As this question has been raised I think it would be as well if I gave an explanation. I gave certain information to one of the Lobby correspondents last night, but I did not give any information other than that which had already been published in the "Westminster Gazette" nearly a week before and had already been published in the "Daily Mail" some three or four days before. I took up that matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Air and asked that some means should be taken to stop this leakage as it would appear to come either from myself or some other person who had been negotiating in the matter. That information had been given out to the Press, and I think hon. Members will find, if they read this article, that the only other information is information directly dealing with private work which is going on in a private concern and has nothing to do with the secrets of the Cabinet Committee. I think they will also find, if they read the "Daily News"—I think it is the "Daily News"—of the day after the publication in the "Westminster Gazette" that I was interviewed by reporters as to my views on that statement and as to whether it was correct or otherwise, and I refused to give any information because I had been a party to these Cabinet conferences. As I say, yesterday I only repeated what had already been published in the papers a week or more ago, and I did not think in these circumstances that I was in any way abrogating a confidence. I would like to say further that I informed the Air Ministry this morning directly this was published, as I did not expect it to be published until to-morrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think it is quite obvious that I should not have done it if I had thought that it would inconvenience the Prime Minister in his statement to-day. I informed the Secretary of State for Air this morning that I had given this information, and that I was sorry that certain portions had been put in which had already been published by the "Westminster Gazette," and which, therefore, would appear as having more authority than otherwise. I think that is an explanation which will satisfy the House.