as well take it from us now as later that so long as this kind of thing is being m-ported into the Bill it will meet with relentless and unhesitating opposition from us on this side, and that we shall do our best at the earliest possible opportunity to upset this arrangement.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) will allow me to say that I think his remarks are based very largely on a 1744 misconception. I was a member of the Gorell Committee on whose recommendation this particular Clause was framed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were handing over the control of civil aviation to this particular body, that they were handing the industry over to them. I think I have quoted him correctly in that respect.
Neither of those statements is correct. In respect of commercial aviation the Government are retaining control of inspection, of design, and of manufacture.
Where does it say that? "Commercial" is not in the Bill.
When I spoke of "commercial" I was referring to large aircraft. If the hon. Member looks he will see that certain types of aircraft are exempted from the control of this body. The right hon. Member said that people who had vested interests in profits were going to control this industry. Any aircraft which are supplied for the Royal Air Force under Government contracts are not subject to this body. The only type of aircraft which it is to control corresponds to the type of motorcar that hon. and right hon. Members may possess or that I possess, which is an ordinary product of engineering such as we use in our ordinary life for private purpose. The whole idea of appointing this board was to get away from State control, to get away from officialdom in regard to the commercial development of machines which are used for private and commercial purposes by enterprises which should not be controlled by the Government—apart from their operational control, which is a different thing. I venture to say that if they were enmeshed in the wheels of officialdom their development would be retarded, and that would tend to prevent this country continuing to be the leading country in the development of private aeroplanes, which it is at the present time. Thai is the sole object of the devolution recommended by the Gorell Committee, and I hope it will commend itself to this Committee as a reasonable means of freeing a new industry from the trammels of officialdom, which throttle the adventurous spirits and throttle the inventive genius which 1745 have characterised the development of British inventions so far.
On the discussion of Clause 1 we on this side came to the conclusion that this Bill was a ramp, and I think this Clause confirms that view. It is one of the most extraordinary Clauses ever brought before the House. The Government propose to hand over to this body, which is to be composed of operators and constructors, the control of the inspection of design, construction and maintenance of aircraft. We have been told by an hon, Member opposite that this body is to consist entirely of Imperial Airways, who get the subsidy under Clause 1, and the Society of Aircraft Constructors. In their most degraded days the Mines Department never handed over the inspection of coal mines to coalowners, but this Bill proposes to hand over the inspection of the construction of aircraft to people who are financially concerned in their construction. When a railway accident occurs in this country the Government see to it that an inquiry is held by a Government inspector. He is a Government official; he is not appointed by the railway companies and is not in the pay of the railway companies. He is appointed for the protection of the public.
The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) says the operations of this board will not cover Army aircraft, but only the aircraft such as he and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) will use. If aircraft are to become an important feature of travel in the future it is essential that every precaution should be taken to ensure safety in their construction, and it seems a topsy-turvy method to put into the hands of the people who have been making money out of the construction of these aeroplanes the control of the inspection of their own products. That is what this Clause means. As was very obvious on Clause 1, this Bill is a ramp, and the Government, so far as aviation is concerned, are in the pockets of the directors of Imperial Airways.
I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), when he used the motor-car industry as 1746 an analogy in defending this Clause. I always know when I have been successful in a General Election, because I immediately receive from various motor-car manufacturers price lists of the more expensive makes of car they are providing for the public. Only last week I received—I am sure as a Member of this House and in no other capacity—a little pamphlet from the Daimler Company, on the front page of which was a picture of the motor-car whoch they produced in 1897, with the magnificent wording with which they commended it to the public. Let us suppose that the manufacture of private motor-cars had been an industry which was subsidised by the Government, that the Daimler Company had been selected to receive the major part of the subsidy, and that they had been brought under a Clause similar to that which appears in this Bill. Does anyone imagine that in such a case the progress we have seen in motor-car construction and design would have taken place? Surely that is the point with which we are dealing here.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest), with that knowledge which hon. Members opposite appear to possess of the secret history of this Bill, assures us that he knows that this board has already been appointed and has been selected from a very narrow circle. I think he called it "the ring," which is a very nasty way of saying "the narrow circle." I understand that it is generally assumed that this board is to be confined to a very few people with very big interests in the matter. In a later paragraph of Subsection (1) we see that in their advisory capacity the board are to deal with the design, construction and maintenance of aircraft. If that is what they are to deal with I suggest that it is essential that the Government should keep in their own hands the power of appointing people from outside the narrow circle who may be possessed of original and valuable constructive ideas which would be of the greatest value in assisting the development of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) dealt with analogies taken from various Government Departments. Poor as the inspection of the mercantile marine is under the existing law, and much as we should like to see it improved, it is, at any rate, carried out by the Board of 1747 Trade, and the regulations, although they are occasionally referred to other people, are made by the Board of Trade.
I want to discuss the narrow wording of this Amendment. It seems essential that the Committee should prescribe that the advisory body should be appointed by the Minister, and that he should pursue the usual course of getting a series of names in front of him drawn from various sources, and should appoint from those names various nominations, consisting of persons who appear to him to be best fitted to represent various branches of the industry. That is the common way of dealing with this matter. For instance, the Board of Education have a consultation committee, constituted according to a certain scheme, but the board appoint the persons. They may write round to other bodies for nominations, but they retain appointment in their own hands. Every local body which has to administer Acts in respect of agriculture or education, has to draft schemes which generally contain provisions with regard to the type of person who shall be appointed. The appointment of the persons is always left with the authority.
That should be the position adopted under this Clause. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the wording of the Amendment so that the appointment of these people shall be in his own hands. If he is to take, merely because they have been nominated by somebody else, the advice of these people, drawn from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division calls the ring, or the narrow circle of vested interests, it is plain that he will not get from that body any amount of disinterested advice whereby much advance in the construction of aircraft can be obtained. I hope that he will have the courage to assume responsibility for the appointment of this body, and to insert in the Bill the words of the Amendment.
I hope hon. Members behind will forgive me for intervening at this moment, but I want to say something about the Clause, which I consider is of very great importance. The Bill gets worse and worse the farther it goes. The Committee have not been told that the board is a limited 1748 liability company, and that its articles of association have been in existence for at least nine months. Not only is it known who are to represent the constructors and other interests, but it is left to those who are nominated, as constituting three-fourths of the board, to decide what the remaining one-fourth shall be; in other words, the remaining fourth will be co-opted members, upon the authority of people who have already been accepted as responsible, working under the conditions of a limited liability company.
The hon. Member is getting very far away from the appointment of the board.
I am dealing with the powers of the board when it is constituted, in order to show that if the representatives of certain well-known firms in the aircraft industry are to decide upon the maintenance and construction, and all the rest of it, of aircraft, they are bound to be prejudiced in favour of the ordinary kind of construction, the Ordinary aeroplane that we know. It is very dangerous, and very bad for the development of aircraft, that it should be handicapped in that way. In view of the facts that have been reported to us, I hope that the Commitee will support the Amendment.
Even from the standpoint of the complete cynicism which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and dealing with the matter from the lowest point of view that can be imagined, such as was considered by the hon. Member, 1749 there is a balance of interest in the proposal which ought to satisfy the outlook which he expressed. He stressed that this body would represent constructors. May I also point out that it represents operators and insurers? I am aware that he will not have any regard for operators, who are merely regarded as being ordinary British flyers of machines, but I am sure that his mind might have some regard to an operator who has to fly upon an international basis. He may be aware that an operator, under the Rome Convention, shall be deemed to be a person who has aircraft at his disposal and makes use thereof for his own account. We have a class there which is upon an international definition, and who are coming under this Clause, against which the hon. Member animadverts so strongly.
I would ask him also to consider the participation of the insurers. If anyone has not merely the right or the duty but, to take the hon. Member's standpoint, a cynical desire, to see that construction is right and that operation is perfected, it would be the insurers, who have to carry the risk. It therefore seems rather strange that this body is represented by the hon. Member as one which could not possibly be concerned with the interests of safety in the air. When you consider it closely, you find that the body represents not merely the persons who have to operate, or who risk their fortunes or the lives of their servants in the machines, but also those who cover that risk.
On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is proceeding to discuss the composition of the board and we understood from your Ruling that we were precluded from doing that. As I understand it, we are discussing only whether or not the Secretary of State should appoint a committee, not the composition of that committee.
That, of course, is quite true. The discussion is getting rather wider than I thought it would, but I gathered that the hon. and learned Gentleman would try to show that one interest would cancel another out.
Shall I be able to reply to the very unpleasant accusations that have been made by the hon. and learned Member? I have been described 1750 as cynical and as having a low type of mind.
The hon. Member represented me correctly as using the word cynical. I did not for a moment, however, suggest that he had a low type of mind, but that his argument was on a low plane, and that I am prepared to stand by. I welcome the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). It will enable me to get it quite clear. I was dealing with the suggestion that this body would be representative merely of constructors, and that it would be merely from a body representative of constructors that the Secretary of State would consider the matter. I was endeavouring to point out that the Clause itself states that the Secretary of State may by order provide for delegating to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative of the interests concerned, and in particular of the three groups I have mentioned, certain functions, and I venture to suggest that the difference between the Clause as it stands and the Amendment is this: That the Clause in its present form envisages co-operation and freedom and that the Amendment does not envisage as being possible that co-operation between balanced groups within the industry can bring about a better or more hopeful result for civil aviation in the future. On our reading of these words we have the principle of co-operation and freedom for civil aviation balanced against the regimentation which is all that the Opposition can advance as being the groundwork of their Amendment.
Chivalry leads me to commend to the notice of the Committee the phenomenon of an hon. Member opposite rising to support the Government. I want to consider one or two points which have been raised. The first is what the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Maxwell Fyfe) has said about some measure of protection to somebody, at any rate, from the balance of interests, the operators, constructors and insurers, so that the only people left out will be the passengers, the public and the workers. Where does the balance of interest come in? The Secretary of State 1751 is to delegate to a body, which can include a limited company, and we hear it suggested that it is proposed that a limited company shall be this very body. If the operators and constructors of aircraft form a limited company they will have sufficient flexibility and intelligence to make the insurers' representation on that body docile, or I do not understand the development of British industry as well as I think I do.
The other point is whether the Secretary of State can ever retrace the fatal step of delegating to a body. This is a pure matter of construction, and I am sure I shall be forgiven for addressing the Committee on something which I ought to understand. As a pure matter of construction, if the Secretary of State once delegates these powers to a body he can never take them away again. He may—no doubt he will with the assistance of his skilled advisers—be careful within limits to make sure that it is a body reasonably substantial. Say that a limited company is proposed. He will make provision to see that it does not transfer all its shares to somebody else, that it is not likely to go into liquidation, and that it has not power in its articles of association to take to selling fried fish instead of attending to its proper duty. The Secretary of State can delegate certain functions, can entrust to the body advisory functions and can make certain directions about the fees to be paid to such a body. I am sure that it can be put right if the Law Officers agree and the Secretary of State desires it, by making it possible to get rid of this body, but the Amendment moved from this side is doubly desirable as long as the body cannot ever have the powers taken away from it and given to another body.
Sub-section (2) states: An Order under this Section may contain such incidentals and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order of the Secretary of State. I suggest—it is purely a, matter for lawyers—that you cannot vary an order delegating functions to a body by taking the functions you delegate away from that body and giving them to somebody else. There is the power to revoke. You can bring the whole thing to a, stop by re- 1752 Voking the order and leaving the body in the air, but, if you then seek to give something to a new body, you will find that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 there is nothing about delegating from time to time. It may be done by Order, and the Order may be varied or revoked, but the Order may not be replaced by a, new one. I suggest to the Committee that on balance, and after the expenditure of a. good many thousand pounds, another place, in its judicial function, would probably say that you could never get rid of that body except by bringing this part of the Act to a standstill by revoking the whole Order. As I say, the matter could easily be put right if it were thought proper to do so, but I ask the Committee to say, for this and many other reasons, that the handing over year by year of the Government of this country to industrial interests should be conducted in a. more subtle manner.
With regard to the last point made by the hon. Member opposite, it is certainly our intention that the latter part of Sub-section (2) should stand, that is to say, that the Order may be varied or revoked if the body were not appearing to be representative of the interests mentioned. I think it would have been better that this discussion should, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, have been kept more closely within the limits of the Amendment, as there are Amendments later relating to the actual composition of the board. The Amendment would defeat the object of the Clause. The Clause is the result of the recommendation of the Gorell Committee, which was set up to investigate the possibility of giving greater freedom to civil aviation. It was because it was felt that civil aviation was too much under autocratic control that the Committee proposed the establishment of this board.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that Lloyds Register of Shipping has anything to do with the design, construction or maintenance of ships?
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the State gives Lloyds Register of Shipping a monopoly?
I am only saying that there is an analogy. There is very little subsidy. The grant will be made for five years, and the maximum annual amount will be about £12,000.
May I ask what functions Lloyds Register have in regard to construction?
It is to consist of constructors.
And Lloyds Register also consists of ship constructors. The whole point of the Amendment is that the board should be appointed by the Secretary of State, but the point of the Clause is that the board should be free to appoint themselves, subject to the Secretary of State considering that they are representative of the classes which they are designed to represent. If I were to accept the Amendment, it would defeat the object of the Clause. The actual constitution of the board can, I think, be best discussed on the following Amendment.
Before we go to a Division on this question, I should like some further elucidation. Apart from 1754 the principle which we have been discussing, of whether the board should be an appointed body or a self-nominated body, I want to know what procedure has taken place between the Air Ministry and these other organisations in order to get to the point of having a body set up at all. I understand that this body will have Treasury finance to the amount of £12,000 a year, and I want to know what has been the procedure of approach by the Air Ministry. Has the Under-Secretary at one time or another approached the Society of British Aircraft Constructors? I do not see how the Committee can allow this matter to go through without some explanation of how it has come about. I cannot see how a body can come into being without some explanation of how it started its existence. Why we cannot be given a simple answer to a simple question defeats me completely. Is it improper for me to ask the Under-Secretary whether he will inform the Committee of the negotiations —probably perfectly proper and perfectly simple negotiations—which have led to the self-appointment of this body?
I made the analogy that the motor car industry was free in respect of its design, free in 1755 respect of maintenance by the manufacturers after delivery of the motors and free, in respect of inspection during manufacture, of any Government interference. There is no question at all of the Air Ministry not making safety regulations for operation, which is a matter entirely outside the scope of the board.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is a matter entirely outside the scope of the board. It is not. The maintenance of aircraft is one of the matters that can be delegated specifically. The important part of the operation of aeroplanes is maintenance, and that is one of the matters that can be delegated.
That does not seem to be a very good argument for delegating the rest. It is less important if a private person wishes to commit suicide. It is a much more important matter if someone else is to be murdered.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is generally so extremely clear, on this occasion does not seem to understand the position. The Government have particularly excluded larger aircraft from the operation of the scheme. The aircraft that the Government are including in this scheme are to-day overlooked by an exactly similar committee which the Government are setting up.
If that is so, there is no point at all in the Clause, because it leaves us just where we were, and it seems that we are wasting a lot of time discussing it. I am assuming that it is a change, and I am assuming that under this Clause there are to be delegated to a body powers which have not formerly been delegated to it. I am objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's assumption that there is an analogy with Lloyd's Register as regards shipping or an analogy as regards motor cars. In neither case is there a precedent for what is being done. What is being done is to take out of the control of the House matters which are at present in the control of the House, because the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary is in the House. If the matters are delegated under a 1756 Clause such as this, there will no longer be any control at all in the House. I should have thought everyone here would say that matters of administration such as these are essentially matters that should be retained under the control of the House, and that can only be done if the Minister is made the responsible person for appointing the board. I really do not understand what his argument is against the appointment of the board. I do not imagine that he is going to suggest that he is not competent to select, if he wishes, persons representative of these various interests to sit on the board.
What difference does it make as regards the constitution of the board whether they are selected by the Minister or selected in this underground way through some limited company? It makes no difference to the competence of the body to deal with the matters under the Clause, but it makes the vital difference that, if the Minister selects them, they remain under the control of the House whereas, if this private limited company is to run the construction, design and maintenance of aircraft, no one in the House can raise any question at all as regards what they do. I cannot see that anyone is going to be advantaged. Unless this is part of some bargain that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into with vested interests, unless it has been forced on him, as the Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill were forced on the Government by the vested interests owning the coal mines, as the Tithe Amendments were forced on the Government by the vested interests concerned in tithes, as indeed every vested interest seems to be able to force what it likes on the Government, there is really nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman has said which can possibly excuse the getting rid of Parliamentary control in this matter and substituting for it control by some limited company.
The time of the Committee might be saved by the Minister making some kind of explanation. Since I spoke there have been serious charges made against him. He has not stood to his guns, if he has any to fire. He has not attempted to answer a single thing that has been put up against him. It is quite evident that there is something to 1757 hide in this business. The body is already well known to the Minister. I am certain, having listened to every word of the Debate, that the Minister has within his knowledge the body, which is already in existence. He has within his knowledge the basis upon which this agreement is to be made. He knows that the agreement is already made. He knows the names of all the firms. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the interest that has been shown in this subject for so long should be disturbed by the movement of any Member of the House. Any Member bas a perfect right to sit where he chooses, but evidently some people cannot sit where they like.
Is the hon. Member referring to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) or myself?
I am referring to the right hon. interrupter. If I might, in a sentence, be reminiscent, my late brother was for some years in this House, and the only person I have heard him say a word against was the hon. Member opposite. I hope that there will be no more efforts at collaboration. I was about to say that it is within the knowledge of the Minister that everything that is forecast is already in being. The makers of this aircraft know exactly where they stand to-night. They know what sum they are to receive, and what kind of body they are to be. It is unfortunate for the Minister that some people in these places talk. This is not a question of rumour, but actual fact. We know from those who are engaged in these places that the Minister for months back has had this prepared. When you talk about invitations to go and see some of the airboats that are being built, you must remember that that is the usual sort of thing that is done by that type in order to try to get you to say, "I cannot vote against this which is doing so much good," or something like that. Those boats are being built out-with the provisions of this Bill, and unless the Bill goes through, there will be no payment for the boats that are being constructed. The Minister knows that fact. He has proved himself to be absolutely incapable.
I have never seen anything so incapable in my life as the efforts of the Minister in this Bill. I do not know 1758 why he keeps his job. We ought to indicate to him that he is incapable of carrying out this kind of work. I am not going to make any more pleas for the Amendment, because I know that he cannot give it. The Attorney-General, sitting beside him, has been hanging his head all day, and no wonder. I am sympathetic towards him. He has been trying to keep a nice, straight face, but he cannot. That with which he has been associated to day has reduced him almost to a pulp. We take this great question of aviation, get down to a single Amendment, and find that it is only a question of three or four years; yet we have been all these hours trying to get some sense out of the Minister and he has none to give.
I rise only to clear up one or two points which have been raised since my right hon. Friend replied to the Debate on the Amendment. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was strictly correct in saying that the proposed board bore no analogy at all to Lloyds Register, or that there was no instance of anything that had been delegated to Lloyds Register by a Government Department. I do not think that he was strictly accurate in that, for matters connected with the load-line have been delegated by the Board of Trade to Lloyds Register since the Convention of 1932. Although I do not suggest that there is any strict analogy between a board of this type and Lloyds Register, it is, roughly speaking, possible to compare the functions of the two. Lloyds Register issues a certificate without which insurance cannot be obtained, and the functions of this board would be to enable certificates of insurance to be issued, and such matters as periodical inspection and so on would fall within the functions of the board. My right hon. Friend is a little apprehensive lest the Committee should have forgotten the history of this matter. It was recommended by the Gorell Committee in the fourth of their recommendations, which appears in paragraph 107 of their report: The control of airworthiness of civil aircraft should be devolved 1759 It will be noted that their recommendation would embrace all civil aircraft. The view of the Ministry upon that matter was made clear when they published the report as long ago as July, 1934, in which they said that: His Majesty's Government consider that the Air Ministry must retain, for the present at all events, control over the airworthiness of the larger passenger aircraft used on regular air transport services. The intention of His Majesty's Government was made plain in that statement upon the subject of the report.
May I point out to the Solicitor-General that the recommendation of the Gorell Committee was for the establishment of a board entirely different from the board in the Bill under discussion?
I agree. The suggestion that they made was that it was a board which should be devolved from the Air Ministry to the Joint Aviation Advisory Committee of Lloyds Register and the British Corporation Register, reconstituted as a statutory, autonomous and executive authority and renamed The Air Registration Board.' If the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I want to answer that point, and, at the same time, to answer the question that was properly put by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) as to what has been going on since. I deprecate the suggestion that there has been anything improper, or hole-and-corner, or anything that need not be exposed fully to the Committee to-night, and I am going to state the position. In August, 1934, letters were sent to the principal aviation interests inviting them to form a representative committee to frame a scheme for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Handley Page for this express purpose. In June, 1935, after that committee had been labouring for the best part of a year, a scheme was submitted to the Secretary of State by Mr. Handley Page on behalf of the committee, and from July to October, 1935, that scheme was Under detailed examination by the Air Ministry in all its aspects.
1760 The position which has been reached at the present time is that, in its essentials, the scheme has been accepted, subject to some very important matters which have yet. to be cleared up. Finance has not been approved by the Treasury, and the technical methods have yet to be discussed in detail between the board when constituted and the technical departments of the Air Ministry. The reservation which the committee wish to see taken away on aircraft built to carry more than 10 passengers is under appeal from the committee, and the form and shape which the whole scheme is finally to take is being considered at the present time by the Treasury Solicitor. It is contemplated that, when the Treasury Solicitor has fully considered the scheme, it will be referred back to the Handley Page committee for them to reconsider before it comes, once again, to the Secretary of State for his final consideration in the matter.
Should not we know the particulars of the scheme before we are asked to pass a Clause of this kind?
The hon. Baronet will bear in mind that we are at present considering only whether these words should be replaced by other words. There are other Amendments on this Clause, and one of them provides, I think, for the laying of an Order upon the Table of the House. All that I am concerned to point out at the moment is that the Order which the Secretary of State would make, if authorised by the passage of this Clause in the Bill, is a matter that has been considered and is still being considered from every possible aspect, in a perfectly proper way, and in the whole transaction there is nothing whatever to be concealed. With that explanation as to what is being done, I hope that we may proceed from these words to consider the other Amendments which are on the Order Paper, which are more germane to the actual procedure when the Order comes before the House.
Order. I hardly think that this question arises on the Amendment.
On a point of personal explanation. I was very embarrassed at an earlier stage, but I desire to say to the Committee categorically that I had no offer to enter the Government.
§ a couple of hours ago—the statement of the Solicitor-General and the acceptance of this very reasonable Amendment.
I thank the Solicitor-General for his very simple explanation of a point which I thought was doubtful and of which the Committee should not be kept in ignorance. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that the words "appointed by him" are just as straightforward and much more easily understood by anyone who reads the Bill. I hope that, even at this last minute, the Government will see the wisdom of falling into line with the general common-sense view of the Committee and accept the Amendment. There would be no loss of prestige in so doing, and they would make friends of the Committee, instead of keeping us up all night.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 122.
Division No. 199.] AYES. [6.54 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Cove, W. G. Grenfell. D. R.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Groves, T. E.
Batey, J. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Hardie, G. D.
Bellenger, F. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Harris, Sir P. A.
Cape, T. Garro-Jones, G. M. Holdsworth, H.
Chater, D. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Holland. A.
Cluse, W. S. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Hopkin, D.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Jagger, J.
Compton, J. Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A. John, W.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.) Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Courtauld, Major J. S. Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Guy, J. C. M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Craddock, sir R. H. Hanbury, Sir C.
Assheton, R. Critchley, A. Hannah, I. C.
Atholl, Duchess of Crooke, J. S. Harvey, G.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Bernays, R. H. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Holmes, J. S.
Blair, Sir R. Denman, Hon. R. D, Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Blinded, Sir J. Denville, Alfred Hopkinton, A.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Drewe, C. Hulbert, N. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie Dugdale, Major T. L. Hume, Sir G. H.
Bracken, B. Duggan, H. J. Jackson, Sir H.
Brass, Sir W. Duncan, J. A. L. Joel, D. J. B.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Keeling, E. H.
Bull, B. B. Ellis, Sir G. Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Butler, R. A. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Latham, Sir P.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Errington, E. Leckie, J. A.
Cary, R. A. Erskine Hill, A. G. Leech, Dr. J. W.
Castiereagh, Viscount Everard, W. L. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Findlay, Sir E. Lewis, O.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Fleming, E. L. Liddall, W. S.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Lloyd, G. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Channon, H. Fyfe, D. P. M. Loftus, P. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Ganzonl, Sir J. Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Gledhill, G. Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Goodman, Col. A. W. Lyons, A. M.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. McCorquodale, M. S.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Craddock, Sir R. H. Gibson, C. G.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Craven-Ellis, W. Gledhill, G.
Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. p. G. Critchley, A. Gluckstein, L. H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Crooke, J. S, Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Aske, Sir R. W. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Goodman, Col. A. W.
Assheton, R. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gower, Sir R. V.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Culverwell, C. T. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(lsle of Thanet) Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. Gridley, Sir A. B.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Grimston, R. V.
Bossom, A. C. Donner, P. W. Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Boulton, W. W. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Bower, Comdr. R. G. Drewe, C. Guy, J. C. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hanbury, Sir C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dugdale, Major T. L. Hannah, I. C.
Brawn, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Duggan, H. J. Harvey, G.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Dunglass, Lord Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Burton, Col. H. W. Dunne, P. R. R. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Emery, J. F. Holmes, J. S.
Channon, H. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hopkinson, A.
Colfox, Major W. P. Flldes, Sir H. Hume, Sir G. H.
Colman, N. C. D. Findlay, Sir E. Hunter, T.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Fleming, E. L. James, Wing-commander A, W.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Joel, D. J. B.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.) Furness, S. N. Keeling, E. H.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Ganzonl, Sir J. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Leckie. J. A. Palmer, G. E. H. Smithers, Sir W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Penny, Sir G. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Lewis, O. Petherick, M. Spender-Clay, Lt.-ct. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Llddall, W. S. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Spens, W. P.
Lleweilln. Lieut. Col. J. J. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Ramsden. Sir E. Strickland, Captain W. F.
McCorquodale, M. S. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Sutcliffe, H.
McKie, J. H. Reid, W. Allen (Derby) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Remer, J. R. Tate, Mavis C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Touche, G. C.
Maitland, A. Ropner, Colonel L. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Makins, Brig. Gen. E. Rowlands, G. Wakefield. W. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Maxwell, S. A. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Warrender Sir V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Salmon, Sir I. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Salt, E. W. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Sanderson, Sir F. B. Wells, S. R.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Sandys, E. D. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) Shakespeare, G. H. Windsor-Cilve. Lieut. -Colonel G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Shaw, Captain w. T. (Forfar) Wragg, H.
Munro, P. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Ward and Sir James Blindell.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Muff, G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Groves, T. E. Naylor, T. E.
Adamson, W. M. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake) Oliver, G. H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Owen, Major G.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Paling, W.
Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R. Hardle, G. D. Parker, H. J. H.
Barnes, A. S. Harris, Sir P. A. Potts, J.
Burr, J Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Price, M. P.
Batey, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pritt, D. N.
Benson, G. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Brooke, W. Holland, A. Rowson, G.
Buchanan, G. Hollins, A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Burke, W. A. Hopkin, D. Sexton, T. M.
Cape, T. Jagger, J. Shinwell, E.
Chater, D. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Sllkin, L.
Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stephen, C.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lawson, J. J. Thurtle, E.
Day, H. Leach, W. Tinker, J. J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Leslie, J. R. Walker, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Logan, D. G. Watson. W. McL.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lunn, W. Welsh, J. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Messer, F.
Grenfell, D. R. Montague, F. Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, after "operators," to insert "pilots."
To my mind this is an Amendment of great importance, and is designed largely, if not solely, to safeguard the public as a whole. I hope in a few sentences to convince the Committee of the necessity for the specific inclusion of pilots upon this new body or board of control. A little further down on the Order Paper, there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) which goes so far as to use the name of a body which is now well known in this country, the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators. I have purposely not mentioned specifically this responsible body as being the body to which such a nomination might be entrusted, because I notice that in the case of the constructors and the operators no mention has been made of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. It is however, nice to know that there are serious bodies of this nature which have been organised for a long time and that if the Committee sees fit to agree to my Amendment and to have representation of the pilots on this new body, they have the Guild of Air Pilots to whom they could go for advise or nominations.
I plead the case of the pilot partly on his own behalf, although almost entirely on behalf of the general public of which we have to take care. The last sentence of this Sub-section reads: The matters to which this subsection applies are the design, construction and maintenance of aircraft, and matters connected therewith. Apart from the safety of the aircraft and the safety of the passengers, I think I am right in saying that no designer can design a machine to take passengers in the air without the co-operation, advice and opinion of the test pilot. It therefore seems to me that if one of his duties is to advise and assist the designer and if he is to be responsible both for the care and maintenance of the aircraft on the ground, it is hard to see how the pilot can be usefully excluded from such an important body. The views of the other sections of this new body on the matter of the inclusion of pilots are important, but I cannot understand why the constructors and operators do not welcome 1766 the inclusion of an independent pilot on this very important body.
A few moments ago, on the last Amendment, it was the submission of the Under-Secretary of State that there was a parallel between Lloyds Register and the construction of aircraft. I can see no parallel at all between the captain of a tramp steamer—say, for the sake of argument, the standard type of 4,000-ton steamer—and an aircraft, the captain of which is responsible for a. very flimsy machine of fabric and tin and for the lives of 20 or 30 passengers. If the engine of a tramp steamer stops, it can wait, send out a wireless message and be towed home, but if anything goes wrong with a large aeroplane in the sky, the pilot's anxiety must be almost intolerable.
The chief duty of the new board will be the granting of certificates of airworthiness and unless an opportunity is provided in the early stages of obtaining the independent and specific advice of pilots about the capacity and capability of a machine I think you will be asking too much of the pilot who has to be responsible for it. It may be argued that the Gorell Committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is founded, did not intentionally omit reference to pilots in this connection. We have here, I am glad to say, three members of that committee and I leave it to them to say whether now, on consideration, they do not think that this important board or body would be strengthened if pilots or ex-pilots were represented upon it. I think the case for their inclusion almost speaks for itself. When a fatal accident has happened it is too late for the pilot to say anything. I hope I am not stretching the bow too far if I take as an example the recent loss of 11 lives at Alexandria. After a considerable experience of that particular route, from Cyprus to Alexandria, I wonder whether it would not have been better to have left two passengers behind on, that occasion, and taken an extra 50 gallons of petrol so that the machine would not have run out of petrol when within five miles of the shore. I do not know to what extent the pilot in that case had an independent say in the matter but I do not think that is a very far-fetched example.
I suggest that in the early experimental stage it is of vital importance to take the pilot into close collaboration. Now that we are setting up a new body with great 1767 powers in relation to the design and maintenance of these machines, we ought not to exclude from the counsels of such a body the vitally important view of the captain of the ship. I ask the Committee to forget for the moment the side of the question which has occupied so much of our time this afternoon—and with regard to much of what was said I am afraid I was in agreement with the Opposition—and to dwell for a moment upon the anxieties of the pilot. He has to carry in this flimsy machine at great speed a certain number of lives. His own reputation and the reputation of his company are at stake. He has to deal with atmospheric conditions which at any moment may force him to take decision of a, drastic and difficult character. A man in that position ought to be given a status. He ought to feel that he can make important decisions without running the risk of being turned down by his own company.
I have indicated the kind of things which happen in day-to-day life and in starting this new board we shall have done something if we include the pilot who is responsible for the lives of the passengers in the air, whereas the constructor and the operator remain on ground. In the discussion on a previous Amendment somebody mentioned the insurer, and it was suggested that the insurer's point of view was almost the most important, because the insurer had to deal more with hazards than any other member of the fraternity who are to form the new board. I think I have the right to read to the Committee a short note from the head of the pioneer firm of aircraft insurers. I think it should carry weight, because it will make the Committee appreciate the importance of the pilot's opinion upon the insurer's efforts and point of view. It reads: I think it would be fair and true to say that the experience and ability of the pilot play a larger part in the design, maintenance, and operation of aircraft than the experience of a seaman in the design or operation of merchant vessels. We have not yet arrived at the stage in aviation where the performance and habits of aircraft are as well known to the designers as are the performance of ships, and for this reason the pilot's experience and views must be a large and influential factor in the design and operation of aircraft, and any board which seeks to control airworthiness must at some stage or another rely upon the guidance of skilled civil pilots. 1768 I think that really makes an unanswerable case for their inclusion, and if it is true that the Gorell Committee did not expressly rule them out for consideration as members of this board, we shall have done something to protect the public a little more than if they were left out.
It had not been intended to put a representative of the pilots on this board because the work of the board is to supervise the maintenance and construction of aircraft, and pilots, quapilots, do not either maintain or construct aircraft. Moreover, it had been considered that the term "operators" would cover the experience of pilots, because all operating lines have their pilots, and also that the term "constructors" would also embrace the experience of pilots. Still, if it would meet the wishes of the Committee, I would be willing before the Report stage to bring in an Amendment with the object of providing that this body shall be so constituted as to include among its members at least one person who has had not less than five years' professional experience as a pilot of aircraft.
As one who served on the Gorell Committee, I would like to say a few words on this point. I quite appreciate the way in which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) has moved this Amendment, and I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of it, but when we were considering this question on the Gorell Committee, I think we rather wished, as far as we could, to get the various interests evenly balanced between the manufacturers, those who used the aircraft, and the insurers, and we thought—I think rightly—that the fact that the insurers would have, such a very considerable say on the committee would of itself be a very great protection for the public. While I quite appreciate the value of the services of pilots on such a board, I think those services, without this Amendment, would already be found on the board, because practically all the members who constitute the Guild of Air Pilots either are or have been in the employment of manufacturers or operators of aircraft, and the fact of putting 1769 an extra person entirely representative of the pilots on the board would mean that you would only be giving an increased voice in the control of this board to either the manufacturers or the operators of aircraft. As one who represents the interests of a vast number of private owners and aeroplane clubs on this matter, we feel that if we have one representative of these people put on this board of 12 or so people, it will whittle down the value of our representation until it becomes far less than it is at present. It is because we consider that the pilot will be adequately represented, and because we feel that the addition of a pilot upon this body will increase, as against our representation, the authority of the operators and the manufacturers, that we are rather unhappy that this matter should have been brought forward.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of what the Under-Secretary has said.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after "aircraft," to insert: and also comprising persons to be appointed by him as being independent of those interests. The presence of operators and constructors on this body will ensure some attention being paid to airworthiness, but we are anxious to know who is to guard the interests of the public. Until we see the actual Order setting up the body, there will be some doubt as to the scope of the work which is to be entrusted to it. The Sub-section says that its duties will be concerned with construction and maintenance and matters connected therewith. What are those matters which are connected with maintenance and construction? After having listened to the Debate on the circumstances attending the birth of this body, I can conceive that powers will gradually fall into the hands of the board which are not provided for in the wording of the Bill.
I think that that argument will come better on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), in page 2, line 36.
I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I gather that this body 1770 will consist exclusively of experts of one sort and another and will contain no laymen. The membership may and probably will consist of a majority representing owning interests primarily concerned with dividends and the prosperity of the concerns which they represent. In this respect I can see no protection whatever for the public. It is well known in the aircraft world that safety devices and new inventions may occasionally cost too much and be set aside on the grounds of expense. This is a day of constant discovery and development, and it seems to me that the greatest issues which will come before this new body will be concerned with public safety.
Will it not be possible, under the operation of this Clause, to see an employé of Imperial Airways giving a certificate of fitness to one of his own firm's aeroplanes? Further, will it not be possible that we may see an employé of a construction company actually passing into service the aeroplanes of his own company? If there are such possibilities, surely the Minister will agree that there must be some case for the protection of the public over and above what is already provided for by the Clause, and I am hopeful that he will agree to some form of words which will meet the need expressed in this Amendment.
I should like to say to the hon. Member that I think he laid too little emphasis on the desire for safety which must exist among the first three groups on this body. It is quite obvious that the constructors, the insurers and the operators of aircraft must be desirous of seeing that their machines will not crash and, especially from the point of view of insurance, making certain that the maximum degree of safety is maintained. As the hon. Member knows, the body is to consist of four groups—there are the insurers, the constructors and the operators, and a fourth group has been left open, which was a wise suggestion from the other three interests, for the appointment of members who would be men of wide experience in similar and kindred business undertakings. That is a rather wide description of that fourth group. But having listened to the hon. Member I feel there is a good deal to be said for the representation he has made to us, that if 1771 specific provision is made for the first three classes there should be provision for the interests of the general public, or interests independent of those three groups. Therefore, if it will meet the 'hews of the hon. Member I will, before the Report stage, put down an Amendment providing for the appointment of "at least one person not being representative of the interests aforesaid."
Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us who is to appoint this independent representative? Is it the three vested interests who are to nominate the independent member? If so, I put it to him that the concession will be rendered nugatory.
The independent member will not, of course, be appointed by the Secretary of State, but it will be done after general discussion among all the interests concerned and the individual will have to be representative of the interests of the public. That is as far as I can go.
Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us on this point? If there is to be a representative of a general public on the board, surely that representative should be nominated not by the vested interests concerned, but by the Secretary of State, as representing this House and the general public? We may talk about the representative of the general public being selected by the vested interests, whom we have discussed, but these powers make a farce of the whole proposal. Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us, at least on this point, that he will insist upon the Government of the day nominating the independent public representative upon the board?
I do not understand how this person can be described as a representative of the public if he is to be co-opted by the representatives of the three interests concerned. They may appoint some sort of tame cat who can be relied upon to turn up at the meetings and give no trouble, and if that is all that is wanted that might be satisfactory, but I do not think it would be satisfactory to 1772 my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. Surely it is possible, in the phraseology of the Clause as it is now, that this person can be directly appointed by the Minister and can take his seat on the board as a representative of the public, owing no thanks for his position there to any of the three sections whose clash he is supposed to watch, in order to make sure that the public interests are protected? Otherwise we are getting to the kind of position foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman. We are merely increasing the number of people who are representing one or other of the interests.
We had read to us earlier by the Under-Secretary a phrase in the Gorell Committee's Report to the effect that the board were to be fully representative of all the interests concerned, but the phraseology in the Clause has been watered down from "fully representative" to "substantially representative," and "all the interests concerned" has been reproduced without the word "all." Surely the public interest is most vitally concerned in this matter, because the public are those who trust their lives to the aircraft which have been certified as airworthy by this body, and they are entitled to have upon the board a person appointed by the Minister as a suitable representative of the public, irrespective of the views of the three interests concerned. I hope that the Minister will see his way to meet the point that this independent person should be appointed independently by the Secretary of State.
Some hon. Members are inclined to take a different view from that which upon reflection will be seen to be right, when the Clause is looked at as a whole. We must not treat a body which will certify airworthiness, and which contains designers, operators and insurers, as a sort of body which will try to give certificates to aircraft that are not safe. If the insurer does that, he has to pay; if the operator does that, he loses his money; and if the designer does it, he, loses his reputation. A board consisting of designers, insurers and operators is not the sort of body that will give a certificate to an unsafe machine. At the same time I can understand the view that it is desirable to 1773 have somebody who is thought to represent the passengers. It may be thought that he will know more about it than the operator or the designer.
There is no "designer" in the Clause.
I beg pardon, "constructor." The words suggested were not intended to represent that this person should be added as the nominee of these other persons. If the Committee are prepared to take an assurance from me I would undertake to look at the words. I agree that you cannot get an "independent person" properly defined. The best thing would be that he should be nominated by the Secretary of State, but I would like to look at the words.
With the assurance that the Home Secretary has given us I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert: (3) Before an Order made under this Section conies into force, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty days during which the House is sitting, and, if either of those Houses before the expiration of those twenty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the Order or any part thereof, no further proceeding shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new Order. The Bill is brought forward as a measure of devolution for the aircraft industry in respect of the matters contained in this Clause. There is far too much devolution in this Bill, far too much in the nature of Orders in Council, but at this time of night, and especially in view of the fact that the point has been gone over considerably during the previous discussion, I will not develop it any further, as I understand that the Government have a modification to propose and we would like to know what it is.
It is the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment in principle. I do not commit myself to the particular words, but we desire to make no reservation in the form of our acceptance. Our intention is that Parliament should have full opportunity in this matter, and we will put down before the Report stage 1774 an Amendment which will have the same effect.
That is satisfactory to us, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
At this time of night, and in view of other discussions which we hope will take place within the next hour, I do not propose to go elaborately over the discussions which have occupied the time of the Committee for two hours or more. But before this Clause leaves the Committee we desire not only to vote on it, but to state briefly why it is that we cannot accept it. Once again we object in toto to the Secretary of State devolving from himself, and from the elected representatives of the people, the power to control this great new service and handing over the control to representatives of vested interest, who are already, so we have been informed, more or less appointed. We object in principle to State subsidies being handed over to private groups, and to the Secretary of State divesting himself of all responsibility for the nomination of the personnel of the groups who are to control the industry. For these reasons we desire to record our votes in the Division Lobby against the Clause.
The idea in setting up this board appears to be to include every section of the industry, but the word "constructors" is very misleading. Men who cannot construct call themselves constructors because they employ constructors. The disaster to the R.101 would not have occurred if the men who did the construction work had been consulted. I would make this last appeal that, in dealing with constructors, that term should not be allowed to become a name used by commercial bone-heads with money, but should mean men who know the science of construction, and who, by their knowledge, are qualified to give guidance.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 103.
Division No. 202] AYES. [10.59 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon: Sir F. Dyke Fildes, Sir H. Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Findlay, Sir E. Munro, P.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.) Fleming, E. L. O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Allen, Lt. Col.J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Fremantle, Sir F, E. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Furness, S. N. Owen, Major G.
Aske, Sir R. W. Fyfe, D. P. M. Palmer, G. E. H.
Assheton, R. Ganzonl, Sir J. Peake, O.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Petherick, M.
Atholl, Duchess of Gibson, C. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gledhill, G. Pilkington. R.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Goodman, Col. A. W. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Gower, Sir R. V. Ramsbotham, H.
Baxter, A. Beverley Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Ramsden, Sir E.
Belt, Sir A. L. Gridley, Sir A. B. Rayner, Major R. H.
Bossom, A. C. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake) Remer, J. R.
Boyce, H. Leslie Gunston. Capt. D. W. Ropner, Colonel L.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Guy, J. C. M. Rowlands, G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hamilton, Sir G, C. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Burghley, Lord Harris, Sir P. A. Salmon, Sir I.
Burton, Col. H. W. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Sandys, E. D.
Cary, R. A. Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Seely, Sir H. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Selley, H. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Shakespeare, G. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Holmes. J. S. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Christie. J. A. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Simmonds, O. E.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) James, Wing-commander A. W. Smithers. Sir W.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Keeling, E. H. Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Kerr, H W. (Oldham) Spens, W. P.
Critchley, A. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. Stourton. Major Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Latham, Sir P. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Crowder, J. F. E. Leech, Dr. J. W. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Culverwell, C. T. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Sutcliffe. H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Davies. C. (Montgomery) Loftus, P. C. Tate. Mavis C.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Touche. G C.
Davison, Sir W. H. Lyons, A. M. Tree, A. H. L. F.
De Chair, S. S. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Tufnell. Lieut. -Com. R. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McCorquodale, M. S. Turton, R H.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Wakefield, W. W.
Drewe, C. McKie, J. H. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Warrender Sir V.
Dugdale, Major T. L. Maitland, A. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Duggan, H. J. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Duncan, J. A. L. Mander, G. le M. Wells, S. R.
Dunne, P. R. R. Markham, S. F. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Ellis, Sir G. Mellon, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morgan, R. H. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Wragg H.
Erskine Hill, A. G. Morris-Jones, Dr. J H.
Adamson, W. M. Groves, T. E. Muff, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Naylor, T. E.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Oliver, G. H.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hardle, G. D. Paling, W.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parker, H. J. H.
Barr, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Potts, J.
Batey, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Price, M. P.
Bellenger, F. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Pritt, D. N.
Broad, F. A. Hollins, A. Rlley, B.
Buchanan, G. Hopkin, D. Ritson, J.
Cape, T. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Rowson, G.
Chater, D, John, W. Sexton, T. M.
Cluse, W. S. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Silkin, L.
Compton, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stephen, C.
Dalton, H. Leach, W. Thurtle, E.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Leslie, J. R. Tinker, J. J.
Day, H. Logan, D, G. Viant, S. P.
Ede, J. C. Lunn, W. Walker, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Watson, W. McL.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. McGhee, H. G. Welsh, J. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Milner, Major J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.