".—(1) Upon the establishment of the British European Airways Corporation that Corporation shall, with the approval of the Minister, constitute an Associate (to be known as ' The Scottish Associate '), the members of which shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and shall have their offices in Scotland.
(2) The functions of the Scottish Associate shall include the following:—
(4) The Scottish Associate shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and such number of other members, not being less than three nor more than nine, as the Minister may from time to time determine and the supplementary provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation thereto with any necessary modifications as they have in relation to each of the new Corporations."
That is the case. I should not like to rest the argument upon the question of Privilege. We should like to face the merits of the proposal. I believe it could have been drafted in a way which might have avoided the question of Privilege. Therefore, it would be unfair to resist the proposal on the question of Privilege, and I prefer to do so on its merits. This is another stage in a long and friendly argument with some representatives from Scotland, about the way in which Scottish air services can best be met. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding on this subject. From some of the comments which have appeared in the public Press one would think that the moment my noble Friend comes into his Ministry in the morning he rubs his hands together and says to his Permanent Secretary: "What can we do this morning to annoy Scotland?" Those who work with him know how different is the reality. There is no subject that has been more constantly before his mind than that of Scottish needs. I have little doubt that when he dies—an event which I hope will be long distant —the name "Prestwick" will be found graven on his heart.
Certainly, there is no part of the United Kingdom that is so well served with air services as Scotland at the present time, and no part of the United Kingdom figures so prominently in our plans for air services as Scotland. By the end of next year there will be some 33 Scottish lines operating—internally, to the Scottish islands, and to the Continent of Europe— apart from that trans-oceanic line which will go through Prestwick, from London, to America. It is planned to have direct connections between Glasgow and Edinburgh and a number of cities on the Continent. Owing to the mountainous nature of the country and the many islands, my noble Friend has considered that Scotland is entitled to have air services out of all proportion to her population, for the reason that the air can convey such benefits to a country which, owing to its nature, is badly served by surface communications. This then is the reality of what takes place in the Ministry.
Another place has proposed the establishment by British European Airways Corporation of an associate; that is a technical term defined in Clause 14 of the Bill. It has been made clear in discussion that what is meant by the authors of this proposal is a subsidiary company of British European Airways. In the new Clause proposed by another place there are certain technical defects in drafting. However, I shall not dwell on those for the moment, because they could easily have been improved if the objects were desirable. I can see certain defects of substance in the new Clause as now proposed. I can see that Subsection (2) (b), where it is provided that the Associate shall
provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time … aliocate to it
would expose the Minister to almost intolerable pressure to put on services from one point to another. It is much better that these things should be clearly defined. There is also this objection to the Clause as drafted: it would open the possibility of competition between the associate and the other United Kingdom corporations on the same routes, for it is envisaged that the Minister might allocate services, shall we say to South America or to the United States, to this associate, and it would, therefore, come into com-petition with other United Kingdom corporations operating throughout the world.
It links up with my previous point; I said that the Minister would be put under intolerable pressure to put on such services. Experience must be our only guide in these matters, and we have had 12 months' experience.
I turn now from the Clause as drafted, in which I see these objections, to consider some more fundamental objections to this proposal. What is this associate intended to be? Is it intended to be absolutely independent of British-European Airways, or is it intended to be a subsidiary of B.E.A.? If it is intended to be completely independent, then it does not differ from a fourth corporation, which has already been rejected by this House, and it will suffer from the many defects which have been urged against such a corporation.
By the House. It may be a technical argument, but the Bill as it left this House for another place did not contain that proposal. If it is intended to be completely independent of B.E.A. except only in name, then it will suffer from the many defects which have been pointed out already in connection with an independent corporation. There will not be that proper pooling of aircraft which is essential for the full utilisation of resources; there will not be proper economical arrangements for centralised training; there will not be the same opportunities of employment for Scottish pilots as there would be on English routes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because employment with the British European Airways Corporation, operating from this country to the whole of Europe, offers far more scope to pilots and to other employees than would be possible in a smaller corporation.
These, then, are the arguments against a completely independent associate. But suppose it is not to be completely independent. Let us suppose that it is to be, as we have been told, a subsidiary of British European Airways. What advantage is that to Scottish national sentiment? I do not wish for one moment to belittle Scottish national sentiment; I think it is something of which Scotsmen can be very proud. I come from a small nation myself, and I welcome this determination on the part of the Scots to see that they get their rights and to stand up for everything Scottish in matters of culture and of economics. I welcome that determination, and I know that the demand for some special recognition of Scotland in the field of aviation springs from this strong Scottish national sentiment. I am certainly not going to belittle it.
But what advantage would this proposal bring to Scotland, from that point of view? None at all; for this proposed associate company would be—I use a word I learned in Committee—a "stooge" of the English Corporation. Its directors would be appointed by an English Minister; its capital would come from English money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Money from the Treasury."] Well, I do ask hon. Gentlemen to realise that, in asking for an associate company to be formed, they are compelling British European Airways to be an English company, or an English and Welsh and Northern Irish company. They are excluding Scotland from the operations of this company, and in so doing they are doing great harm to Scotland. That would be the inevitable effect of insisting upon a separate associate company to operate Scottish services.
I am trying to do so, because, under the Minister's present proposals, Scotland would play a very big part in British European Airways. [HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"] Scottish pilots would have all the scope that employment in that corporation offers; Scottish ground engineers would have similar scope; and it would permit better services to Scotland, because of the pooling of aircraft that would follow, and so on. If Scottish Members insist upon having this associate company, then, inevitably, British European Airways becomes an English-Welsh-Northern Irish Corporation and Scotland will be excluded from its benefits.
Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to say that, if this request for a Scottish associate were granted, it would prevent Scotsmen from being employed in any other Corporation than the Scottish one?
No, Sir. It would, I suggest, be a logical conclusion that, if Englishmen were not to be employed in Scotland, Scotsmen should not be employed in England. But I should not wish to carry that argument to its logical conclusion. These, then, are some big objections that I see to the Amendment as it has been sent to us from another place. The great objection that I feel to it —and this is the ground on which I should like the House to reject this Amendment— is that the proposals under it can be better secured by the Bill as it is now drafted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is it my noble Friend proposes for Scotland?
He has outlined proposals for a Scottish Advisory Committee, which will be advisory to the three corporations, and will have access to himself, and whose chairman is to be a member of British European Airways Corporation. He has also proposed a Scottish Division of British European Airways, to which there would be devolved a considerable measure of autonomy. Hitherto, for reasons which my noble Friend has explained, it has not been possible for him to amplify his proposal, and, even now, until the Bill establishing the new corporations becomes law, it is not possible to do more than sketch out what is contemplated; but I will do what I can now in that direction, and the explanation should furnish the necessary assurances to all except those who will refuse to be convinced. The Scottish division of B.E.A., in the first place, will, of course, have its headquarters in Scotland. Policy, planning, training, and research will be under the control of the board of the corporation, but the division will be completely responsible for all matters of day to day management connected with the operations of its services. The general intention is to give the greatest measure of autonomy to the division which the needs of integration will permit.
I do not think there is a Member in the House who will deny that our great need in aviation today is for integration and not for division. The organisation will be largely a replica of the headquarters organisation with its staff, services, traffic and technical managers, and accounts division. The divisional manager will report direct to the managing director of the corporation. The division will be free to improve existing services, or arrange for new services not affecting other routes. Where other routes are affected, the problem of integration obviously arises, and the board must be the final arbiters of what is possible in that direction.
If there is need for such a service from Scotland, and if traffic demands justify it, then it will be open to them to do it. Services will be operated from points in England to Norway, but they are not on the same route. It would be open to the Scottish division, if there was a traffic need which could be justified, to open such a service. The chairman of the advisory committee, speaking not merely as an individual member of the board of B.E.A. but as the mouthpiece of Scottish interests, will ensure that Scotland's needs find expression, and, if need arises, will seek the intervention of the Minister. As regards maintenance and overhaul of aircraft and equipment, Scotland will get its fair proportion. Certificate-of-air-worthiness overhauls are now carried out during the continuous process of maintenance, and Scottish aircraft will be maintained in Scotland. Overhauls of replaceable major components, such as engines, cannot be centralised in England, and a fair share of this work must be carried out in Scotland. Training must be centralised if there is not to be wasteful expenditure. Where separate establishments cannot be set up in Scotland, we shall not introduce any new order of refusing to employ Scots in England. The advisory committee will have direct access to the chairman and Minister on any matter affecting the interests of Scotland. In providing services of interest to Scotland within the sphere of the corporation, the access to the chairman of the corporation and the Minister would provide the guarantee I have referred to above.
I consider that these proposals go far beyond what is proposed in the Clause as it has come to us from another place. It is a Clause which would be very diffi- cult to work; indeed, it would be impossible to work as it is drafted. My noble Friend's proposals have gone a long way indeed towards satisfying feelings in Scotland. I have noticed a great change in opinion over the past 12 months. There was great hostility at first, but as Scotland came to understand better my noble Friend's proposals, that hostility has very largely died down. The climax came when that very wise body the Glasgow Corporation refused to be dragged in to what was in fact an attempt to secure a vote of censure on my noble Friend. The Glasgow Corporation, like many other responsible bodies in Scotland, realise the wisdom of my noble Friend's proposals. What had happened is that public opinion in another place is rather behind the times, as has happened before. It has now just caught up with where Scottish opinion was 12 months ago. I hope that I have convinced the House that the proposals of my noble Friend will do far more for Scottish aviation interests than what is proposed by another place.
This is an occasion of very great importance for Scotland. This is the first of a Government string of nationalisation Bills, in which it is necessary to define clearly what is the proper position of Scotland in a United Kingdom monopoly. This is the first time in this Bill that the House, as distinct from the Committee upstairs, has had the chance to vote upon this issue. We are very moderate in our demands. We do not ask for independence for Scottish aviation. We agree that if there is to be nationalisation and a monopoly, it is proper that there should be a United Kingdom Minister. We agree to accept, although some of us would like to go further, a mere subsidiary company, instead of a fourth corporation, as many people would prefer. All that we ask is that there should be responsible executive management resident in Scotland. That has been steadily refused by the Government. Let me read, as I am entitled to do, from the pronouncement of the Minister in another place, in which he said that the proposal to set up any separate operating organisation for Scotland, in the terms of the Amendment, was not, in his opinion, in the best in- terests of air transport development. That was said in answer to a demand for a responsible executive management resident in Scotland. We have never tied ourselves to any particular form of organisation, provided that essential is met, but the Government have throughout refused to meet that or anything else in the Bill. The Minister said that he would be sub-ject to pressure because it should be clearly defined—
That falls very far short of what is intended by us, very far short of a resident executive management. A division means that we would always be running up to London to get authority to do things, and that is what we object to. The Minister said that things ought to be clearly defined in this Bill. One of our objections to the Bill is that with regard to Scotland there is nothing clearly defined in the Bill at all. If the Minister anticipates pressure, he will get far more pressure in future, if the Bill goes through as it stands, than if he accepts this Amendment.
The Minister's argument might have a certain measure of plausibility were it not for the arrangement which he has made with another part of these islands. I would like to refer briefly to that because my hon. Friends know the details better than I do, but the distinction is so glaring that one must refer to it For Ireland, the Government have accepted the position of minority shareholders in an independent company under Irish control. So far as distance and economic management are concerned, because Eire—
I merely wanted to use this argument to show that the Government are using wholly inconsistent arguments. Did they accept the Irish agreement under duress or because they think it is a good thing? If they accept it under duress I say no more; I leave it to the House to judge. If they accept it because it is a good thing they cannot possibly deny this small measure of devolution which we seek for Scotland. Is the Minister going to say that Scotland is incapable through being so small or unimportant of any independence of management at all? Then why are they giving way to Irish pressure? The truth is that every Scottish expert who is not tied to the Government agrees that the scheme under this Clause is practicable, economic and very much better than the scheme suggested by the Government. Every responsible Scotsman who is not a professional Socialist politician agrees that we ought to have a scheme like that.
If the hon. Gentleman will prefer to call himself an amateur I withdraw it. How does it come about then that a practical, economical proposal supported by all shades of opinion in Scotland is summarily rejected by this Government? It is for this reason—ever since the General Election Scotland has been deliberately slighted by this Government. It started on 17th August last year when the Lord Privy Seal—and Scottish Members will remember what he said— remarked:
Scotland cannot always continue to have special advantages.
When we asked "Why not?" he said:
I think we have been excessively genercus to Scotland"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 256.]
That is the whole attitude of approach of the more important Members of the Socialist Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council has been more careful and guarded in his speech but equally unsympathetic on many occasions to Scotland. I believe that the reason for this is that the Members of this Government are gluttonous for power. They intend that Socialism shall mean the concentration of power in London. The Secretary of State has proved incapable of standing up against
his colleagues. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I see him hiding away in the distance just now. I do not blame him. I am sure he does not approve the Government's attitude on this, but there are two difficulties with which he has to contend. There is no Scotsman in the Cabinet, and moreover the Secretary of State has not been supported by Socialist back benchers in trying to maintain the rights of Scotland. The time has come when Socialist back benchers must make up their mind which way they are going.
In the last Parliament the Scottish Members acted together and we gained a great deal for Scotland. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember that Mr. Tom Johnston and other Scottish Ministers were never afraid to press on their colleagues the interests of Scotland because they knew they would receive combined support from Scotsmen of all parties. But more has been given away by this Government in the last 12 months than we had gained in the previous 12 years. Our policy is perfectly clear in matters of this kind. We shall continue to seek political union combined with progressive administrative devolution. We have pursued that policy for many years but the Socialist candidates at the last election—
Perhaps I may be allowed to vouch for this from the election address of a most respected Scottish Socialist— perhaps the leading Scottish Socialist—at the last General Election. I refer to Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who said, in flat contradiction of the Government's attitude today:
It remains true that if all major questions affecting Scotland are decided in London, they will not get proper attention, and vital matters, such as the Forth road bridge and the development of Scottish airlines and aerodromes, will be subordinated to English interests.
There is not much doubt about what Lord Pethick-Lawrence would say if he were still of the same opinion as a year ago. The point I wish to make is that Scottish Socialists have always said they want to go further than we do in the direction of devolution. Here is an occasion where we want to have devolution in favour of Scotland, and Scottish Socialists are denying it. We know their difficulty. It is party discipline. It is very difficult for hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite to avoid taking orders from a Socialist caucus in London.
Since when did the right hon. and learned Gentleman become such an ardent advocate of devolution? Is it with public money that he wants devolution? When it was private money, it was always rationalisation, in London, in Newcastle, anywhere, and the closing of the Clyde shipyards. Is this a new change of front?
I thought I had said, a few moments ago, that ever since I have been in the House, the policy of the party to which I belong has been progressive administrative devolution. I claim that we have been very successful in that respect, and that this Amendment is exactly in line with the policy followed by us for at least the last 15 years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they wanted to go further, but now they will not go so far. Why? It is because of difficulties with their party headquarters. We realise the difficulties. We have not pressed hon. Gentlemen too hard during this last year.
I will not pursue that matter further than to say that I referred to the last 15 years, and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Steele) is going back 25 years. As I was not in the House in those days, I was not responsible then. Since I have been in the House, I can vouch for what has happened. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must choose now what they are going to do. Are they going to stand by their Election promises? Are they going to support the true interests of Scotland or to prefer party loyalty? They must decide, and Scotland, tomorrow, will take note of how they decide.
I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) in support of the Amendment. This precise proposal has now appeared before us in three different forms. It appeared in the Second Reading Debate in the form of a separate Scottish corporation, it appeared in Committee as a Scottish management committee, it now appears as a Scottish associate company. On the two previous occasions, I gave reasons why I rejected the idea. Those reasons were not of the character mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were that, in the opinion of the Members of the Scottish Labour group, the idea would not benefit the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that for the last 15 years his party had followed a policy of progressive devolution. He forgot to add that that policy had ended up in Scotland becoming the largest depressed area in the United Kingdom. He said that his party wished to serve the true interests of Scotland. This is a piece of political shadow boxing to help the Tory Party to try to recover some of its prestige.
The Amendment asks for the setting up of a Scottish associate company which shall advise the Minister and the three corporations upon all questions affecting air transport in, from, or to, Scotland. That has already been promised. We are to have a Scottish advisory committee with powers to advise and with direct access to the Minister, and with a member sitting on the B.E.A.C. I understand that the chairman of the advisory committee will sit on the B.E.A.C.
The promise has been made in the House on several occasions that Scotland would have such an advisory committee. The second provision with which this Amendment deals is
to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time alter consultation with any of the three corporations allocate to it.
"Allocate to it"—in other words under this second part of the proposed Amendment we shall not even possess the powers which the Minister has already given to the Scottish division. The body we are being asked to set up is not to possess the power to start any service unless the Minister tells it to start that service. We have already been promised a Scottish division which will have these powers internally, and, as we have been told tonight, externally.
The promise has been made by the Minister in this House on several occasions and it has been stated in detail tonight that the Scottish division will have residential executive functions to deal with internal and certain external services. The third provision of the proposed Amendment is
to perform such other of the functions which any of the three corporations have power to perform as the Minister may from time to time direct.
What does this mean? It means nothing, and when it was debated in another place it was admitted by the mover that this could be an absolutely dead part of the Amendment. What is it then that hon. Members opposite want?
They want the headlines tomorrow, as my hon. Friend points out. We on this side have been concerned as to how we could obtain for the people of Scotland the finest air services possible. After twenty years of rule by hon. Members opposite we have railway services closing down, steam boat services closing down—everything closing down and becoming stagnant. That is what happened under the rule of the party opposite, and, as one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House has pointed out, they are still today allowing Scottish concerns to be absorbed by English concerns under private enterprise. They have always allowed this, and to such an extent that, as was mentioned earlier, Scotland became a depressed area. My point is that this Amendment asks for nothing that has not already been conceded by the Minister, and because of that we on this side of the House—and here I think I speak on behalf of my Scottish colleagues—intend to oppose it.
Seldom can the House have listened to arguments resting on a flimsier basis than do those to which we have listened tonight. Not only are they flimsy but the flimsiness of the defence is a different flimsiness when the argument falls from the mouth of the Minister from what it is when the case is argued by the Parliamentary Secretary. In another place the Minister adduced arguments to show that there would be gross inefficiency if this subsidiary were to get a degree of autonomy amounting to independence. I hope to show that this argument was completely misconceived. If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary aright, he used that very same argument against us if we did not get independence. I would like to know how matters stand. I can sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in having to try to build up a case on the very poor foundations available to him. He said that if we had in Scotland some form of subsidiary on a basis which amounted to a kind of independence, intolerable pressure would be brought upon the Minister to start lines which the Minister might not want to start at all. We have been keeping up "intolerable pressure" for a year now, originally aided by hon. Members on the benches opposite, but I have not seen much sign of the Minister having to yield to the "intolerable pressure," as he says he fears he might have to do in the future
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that if we had no measure of inde- pendence in this matter, the associate company would become a mere "stooge," and that that would not be good for Scotland. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will leave us at least one thing in Scotland, and that is that we should know what is good for us. Before I go on to show that the arguments against the associate company are misconceived I want to clear up one point. Either the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) is under a misapprehension, or else I am. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will clear the matter up here and now. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh is apparently of the opinion that the proposed division, whose powers have not been defined, would have, among those powers, the right to start a new line from Scotland if the division wanted it, and would not have to go to the Corporation or to the Minister and ask for those powers. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say, either now or later on, whether that is so. Is he proposing to give automonous powers to the new division to start a new line, coming into conflict with the Minister, because Scot-lands wants it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have answered now, as that would have helped the Debate. I am certain that the hon. Member for North Edinburgh now realises that nothing of the sort is intended or will come to pass.
No, it is not, and that is why I should like to have the answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member says that the Scottish division will have power to inaugurate without the consent of the Minister new Scottish lines, but I believe that that is impossible. That was the suggestion which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh made.
I said that it would have power to start services, internal and external, but obviously the B.O.A.C. would have to approve. In the Amendment it is proposed that the division shall
provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with any of the three Corporations allocate to it.
That is precisely the same thing. All the hon. Member is saying is that under the Division there will be powers, but if the B.O.A.C. have to go to the Minister that will be precisely the same thing as is contained in the Amendment. All the Amendment does is to tidy up things that have already been promised in a rather heterogeneous and piecemeal collection, by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact has been emphasised time and again this evening that what has already been promised is, in fact, as great as what we are asking. If that is so, what on earth can be the objection to tidying up by giving us what we are asking for in a rounded off form?
What have we been promised? The famous Scottish division with powers that are not yet clear. A Scottish Advisory Council with a seat on B.E.A.C. This Advisory Council should also have a seat on B.O.A.C, for Scottish interests, which are Britain's, will not be confined only to B.E.A.C, and Scotland, if given a fair chance, will have a great interest in the British Overseas Airways Corporation also. We have been promised branch offices in Scotland. Would any intelligent man be fobbed off with a branch office? What is the use of that unless we know what powers they will have? We have been promised a Scottish Regional Board to look after the air lines. Where is the consistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument if he resists giving us a Regional Board or an associate company for Scotland? How can he justify having given a Regional Board for looking after the airfields? It seems to me the same argument must be used for both Boards or neither.
Let us be clear exactly what are the mechanics in this matter. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to follow me for a moment in what would happen—and how justified would all his fears be—if in fact this associate company sees the light of day. The first thing they would do would be to appoint a board, presumably of Scotsmen or men resident in Scotland with qualifications, who in their turn would appoint a managing director and staff. Then this managing director and staff would submit a plan of routes. That would be submitted in the long run to the Minister. There would then be a plan of fleets—the type of aircraft which would be needed to give effect to the route plan. That would no doubt include the minimum fleet suitable for the routes which the Minister had by this time accepted. That does not in the least mean to say that the system of pooling, which I advocate, should be used for all the Corporations, would not still be available to the Scottish associate company. They would have their own fleet and make use of the national pool in the same way as the Corporations. That is a system which has been used in shipping and has worked very well. They would then submit an estimated profit and loss account, and having done all this, would come to the capital structure. Let us see what there is in all that, that varies from what is granted already?
First, the question of owning their own fleet. I do not mind whether they own it or not as long as they have a sufficient say in what routes shall be run. Then there is the capital structure. I do not care about that so long as the Scottish associate company have some say in what sort of routes shall be run. The Minister pretended that this would be a decentralisation or devolution which would be dangerous. Our point of view is—it applies to all nationalisation measures—that centralisation is going too far and is, in fact, becoming dangerous to the country. It is unwieldy, and that is a feature which I believe Ministers are already finding in the difficulties they are facing. This form of devolution will be of benefit to the whole country. It has been found so in Northern Ireland where the fact that there is a measure of devolution in government has immensely speeded up the solution of many questions. The Minister objects, and I will deal with his objections, that this would give rise to competition. Where on earth can competition arise since the Minister himself is the final arbitrator and the final authority as to what routes shall be run. There can be no competition on internal Scottish routes, and as all external lines are subject to his control, where can he justify this statement there is to be competition? For my own part, I would welcome competition, because competition makes for efficiency, but for this argument he has given tonight, the hon. Gentleman must surely adduce some sort of evidence that competition is going to arise.
Then we have the situation of trans-Atlantic traffic where there is a measure of competition already. We have Pan- America Airways and Trans-Western Airways flying from North America to Europe and we contend that they will find their quickest route between their destination in a line across Scotland. In fact, K.L.M. the Dutch line, who have got this service going already, are touching down in Scotland. We want to cater for this trans-Atlantic aircraft which are going to touch down, and we believe they will, in fact, use the Scottish bases if they are given proper facilities. That is where this associated company will attack the Minister and urge the Minister to establish a frequency and an efficiency in the, on carrying service from a Scottish base which will allow these trans-Atlantic aircraft to use Scotland if they wish to use it. Then the Minister says this will not be economical. How will it be less economical? Will it be less economical for aircraft? Surely, if the Minister is going to use a pool of aircraft for the Corporations, a fourth associated company will not, in fact, increase the numbers of aircraft that will be held in that pool to carry out all these journeys. If, on the other hand, he is not going to allow this associated company to do more than fly internal airways, then how can it be uneconomical in the matter of aircraft since only this line is to be run by the associated company.
If the Minister says it will not be economical in equipment, how can that be so, since equipment can only consist either of equipment on aircraft or equipment on the ground? If the equipment on the ground belongs to the airfield there, how can the establishment of this associated company in any way vary the amount of equipment lying on the airfields or built on the airfields of Scotland? If, on the other hand, he pretends it is going to be uneconomical in equipment on aircraft, surely, if you accept the thesis that aircraft are going to be pooled you must accept the thesis that equipment on the aircraft, and equipment attached to the aircraft, will be pooled also. There is no lack of economy in that. Then he pretends the crews will not be able to be used to the best advantage. Surely, whether we have this associated company or whether we do not, the system is going to be a pooled system of crews and each corporation is not going to have a watertight compartment into which it is going to keep these crews and from which they cannot pass to another corporation. So that argument falls to the ground.
Finally, he adduces that it will be uneconomical in training. If the Minister really has a conception that each aircraft is going to train its own crew or that each route is going to train its own crew, or even that each corporation is going to train its own crews, then I can say already that he has the most wasteful ideas on economic training that anyone can imagine. Surely the only action in dealing with a problem like this will be to set up a central training establishment, and, therefore, training will in i:o way be affected by the fact that a Scottish associated company may be granted These arguments are only a vague smoke screen to veil his rigidity. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to paint a picture of the Minister being a sort of benevolent Father Christmas to Scotland. I am more reminded of that effigy which was erected in the time of the 1914–1918 war of Hindenburg, a great enormous wooden effigy into which the people of Germany were encouraged to hammer nails. We have hammered many nails into the Minister. Nails have been hammered in by the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish Council of Industry, and the Association of County Councils yet the Minister has not yielded. Those three bodies, representing every shade of political opinion in Scotland, ask for the same thing. I admit they are not asking for the associate company, but they ask for the Board for which we asked, and that is so allied to the associate company as to be almost indistinct from it.
There was no question, and has been none for a very long time, of any profit-making concern in this matter. I hold a letter sent on behalf of the Scottish Trade Union Congress saying that they advocate the Scottish Board. Why is there this resistance to what at the most is a very indistinct difference of opinion? Eire has been given what she wanted almost "with love and kisses. "Yet we, a country in full association with the rest of the British Isles have to struggle for the smallest degree of reasonable concession. I remember the Minister promising us at a conference we had jointly with hon. Members from the other side, that the only yardstick on which Scottish airlines and Scottish airfields would be judged, would be that of efficiency. We ask nothing more, and on that we would rest our case.
I rise with the hope of explaining to this House why this Clause is necessary. I am nothing if not an optimist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see I have the attention of hon. Members. It will be pleasurable, therefore, to explain why it is necessary that Scotland should have full confidence under its own control. Surely it is not prepared to allow the development of its internal and external air lines to be under a Whitehall bureaucracy? It fears that the task of developing airlines from England to Europe is so vast a job that it may detract attention from the necessities of Scotland. Besides that, it knows it has been operating airlines successfully for 12 years, and making progress, while England lagged behind. Scottish services have proved that they are a paying proposition and Scotland feels that, in handing them over they may be passing to the Minister the most successful and profitable of his future airlines. If Scotland's international services are to be considered as rivals to those of Eng- land, then, the Minister's argument destroys itself. How could Scotland fee! happy to be controlled by a bureaucracy from Whitehall? Further, the record of British Overseas Airways Corporation defeats the argument for one large unit. It is not creditable. Far too many services are operating today in Europe at 8d. per passenger mile whereas airlines are operating in Scotland at 4d. and 5d.
Besides that—and here I appeal to all Scotsmen of whatever party—Scots are trained in economy. Their upbringing is hard, their background rigorous. I suggest that Scotland in control of the development of its own services will show this House an economy which the Treasury will appreciate. It is not necessary for Scotland to own its aircraft. It may own a percentage, it may charter another percentage. Much is heard on the question of standardisation, but do we know the correct answer to that issue? On the question of standardisation, are we certain it would be wise to replace four or five services a day with two aircraft to carry all passengers? It is more important to operate services on the hour, than to have too large aircraft. Scotland has its own peculiarities, its own climatic conditions, difficulties and contours. She needs special consideration in the matter of control.
This Clause only points out to the Minister the way which he should go. It is not arbitrary. It places no control on him. The good advice given for Scotland, has, I believe, been expressed here, in another place, and by the Scottish Council of Industry and at a meeting in Edinburgh of Scottish Members of Parliament and Scottish peers. What Scotland needs is a body of four or five tough directors to put forward her case, and nobody could do that better than Mr. Thomas Johnston who broadcast advice to hon. Members recently on the radio. Scotland has a natural fear of depopulation. If Scottish airlines are not developed to the full they will not absorb the people who wish to work, and are competent to work, on civil aviation. In the present Bill the promises made are not cited, but if this Clause is carried Scotland can depend on inclusion in the Bill. If it is rejected, Scottish feeling will be further inflamed, and more encouragement given to people who are pressing for Scottish Home Rule.
I do not want to embarrass hon. Members of the Labour Party. I am in sympathy with them. I know well that they have two loyalties. They have loyalty to Scotland, and they have loyalty to their party, but I do ask them to consider whether it is wise to sacrifice Scottish interests to Whitehall bureaucracy. They will have to face the consequences. I would like to say that I have respect and admiration for the Parliamentary Secretary. He has put in a lot of time and hard work in furthering this Bill, but I hope that I shall not be unkind, if I say that I have never heard him more unconvincing than tonight. He is young to aviation, and he is playing with fire. I beg him to remember that children who play with fire suffer from it. Scotland will demand his head on a charger if he rejects this Clause, and the Govern- ment will lose another possible candidate for the Food Ministry.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) has been talking to us as if the issue in this Debate was the question of Scottish Home Rule. The real issue is whether or not this House is going to accept the Lords Amendment, and that is not an argument for Scottish Home Rule at all, but is a question of relegating the rule of Scotland to a subsidiary company. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) did not deal at any length with the Lords Amendment or present the case for it. I submit there is very little of the legal ability and forensic skill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be found in the drafting of the terms of this flimsy Amendment. He suggested that this was going to be a test case on the general principle of devolution for Scotland. He forgets that during this Session of Parliament there has been other legislation in which it was open to the newly-converted advocates of devolution for Scotland to put similar Amendments. Why did not the hon. Members who are now so enthusiastic about Scottish devolution and Scottish control come forward with an Amendment to the legislation nationalising the Bank of England? Why did they not advocate a separate corporation for a national Bank of Scotland? Again, did they advocate separate corporations under the Coal Nationalisation Bill? And when it comes to a question of Cable and Wireless are we to get emotional and nationalistically phrased speeches advocating a separate Scottish Corporation for Cable and Wireless?
I submit that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead did not go deeply into an explanatory exposition of the Amendment because he understands its weaknesses. I wish to deal with only one point in this Lords Amendment. It is paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) which says:
to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland …
I would like the defenders of this Amendment to explain exactly what the word "internally" means, so far as civil avia-
tion is concerned. Does it mean that this corporation can only have the powers to organise air services internally in Scotland? Does it mean that this proposed corporation would have power to organise air services, say, between Glasgow and Aberdeen, or between Edinburgh and the Outer Islands? Would this corporation, or subsidiary company, have the power to organise air lines or air services?
I was referring to the question of what powers were to be given to this Scottish associate company. This Amendment only gives power to provide such air transport services internally, so that under this Bill this suggested new air subsidiary company would not have power to run air lines between, say, Glasgow and the Isle of Man. It would be limited to an internal service, which would mean that an air line service between Glasgow and London could not be run by this Scottish subsidiary at all. It would have to stop at the Border line. Under this Amendment it would only have power to run air liners from, say, Glasgow to Gretna Green. I suggest that this Lords Amendment would give only a poor shadow of really efficient air services for Scotland, and that we would be much better off under the legislation which has been expounded by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I do not propose to follow the abstruse arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Hughes). I think it was perfectly obvious to everyone that he either had not read the Debates in the other place or had not read them so that he understood them. It seems to me, taking it by and large, that this is the most incompetent Government we have had since 1931, when we also had a Socialist Government. Oddly enough, in addition to being incompetent, the Government today are even more distressingly complacent, and that is no doubt caused by the existence of their big battalions. But big battalions have to be properly led and directed, must have faith in their cause; and that is what none of the big battalions opposite have got. The party opposite, and the Government which leads it, has just sufficient sense to know when it has done wrong, but not sufficient courage to put it right. It is so frightened of losing face; so frightened of losing the confidence of the electors who voted for them last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last week."] In America they have a name for a certain type of person—"suckers." I am not referring to the voters of this country as "suckers." That leads me to the Amendment that has come from another place. I would like to ask whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have had time to study the most excellent Debate which took place on this Amendment in the other place. I am not going to read the speeches; I know I would be out of Order if I attempted to do so. But they were so wise, so potent, and so convincing, that I feel that if the Parliamentary Secretary had had time to give full attention to them, he would have been so convinced that he would not have resisted this Amendment, but would have invited his well-trained colleagues behind him to support it. I think we are very fortunate in having a Second Chamber which is fearless of party discipline or the electoral consequences of putting a party in the wrong. I, naturally, as the mover of the original Amendment in Committee upstairs, am very disappointed that a separate Scottish Corporation was not adopted in the other place. But I can see that this substitute, so ably moved, does something for Scotland. Certainly, it is workable, it gives Scotland something of what it wants, and, so far as I can see, the Minister has no real argument against it, except, of course, the fear of being thought weak, vacillating and conciliatory, and, of course, these are serious crimes in the new Socialist hierarchy. At the same time, I feel that this substitute Amendment points a way out of the impasse into which the Government have got with their stupid policy. I am not going to talk of the constitutional issues involved by the possible rejection of this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I want to give my colleagues here an opportunity of speaking, since no hon. Member opposite has the courage to speak for it. Nor am I going into the danger of holding up this Bill for 18 months, which, of course, might well happen, though the Parliamentary Secretary has not con- vinced me that it would be a good thing for Scottish aviation to get tnis Bill through. Time alone will tell whether there is any justification for his optimism.
What, in fact, does the Amendment do? It seeks to set up a Scottish associate or subsidiary to the British European Corporation for three different purposes—first, to advise the Minister on Scottish aviation affairs, second, to manage internal airlines in Scotland, and, third, to arrange, in conjunction with the Minister, and, of course, the other Corporations, for airlines and routes from Scotland to North America, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Let us see how these aims accord or conflict with the declared intentions of the Minister. The Minister has stated time after time that it is his hope and intention to set up further corporations and associates as circumstances may require. The first part of the Amendment is, therefore, obviously in accordance with the Minister's view. Secondly, he has declared, and has agreed, I believe, to put it in the Bill, that he wishes the fullest possible consultation with, and advice from, Scotland, in order to aid him to carry out his plans for British, and, especially, for Scottish, aviation. The second part of the Amendment, therefore, is in order and in accord with his plans. Thirdly, and this is very important, the Amendment seeks to ensure that the Scottish subsidiary shall have the power to control and manage internal airlines in Scotland and also to arrange to operate and run air routes to and from Scotland and parts of North America and Scandinavia.
In June, 1945, the then Under-Secretary for Civil Aviation declared in this House, that it was the policy of the then Coalition Government—and no doubt that decision was given by the authority of, and in accord with, the present Minister's advisers in the Ministry of Civil Aviation —to give Scottish civil aviation a charter, and that that charter should designate Prestwick as the second international Atlantic airport, and, secondly, that Scotland should have the right, indeed, the monopoly, to run airlines and routes from Scotland to North America and Scandinavia. Those undertakings were given in June, 1945, by Mr. Perkins, on the authority of the Minister's present advisers. If that authority was good enough then, if that decision was workable and right, and the argument good and proper then, how can the Parliamentary Secretary today come down and say this Amendment is unacceptable? Of course, it was approved by the Lord President of the Council—
I was carried away by the sweet song of my hon. Friend the leader of the National Liberal Party. I would now direct myself and the House to one or two other important factors, which I think should be considered in regard to this case. I appeal to the House to say that I have successfully demolished any arguments put forward by the Government in support of their attitude in rejecting this Amendment. There are other factors which are of exceeding importance to Scotland, though they may not be important to the Minister of Civil Aviation. One has been already referred to, namely, Scottish sentiment; the second is the question of decentralisation from London, and the third is the question of providing work in Scotland for Scotsmen. I have not necessarily placed them in order of priority, but in order of easy management. Scottish sentiment may not be a very important thing to the Minister of Civil Aviation, but it has importance in dealing with Scottish affairs. Like Lord Beveridge, who spoke with great effect in another place, I am half and half. The only difference is that my second half is much more truculent than his, because my other half comes from Ulster and not from England. It has been said that if one scratches a Russian, one finds a Tartar; it is far more true to say that if one scratches an Ulsterman one finds a Scot. Therefore, I realise and stress the importance of Scottish sentiment in dealing with Scottish affairs. This sentiment is very powerful. It has made Canada a second Scotland. It is established in China, in South America and in India— Mr. Deputy-Speaker, forgive me; I can see a menace in your eye. I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Scottish sentiment is partly behind this Amendment from another place, and unless we realise the strength and importance of Scottish sentiment we will not give due importance to this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Hon. Members opposite should be more intent on listening to my words than in observing the position of my feet.
As the hon. Member's colleagues were quick enough to laugh before the finish of the joke, I have not the opportunity of sharing in their pleasure or answering the question. Scottish sentiment established outposts in China, in South America and in India, due to this allegiance of Scotland to Great Britain. That sentiment cannot be flouted. If it is, as has been said already tonight, Scottish nationalism will obtrude its head, perhaps with more vehemence than Scottish Members who gave obsequious lip service at the last Election will appreciate. I come to this question of decentralisation in Scotland. Every Scottish candidate, especially the Members of the Party opposite were adamant at the last Election on this point. They stressed that Whitehall must be subservient to St. Andrews House. This Amendment gives hon. Members opposite the opportunity of translating that excellent piece of advice into practice. Finally there is the question of work for Scotsmen in Scotland. When Scotland first established shipping lines it led inevitably to the creation of the shipping industry, whereby ships were built to carry the flag across the Seven Seas. We want to follow that example and precedent in the matter of air lines. Give us the Scottish Air Line for which we ask, and the manufacture of Scottish aircraft will follow. As every Member of this House knows, in Scotland we have got the most highly-skilled craftsmen in the world. If we give this further opportunity to Scottish craftsmen of such noted skill and experience, we certainly shall never regret it, and any Member opposite who has the courage to support this Amendment will contribute perhaps more than he knows to the future greatness of Scotland. I want the Minister or whoever is going to reply to say what is the real difficulty in accepting this Amend- ment. I cannot see any, and certainly no reason was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. According to the Bill the State has allocated £8 million to British European Airways Corporation. Why is it not possible to divert £2 million of that to an associate company and give the associate the same freedom as is enjoyed by the European Corporation, B.O.A.C. and the other one, such as was promised by the Coalition Government? Let it have Scottish control; let it have local knowledge; let it have a national spirit peculiar to Scotland; and I do guarantee that Scotland will provide a service which will show Britain the way, as has been the case for centuries.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has spoken with great eloquence of the question of Scottish sentiment in this Amendment, and I will address myself mainly to the economic arguments in its favour. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire' (Mr. Hughes) started his speech by pouring contempt on this Amendment on the ground that it was merely putting Scotland into the position of a subsidiary. If he had studied the Debate in another place, he would have seen that in the first place an Amendment was introduced to provide for a fourth corporation. It was at the suggestion of an English noble Lord that this proposition was toned down to the idea of a subsidiary company. But I want to say that this subsidiary company is going a good deal further than the original text of the Bill, The hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealt at some length with the fact that in paragraph 2 (b) of the Amendment the Scottish Associate is called on only to produce internal services. Of course under this Amendment Scotland has to be master in her own house, but the Amendment also goes on to specify that in consultation with the Minister it can provide any other services, whether to other parts of Great Britain or to foreign countries. That is exactly what Scotland wants to do. A further point is that under this Amendment direct access both to the Minister and to the Corporations is given to the Scottish Associate. The Government have promised an Advisory Council with a chairman who is to be a member of B.E.A.C. Rather a ridiculous situation results from that. The Advisory Council, through its chairman, has access to the Minister; the chairman is also a member of the board of the B.E.A.C, so that he may very often find himself in the position of recommending to the Minister direct something different from what his board are Recommending to the Minister. Can that possibly make for good relations?
The second point I would like to make is that this Amendment will provide quite definitely, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs has said, a focus for development in Scotland. It has been argued in Committee and, I think, on the Third Reading, that it is natural for British air services to use British planes, the reason being that British manufacturers will study the special requirements of British operators. In the same way Scottish manufacturers will tend to study the special requirements of Scottish operators, and the Scottish operators, in turn, will tend to turn particularly to Scottish manufacturers; and that will create in Scotland not only a maintenance industry but also a manufacturing industry, which will be a most important result. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the maintenance of Scottish aircraft, yet he says that all aircraft are to come from a pool. If they are all coming from a pool surely there will be no such things as Scottish aircraft at all—only British aircraft.
My third point is that the Scottish Associate would be a thoroughly independent body with executive powers, not a one-man show like the Advisory Council. It is a perfectly well integrated Board. Hon. Members on the other side of the House seem to think there is something Satanic in what they call Scottish "devilution, "but this is what Scotland will insist on in all matters concerning nationalisation. I have dealt with the three main points in which Scotland stands to benefit from this Amendment, but I should like also to draw the attention of the House to some advantages that British aviation as a whole would obtain from it. The Scottish Corporation would stand in the same economic relationship to the B.E.A.C. as the Overseas Corporation will stand to the B.S.A.A.C. The Parlfa-mentary Secretary said in Committee that it would be a good thing to stimulate competition between B.O.A.C. and the North American Corporation. It will not be competition over the same routes, but compe- tition in efficiency and technique. They have the same functions, just as the proposed Scottish Board and the European Corporation have the same functions. There, again, would be competition in efficiency and technique, and that I submit would be good for British aviation.
Again the question of efficiency in relation to the size of the fleet was mentioned on the Third Reading, but was not answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. Has he really made up his mind what the efficient size of an air fleet is really to be? The success of the aircraft service will depend on the right machines getting to the right place at the right time. If the Corporations are too big, that object will be difficult to attain. Army experience, and, indeed, experience in the R.A.F., have shown that. What ought the optimum size of an air fleet to be? Can the Parliamentary Secretary answer this question? To a large extent, it would be the answer to the proposed Amendment. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the cost of operation depends on the maximum use of machines. The B.O.A.C. are using planes at the present time for only three hours a day I believe, whereas the United States are using aircraft for 10 hours a day. The result is that the U.S.A. are running at something like 3d. a mile, whereas it is costing us 8d. a mile. That shows the need for the maximum use of aircraft, and that can be done only by the most efficient control—I suggest that a small basis rather than a large basis is better for this purpose and that for that reason, the proposed Scottish Division would be more efficient that the B.E.A.C. At the least, it would operate as a standard against which the Corporation could be measured.
The only fault I have to find with the Amendment is that it does not provide for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be consulted except in regard to the appointment of the Board. I would have liked him to be inserted, so that we could bring pressure to bear directly, through him, upon the Cabinet. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about intolerable pressure. What does he mean? Intolerable pressure representing the rights of Scotland? That is what he has in mind, and he is afraid of setting up a Corporation which could bring such pressure upon himself. He thinks it will be better to have Scotland well away in the limbo so that it will not be possible for Scotland's rights to be properly represented. Therefore he supports the idea of having a Scottish division—not a separate corporation— even though it were only a subsidiary.
At the close of the Debate in another place the Minister said that he saw no objection to putting the Advisory Council of the Scottish division into the Bill. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state today whether it is his intention, even if he does not accept the Amendment—he has already indicated his intention not to do so—at least to implement that undertaking of the Minister's that if it was possible he would draft the provisions in such a way that he would put it into the Bill. That is clearly an undertaking. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he is prepared to implement it.
The object of this Amendment, which has been sent to us for consideration is, in my judgment, the minimum possible claim which Scotland wishes to make with regard to this Bill. It seeks also to interpret that vague phrase which the Parliamentary Secretary has repeatedly put about in the House, namely, that the Government contend that they have, in fact, given Scotland a considerable measure of autonomy. That is the whole issue in dispute, and it was because we had never felt that Scotland had been given a considerable measure of autonomy that we were thoroughly dissatisfied with the Bill. Now we are given an opportunity, by this Amendment from another place, to interpret what is at least their view of what is a considerable measure of autonomy. We have been promised that, but very little is indeed in the Bill which gives a measure of autonomy at all. We have been promised an Advisory Committee. We have been told of what is the rôle of the Scottish Division, but it is not in the Bill. This Amendment, at least, brings out what is meant by a measure of autonomy.
These are the minimum demands of the hon. Members who come from Scotland. We know well Scotland wanted a great deal more. We were all agreed that Scotland ought to have a great deal more, but because Scottish Labour Members opposite have put the party whip before the needs of Scotland, we on this side now fight alone for what Scotland has wanted for years. There is no doubt about that. In fact, what measure of autonomy is Scotland going to get in the Bill? This Amendment is going to be rejected, I have no doubt, by the big battalions. The acid test of loyalty to Scotland will be put to Scottish Members of all parties when this matter is put to a division. Scotland is looking to see who her friends are and who is best representing her interests tonight. This Scottish division will have no autonomy about it, no independence about it. It is to be just a puppet, and it is to take its orders, in fact, from elsewhere. Without a shadow of doubt, its members will be marionettes, dancing to the tune of a majority. This Scottish division, in fact, will have no real autonomy. The word "autonomy" is a farce; it is just a red herring in order to try to draw away Scottish Members of Parliament on the other side from their allegiance and loyalty to Scottish interests which they had at one time, and which they have now lost.
There can be no doubt about what the opinion of Scotland is. She is bitterly disappointed with this Bill. No hon. Member opposite who comes from Scotland can dare to say that, in his opinion, the people of Scotland are thoroughly satisfied with this Bill. No hon. Member will say that Scottish people and the people he represents are thoroughly satisfied with this Bill. Of course he dare not. They know it is not true, and I give them credit for their honesty. Yet they are going to vote and say that they, in fact, are satisfied, yet they know their constituents are not satisfied. Scotland is going to know who her real representatives are, and who are the puppets and marionettes. That is the issue. Here is the last attempt to fight for some measure of autonomy for Scotland; here is the last attempt to defend it; here is the last attempt to secure a measure of Scottish independence and a measure of Scottish devolution and autonomy. I would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman who has to reply to this Debate has to say about it. Will he put these things in the Bill? What is the good of promising these things, unless they are in the Bill? The whole country was promised a lot at the General Election. Look where the promises have gone now. Scotland wants more than promises. Put these things in the Bill, and Scotland will at least be more satisfied, than she is at present.
We have listened to a characteristic spate of invective from the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), part relevant and part otherwise. I would like, in the name of my colleagues on this side of the House, to reject and repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) that hon. Members on this side have broken their promise and pledged word. The reason for his not being the most suitable person to make that remark is obvious to all hon. Members. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot help it if he chooses to be absent at this moment trying to find out the date of the end of the Japanese war. He is the least suitable person to make this allegation, and it is wholly untrue. One thing we promised the people of Scotland, and we are fulfilling that promise now, was to nationalise civil aviation. That was our promise to the electorate and we are carrying it out and hon. Members opposite on all kinds of pretexts—technical, financial and pseudo-Scottish-nationalist—are trying to obstruct us.
This matter has been very adequately dealt with in this House and in Committee over and over again. The essential substance of this Amendment has been rejected time and time again. It comes before us tonight trimmed with a few rhetorical phrases, a little ermine and a few noble knobs on, and we can only follow consistently the view of the overwhelming majority of elected Members of this House by rejecting it again. Scottish Members of the Opposition are trying to set the Scottish heather on fire with civil aviation spirit. Had they shown a little more of the true spirit of Scotland before the last General Election, we should not have been called to the rescue by the Scottish people in 1945.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), who presented the case more reasonably and cogently than any other hon. Member tonight, turned for support to the Scottish T.U.C. Even there, the Opposition cannot be consistent, unless they go back a bit and support the demand of the T.U.C. for the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act. This is another stunt. We are conscious that the substance of this Amendment is very little in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They have abandoned all argument about nationalisation or private enterprise, because they know we mean to redeem the promise we gave the electorate. This is a stunt Amendment, and they know it is from beginning to end. It is another series, like the bread rationing stunts. They hope that as Napoleon's armies marched to victory "on their stomachs," that they can crawl back to popularity on those of other people. That stunt did not work, and this will not work.
I will vary the metaphor and make it quite relevant and say that in civil aviation hon. Members opposite are more interested in flying political kites than in British aviation. What is behind this Amendment now? The other day a very distinguished supporter of it complained that the
palsied fingers of the Government were gripping the country from London to the North of Scotland.
That is not a bad achievement for the "palsied fingers." Another noble supporter of this Amendment said of a Scottish colleague's speech on this Amendment that it was a reflection of the fact that, since the last Election, there has grown up a deep and powerful consciousness of Scottish nationality among the Conservative hon. Members—and I will throw in the National Liberals as well to make up the weight. Scottish people will measure the genuineness of this by their achievements in the past. There is still hope that, given this Tory "freedom" in Scotland, they may be able to work in a few more taxi services—a few more aerial pleasure trips —and make a little money still out of that part of civil aviation which is not being nationalised wholly. I think there is a little lucre-lust in their newly-found love of Scotland.
However, I am not the only person rejecting this Amendment. A Conservative newspaper in Glasgow, the "Bulletin," said recently,
…the surprising vigour with which some formerly silent Scottish Tories have rushed in to the rescue of a London-ruled Scotland has seemed at least as much like enthusiastic exploitation of a political opportunity as genuine patriotism.
That is a remark about the "nationalistic Tories." If that remark is not true, it is a capitalist Tory newspaper which told the lie; it is the "Glasgow Bulletin."
Well, it is "The Bulletin," and that is what it said. What I would like to point out is that, first the Tories asked for a Scottish corporation. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) went farther than that, He demanded two corporations. His words are recorded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I will read it if I can lay my hands on the report. [Interruption.] He interrupted the Lord President during that Debate to ask what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, and he said then that he wanted two public utility corporations.
Yes, and now we are just about the anniversary of the winning of the General Election shortly after. Then the Opposition asked for one corporation and later still a board of management with powers which amounted to a corporation again to all intents and purposes. Now they ask for an "associate" with much less powers. They have been fickle, fond and fly all at once; to use a Scottish expression, but it has not availed them, because the logic of the case has not supported their argument. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew accused us on this side, of having "put Scotland in the soup." He said we had "ratted." He used terms of abuse that were not fit for the soap box unless one also used plenty of water. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow a bit more ascetically—and aesthetically—left the "rats" out of the "soap." But the hon. Members opposite have, in their Press, on the public platforms and in this House misrepresented and completely distorted the point of view of the Labour Members and of the Government.
What is our object in this Bill? It is to fit in Scottish aviation with our economic progress and not to cramp it into the old traditional and obsolete system and methods. Civil Aviation control must tend inevitably international control and organisation. There must be bi-lateral agreements leading towards multi-lateral agreements and developing towards that international control and world organisation which members on all sides must ultimately support. They must harmonise these developments, economic and social, with the needs of the peoples of all nations, including Scotland. Organisation on these lines is not immediately practicable but it is our common aim and in this we have a common ground. Meantime, we must try to fit it in along the lines of our own country's economic reconstruction. We have to avoid the duplicating of adequate services, which are already being provided. We have to avoid multiplying controls, and avoid also uneconomic and unnecessary sub-division, which must certainly add to the cost of running our civil aviation and pass the increased charges on finally to the consumer. Our object is to make civil aviation efficient, technically and administratively. We have to make it meet the needs, social and economic, of the people, and make it cheaply available to our own people at large. We have to make it freer to our people in our comings and goings among the other peoples of the world. I want to emphasise Scotland's share under this Bill. All the benefits shared by England and Wales, or any part of England and Wales, will be shared by Scotland in this Bill, without this Amendment. Scotland is excepted from none of the benefits under this Bill, if she is not mentioned for specific benefits then she is not mentioned for any exclusion from any specific benefits. Hon. Members will see if they look through this Bill that England is not specifically mentioned either. Like Shylock they keep chanting: "It is not in the bond!" "It is not in the Bill." Members opposite are still after something to bring them in a material benefit. It is Shylock's gold ducats drawing out of hon. Members a new patriotism which has been exuding from them these past few months! We want to give the Minister full scope. We want to give the Corporations full scope. We would rather they had this and be able to use the powers imaginatively than have it done by narrowing statutory definition, which, if the Minister exceeded it on one point, could be challenged in the courts. We believe that the Minister's assurances in this House will be kept. They are spoken on behalf of the Government. [Interruption.] I can see that hon. Members opposite are immensely relieved to discover at any rate one supporter in the Public Gallery for their Amendment. Why do they distrust these undertakings of our Ministers. I think their distrust has its basis in their own experience of Tory Governments in power. But things are different now. One of the first and most truly enterprising and imaginative things this Government did in carrying out its promises to the electorate was to undertake putting on a really sound basis our national aviation.
I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House not to narrow this issue down to an issue of separatism or special claims. I make an appeal that they shall put the welfare of British civil aviation before all these Party political stunts, of which we have all perhaps been guilty at times. I make honourable exception in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I see him about to rise, and I give him that exoneration. Let us try to rise above this narrow, almost parochial, circle into a wider, more realistic conception of our duty and purpose. Let us get down to the job of making a success in the world of British civil aviation. I hope hon. Members will not resist the appeal of the Minister and their own colleagues on this side, who are still willing to co-operate with them, as they have done in the past, when promoting the true interests of Scotland. Let them lend their support and assistance, instead of hovering around and circling round and round this exhausted Amendment until their gas runs out and they have to do a pancake landing on the precincts of another place.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has trotted out an appeal to Members on this side of the House about excessive generosity to Scotland; but we have heard this in previous Debates from the Lord President. I must confess that I never expected to hear this from the hon. Member for the Western Isles. I seem to remember during the General Election two points from the Scottish Labour Party's election address which told a different story in regard to Scotland. Coming to this Amendment, I would call to the memory of the hon. Member for the Western Isles that he has put down Questions, from time to time, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in connection with Scotland's internal airways to the Western Isles. He, like myself, represents what might be called consumer constituents for Scottish civil aviation. I have been in recent weeks putting to the test this very case which the Government put forward to us tonight in turning down this Amendment from another place. I have been in correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the air service to one of our islands, and I have received from him a courteous reply in which I have been assured that the island in question may be suitable for landing air ambulances, but the landing places available are not sufficient for civil aviation passenger and transport aircraft. That advice, I suspect, he was given by the officials of, maybe, Scottish Airways, or officials of his own Department, but not by the Scottish Office. I maintain that we ought to have had the Scottish associated company, put forward in this Amendment, in the Bill, and I repeat "in the Bill." I have always been taught, in the fairly short time I have been in this House, that what a Minister says is his intention is ruled out when the matter comes to a court of law, and that the law only takes account of what is in the Bill. For that reason, I would like to see the promises which the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend have given inserted in the Bill. If that was done, our anxieties might be somewhat allayed.
I now come to the actual form of practice that will take place under this nationalised civil aviation. What will happen? Experts will come along and say "This place is not suitable for an air service." I am quite certain that, if they were to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he would say "But I require that you should run a service to that particular place, because of the very difficult conditions of the surface communications," as the Parliamentary Secre- tary well knows. The particular conditions, which the hon. Gentleman well knows, apply very much in the Scottish islands, yet we are told that this passenger service must be ruled out. That is a sample of what is going to happen under civil aviation run from Whitehall, and it seems to me that we are going to have conditions very similar to those we have under the Scottish division of the Ministry of Transport—completely useless, so far as Scottish steamer transport is concerned. When requests are made about improvements in the steamer services to the islands such applications are presumably referred to the regional offices in Scotland of the Transport Ministry but we get no reply whatever. There is no sympathy for such requests and were it not for the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland they would be just as good as wasted, because nothing more would be heard of them. That is the kind of support we shall get under this Bill, and that is why we, on this side of the House, feel that we must support the Amendment from another place.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), in what I thought was a very able and powerful speech, went a long way—I think, the complete way—to debunking the superficially nationalist speeches of Conservative hon. Members opposite, and I will only add this. Listening to those speeches, coming from most strange throats, I could not but remember the economic and industrial depression that Scotland suffered between the wars under a Tory Government, and it seems to me that all this enthusiasm, all this semi-Sinn Fein that we have been hearing, very naturally, from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore)—it is curious to note how few Scots Tories have Scottish accents—all this Sinn Fein such as we have had from the hon. and gallant Member has, as far as I can see, no depth in it. It seems to me to be just political playing about, without any deep conviction and sincerity behind the arguments. In this matter I would draw attention to this, the White Paper for which Lord Swinton was responsible in the Coalition Government—the White Paper on which civil aviation policy was brought in, for which he was depart-mentally responsible; though, to be quite fair, other Ministers had responsibility as well—never said anything about Scotland at all. That White Paper was brought forward by a Tory Minister.
Well, it was brought forward by a Tory Minister who, in another place, has been most enthusiatic in support of this Amendment. It is true that under the Caretaker Government, in the light of a forthcoming election—which, in itself, is eloquent as to the sincerity of people about this—there was an announcement, through Mr. Perkins, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, of certain developments from a Scottish point of view. One of the purposes of those modifications was, not to assuage Scottish national feeling but to preserve Scottish capitalism, or somebody's capitalism, in Scottish aviation. I do not suppose the money was even Scottish capital; probably quite a lot of it was English capital. That was one of the purposes of these boasted concessions that were supposed to be made to Scottish Members. As a matter of fact, Mr. Perkins, in concluding his explanation of the thing, which did not seem to me to give Scotland much, was not very satisfactory about Prestwick—it was such a muddled affair—said:
I have no doubt whatever that this complicated statement will have muddled some hon. Members.
It apparently did, because the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs followed him, as he apparently remembers, and said:
May I thank my hon. Friend for that very long, very carefully prepared statement, which I agree with him is somewhat difficult fully to absorb just by listening to it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 989.]
That was the boasted concession to Scotland. I am bound to say, if I was a Scottish Member I would not think very much of it. The original Swinton White Paper had no reference to Scotland at all. The main concession here was to preserve private enterprise. England was to have a public corporation of some sort, operating in this country for part of the service, but Scotland, under the Swinton plan, was to be specifically reserved for private enterprise exploitation. If that
is Scottish nationalism or patriotism it seems to me a curious viewpoint.
I am bound to say, I prefer the true Scottish voice as I know it. I do not purport to be an expert, any more than other non-Scottish Members, but I have been to Scotland, and I have heard Scotsmen talk. I say this: I hear the voice of Scotland from hon. Members on this side of the House with greater depth and sincerity than I hear it from hon. Members opposite. Now let us look at the complete unreality of this Amendment which is before the House, and compare it with the offer—which they will live up to—made by my noble Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to Scottish Members. This scheme, to which the Government are committed and with which the House is familiar, gives to Scotland management of Scottish Airways through a divisional organisation under a Scottish office; it gives to Scotland an Advisory Committee composed of Scotsmen, and the chairman of the Advisory Committee will himself not only be chairman of the Advisory Committee, but he will actually be a member of the Board of the main corporation.
Colonel Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that Scotland is to have the management of Scottish. Airways. Will he now proceed to define what are Scottish Airways? Will they be merely internal services or external services originating in Scotland?
They will be much like the airways mentioned by Mr. Perkins in his statement, and that ought to be all right. Moreover what I think was not promised before, the management of the airfields in Scotland will also be under a Scottish organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is it not in the Bill?"] I will come to the Bill in a minute. Scottish airfields are to be under a Scottish organisation. These and other undertakings in relation to Scotland—real undertakings which are going to be a great advantage to Scotland, and, as I hope to show, of much greater advantage than would this Amendment be which has been sent to us from another place—are in response to the arguments and persuasions not of Scottish Tory Members, who have had little effect on this Bill whatsoever, but in response to the persuasion, argument and if you like the pressure of hon. Members who are representative of Scottish constituencies and who sit on the Government benches. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Tell that in the constituencies."] That is where the credit belongs, and no credit whatever for any of these concessions belongs to Tory Members. In effect, the Tory Members on the other side of this House and in another place have been so incompetent in the examination of this Bill that they have had no effect on it at all.
That was not in relation to Scotland. I say, that in relation to Scotland any material concessions which have been given by this Government, which they were very happy to give, have been given as a result of the able advocacy of Scots Labour Members and not as a result of the Scottish Tory Members. It is said that the Tory Members would be happy— unless, of course, I am wrong—if the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation were embodied in the Bill. I do not know whether that is true or not, but this point has been implied in a number of Tory speeches this evening— if only we put our undertakings in the Bill all would be well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."] Then all would not be well. That has been the implication of some of these speeches, but it is typical of the muddled minds of hon. Members that they really do not know what they want. Why did not my noble Friend, on reflection, insert these words in the Bill? It is perfectly true that he did flirt with the idea in discussion in another place, and promised to consider it, but that was as far as it went. He did not put the words in, because if one comes to define in legal language and in statutory form the undertakings that were given by the Parliamentary Secretary and myself, then I think that the possibilities of concessions to Scotland would be more rigid, more crabbed and more confined than they would be if one left the matter to be dealt with by administration. I am perfectly certain that if we put these words in the Bill we should cramp the style of the Minister in being generous in the elasticity of the administration. for the benefit of Scotland. My noble Friend, I think rightly, came to the conclusion that it would be better for Scotland and better for administration if he refrained from attempting to define the offers which had been made—and which will be lived up to—in statutory form in the Bill. He therefore did not proceed to do so and my own view is that Scotland will be better off in these conditions in the future than would otherwise be the case.
Let us see what this Amendment which has come to us from another place means. Subsection (1) provides that
British European Airways Corporation …shall, with the approval of the Minister"—
"With the approval of the Minister"— which seem to be pursuing us; I thought there was objection to that—
constitute an Associate (to be known as 'The Scottish Associate'), the members of which shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and shall have their offices in Scotland.
All that provides is that the Minister— the Great Britain Minister—shall appoint the Scottish Board after, it is true, consultation with the Secretary of State. It goes on to provide that the functions of the Scottish Associate shall include the following:
(a) to advise the Minister and the three Corporations upon all questions affecting air transport in, from or to Scotland.
That is amply covered by the undertakings which have been given in respect of the Scottish Advisory Committee.
(b) to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with any of the three Corporations allocate to it.
Therefore the Scottish Associate would provide only such air services internally and such other air transport services as the Minister would from time to time give them, and the Minister would only give them after consultation with the appropriate Corporation. So the Minister ties it down again and the whole thing is the creature of the Corporation which is a Great Britain affair.
Thirdly they are enabled to
Perform such other of the functions which any of the three Corporations have power to perform as the Minister may from time to time direct.
What does that mean? It means that the Scottish Associate would be 100 per cent. the financial creature of the Corporations or one of the Corporations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, that is what it means and that is what it says, and I will come to the general summing up in a moment. Therefore it seems to me that this is all make believe; it really is nonsense, and if I were a Scottish Member I would sooner have what was promised by the Parliamentary Secretary and myself and by my noble Friend than this humbugging proposal which really creates a subsidiary to an English Corporation which would have the Scottish Associate by the throat the whole time so that it could not move an inch without the permission of the English organisation or the English Minister. The matter was left, in my judgment, entirely in the Minister's hands. He could, in fact—I do not suggest for a moment that he would— make this provision a dead letter, if he wished to. I hope that that observation is acceptable to hon. Members. I will repeat it. In my view, by the Amendment which the Conservative Party are supporting, the matter would be entirely in the Minister's hands. The Scottish Associate would be a very creature of the Minister, who could, in fact, make the provision now before the House a dead letter. If hon. Members can say that is the kind of thing which is consistent with Scottish pride, it is a pity. At any rate, the mover of the Amendment in another place actually used similar language himself.
My hon. Friends have been arguing on the side of reality, because substantial provision has been made to meet the views and the wishes of Scotland. I do not believe that a great service of this kind, which is international in character, ought to be broken up into watertight compartments or by national boundaries. Nevertheless, I sympathise very much with the wish of Scotsmen and of Scots Labour Members to see that Scotland has a proper and effective voice and power of persuasion in the running of this service. Therefore, we have come to them, at their request, with substantial concessions by way of undertakings in the administration of the Bill. I think those undertakings, in themselves, are reasonable. I do not believe that the Amendment will improve the situation. It is not a dignified proposal. I ask the House to support my hon. Friend in disagreeing with the Amendment.
I am sure that the whole House will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on assuming tonight these even more considerable responsibilities which have fallen to him, consequent on the departure of the Prime Minister. It enables us to have the pleasure of seeing him late at night and, unlike Cinderella, he is enabled to watch what the House of Commons looks like after midnight. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the White Paper associated with the name of Lord Swinton and mentioned that there was nothing in it about Scotland. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary did not, as he had done on other occasions, and as he has been busy doing earlier this evening, acquaint the right hon. Gentleman with the true facts of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman does not realise that it was expressly laid down in the Swinton plan that subsidiary companies could be formed. There was no particular reason to mention Scotland.
No, Sir, because it is only this Government which, for the first time for many years, draws attention to Scotland by persistently ignoring it. Hitherto, every part of the United Kingdom has been equally considered. Now, the exclusion of Scotland becomes very noticeable.
Perhaps I may develop my point. In Lord Swinton's White Paper, two things could happen, over and above the three Corporations provided for. Anybody who had already had a company operating could have a financial interest in one of the three corporations. This is where I come to the right hon. Gentleman's omission. Alternatively they could set up a subsidiary to work under one of the three corporations. For example, Scottish Airways could themselves have operated a 100 per cent. subsidiary under British European Airways Corporation. All that was possible under the Swinton plan, and that was why there was no need, in that White Paper, to mention Scotland expressly. The Portsmouth Airways, which are conducting a highly important undertaking, had already applied to become a subsidiary under B.E.A.C., and there was no reason whatever why a Scottish company, already functioning, should not, on behalf of Scotland, become a subsidiary under the new corporation. If the right. hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper he might perhaps have known that. He voted for it in the Cabinet, but he was no doubt so busy telling other people to "Go to it" that he did not have time to read his own Cabinet's conclusions.
That is the first answer to the right hon. Gentleman's charge that he goes as far, and that his Government go as far, in supporting Scottish aviation as did their predecessor. The second argument is this. It is notorious that the White Paper of Lord Swinton and the Coalition Government was in the nature of a compromise. It was a compromise made under the stress of war with a large number of people whose passion for centralisation was, very mercifully, theoretical and now has, alas, become a practical danger. One of the consequences of this passion for centralisation was the setting up of the three corporations. So much for the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Swinton White Paper. I need not detain the House much longer on the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, except to say that in Scotland while they have the gravest memories of un- employment in the postwar years, they recall the way in which the first Coalition Government in 1931 drastically reduced the unemployment figures for which the right hon. Gentleman and his previous Socialist Government were responsible.
The right hon. Gentleman made one or two glib references to what he called superficial nationalist speeches. He then proceeded to turn to his back benchers and congratulate them on their own nationalist efforts. That was the rather pathetic way in which, for the benefit of Scottish opinion, he tried to associate his own back benchers with responsibility for any agreements made. Equally his attempt to show the proposal which we are now considering as making the Scottish corporation which we want, as merely a creature of the Minister, scarcely bears examination. It will be in precisely the same situation as the other corporations, and it has been said that they are all creatures of the Minister. But having once conceded the principle of this Bill, we are very anxious to try and make it work, and if these three corporations are themselves in a ridiculous situation, why should not a fourth corporation, and one entirely justified by argument, be set up?
The last argument used in the main part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech refers to the desire of the Government benches for an international agreement. I hope I may be allowed, in passing, to draw attention to the fact that the United States of America has now given notice to terminate the international air agreement on 25th June, 1947; a curious follow-up of the setting up of a Socialist and internationalist Government in Great Britain which, we were told, would internationally bring order into the air. Scotland expects little from the right hon. Gentleman. It expects little from a Government in which, for the first time in my memory, no Scotsman sits in the Cabinet. But it is entitled to a slightly better answer to some of the arguments that have been advanced from this side of the House and which, I believe, were advanced from all sides of the House when Scottish candidates were seeking election a year ago.
I defy any Scottish Member to deny that when questions arose as to Scottish aviation in the future he did not use words somewhat similar to those used by Lord Pethick-Lawrence which have been
quoted from this side of the House earlier in the Debate. We are anxious that a subsidiary should be set up, a subsidiary which we call an associate, using the word in Clause 14. No reason has been advanced why this should not be done— none whatever. The White Paper introduced by Lord Winster expressly provided that such a thing might happen. I will quote the words used by the noble Lord when introducing the White Paper:
It may well be found that additional corporations, or subsidiaries of these three corporations, are desirable.
So, obviously the Government did not regard the creation of another corporation, which we would have preferred, or a subsidiary, as we are now prepared to accept in order to get agreement, as wrecking the main purpose of the Bill. In another place no arguments of any value were advanced against this proposal, and we have had no real arguments here.
May I finally, for the Opposition, recapitulate what our arguments are? It is expressly provided in the Government's own White Paper that a corporation or subsidiary may be set up. There is no reason whatever why it should not pool aeroplanes as far as possible and certainly pool employees with the other corporations. There is no reason whatever why it should be an uneconomic business. It could be a 100 per cent. subsidiary formed under British European Airways Corporation and the stock could be owned by B.E.A.C. It would not compete in any way with other air routes. In another place the argument was advanced that the three corporations would not compete with each other because they would be functioning on different routes. Equally, the Scottish corporation would function on a different route. It would deal with internal air transport in Scotland—a very complicated and highly important business in that country of poor
communication—and also in airways in and out of Scotland to foreign countries, not, of course, between Scotland and England, but with Scandinavian countries and other places where there is a crying need for a direct air route. It would not compete in any way with any existing routes and it would be quite possible to have economic working. It would not lead to uneconomic competition with the other corporations.
We have been offered alternatives, the futility of which is obvious to the House. There is the alternative of a Scottish division with a very small personnel living in Scotland as an alternative to the resident board we have asked for. There is the alternative of an advisory council. Scotsmen, not limited to those who represent Scottish divisions in Parliament, have a lively memory of the Advisory Council for Scottish Industry and how their advice on this Bill has been completely disregarded. It is not necessary to tell us that having disregarded an earlier advisory council the Government are now going to listen to one set up under this Bill. We have had evidence in the last few weeks of the way in which His Majesty's Government are prepared to give all that they are asked for by the Government of Southern Ireland. We have seen the British Government accept a minority status in a corporation running between Southern Ireland and Great Britain. Scotland, on the other hand, has been cold shouldered and all her pleas have been ignored. I do not think that will be altogether lost on Scotland as a reward to her for all she did in the war.
|Division No. 274.]||AYES||[12.20 a.m|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Bing, G. H. C.||Callaghan, James|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Binns, J.||Champion. A. J.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Blenkinsop, A.||Clitherow, Dr. R.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Blyton, W. R.||Cobb, F. A.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Boardman, H.||Cooks, F. S.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Collick, P.|
|Austin, H. L.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)||Collins, V. J.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Comyns, Dr. L.|
|Baird, Capt. J.||Bramall, E. A.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Brook, D. (Halifax)||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)|
|Barton, C.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Crawtey, A.|
|Battley, J. R.||Brown, George (Belper)||Crossman, R. H. S.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Daggar, G.|
|Berry, H.||Burke, W. A.||Daines, P.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Levy, B. W.||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||McGhee, H. G.||Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Deer, G.||Mack, J. D.||Shurmer, P.|
|Delargy, Captain H. J.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Diamond, J.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dodds, N. N.||McLeavy, F.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Donevan, T.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Marquand, H. A.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Mayhew, C. P.||Stamford, W.|
|Farthing, W. J.||Messer, F.||Steele, T.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||M'ddleton, Mrs. L.||Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Folick, M.||Mikardo, Ian||Stokes, R. R.|
|Forman, J. C.||Mitchison, Maj. G. R.||Strauss. G. R. (Lamboth, N.)|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Monslow, W.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Swingler, S.|
|Gibbins, J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)||Symonds, Maj. A. L.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Murray, J. D.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Gilzean, A.||Nally, W.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Grierson, E.||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||O'Brien, T.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Oldfield, W. H.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Gunter, Capt, R. J.||Oliver, G. H.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Guy, W. H.||Orbach, M.||Usborne, Henry|
|Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Paget, R. T.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Hale, Leslie||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Walkden, E.|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Pargiter, G. A.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Harrison, J.||Parker, J.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Haworth, J.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Weitzman, D.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Pearson, A.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Holman, P.||Perrins, W.||West, D. G.|
|Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hoy, J.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Price, M. Philips||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Pritt, D. N.||Wigg, Colonel G. E.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Proctor, W. T.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Wilkes, L.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Randall, H. E.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Irving, W. J.||Ranger, J.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Janner, B.||Rankin, J.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Willis, E.|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Rhodes, H.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Wilson, J. H.|
|Kenyon, C.||Robens, A.||Wise, Major. F. J.|
|King, E. M.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Woods, G. S.|
|Kinley, J.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Wyatt, Maj. W.|
|Kirby, B. V.||Royle, C.||Yates, V. F.|
|Lang, G.||Sargood, R.|
|Layers, S.||Scollan, T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Duthie, W. S.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.|
|Birch, Nigel||Eccles, D. M.||Hurd, A.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Fletcher W. (Bury)||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.||Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Jeffreys, General Sir G.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Gage, C.||Kendall, W. D.|
|Carson, E.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Langford-Holt, J.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Haughton, S. G.||[...] Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)|
|Darling, Sir. W. Y.||Hollis, M. C.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)||Hope, Lord J.||Low, Brig. A. R. W.|
|Drayson, Capt. G. B.||Howard, Hon. A.||Lucas, Major Sir J.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.||Pete, Brig. C. H. M.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|McCallum, Maj. D.||Pitman, I. J.||Touche, G. C.|
|McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.||Turton, R. H.|
|Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Raikes, H. V.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)||Ramsay, Maj. S.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Mariningham-Buller, R. E.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Scott, Lord W||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Marsden, Capt. A.||Snadden, W. M.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Spearman, ACM.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Mellor, Sir J||Spence, H. R.||York, C.|
|Molson, A. H. E.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)||Sir Arthur Young and|
|Nield, B. (Chester)||Studholme, H. G.||Mr. Drewe.|
|Division No. 275.]||AYES||[12.30 a.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Forman, J. C.||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Messer, F.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Middleton, Mrs. L.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Gibbins, J.||Mitchison, Maj G. R.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Gibson, C. W.||Monslow, W.|
|Austin, H. L.||Gilzean, A.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)|
|Baird, Capt. J.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)|
|Barstow, P G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Murray, J. D.|
|Barton, C.||Grierson, E.||Neal, H. (Claycross)|
|Battley, J. R.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Berry, H.||Gunter, Capt. R. J.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Guy, W. H.||Noel-Buxton, Lady|
|Binns, J.||Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||O'Brien, T.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hale, Leslie||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Boardman, H.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Orbach, M.|
|Paget, R. T.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Harrison, J.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)||Haworth, J.||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Herbison, Miss M.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Parker, J.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Hobson, C. R.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Pearson, A.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hoy, J.||Peart, Capt. T. F.|
|Callaghan, James||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Perrins, W.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.|
|Clitherow, Dr. R.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Cobb, F. A.||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Price, M. Philips|
|Cocks , F. S.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Collick, P.||Irving, W. J.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Collins, V. J.||Janner, B.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)||Randall, H. E.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Ranger, J.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Rankin, J.|
|Cawley, A.||Kendall, W. D.||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Kenyon, C.||Rhodes, H.|
|Daggar, G.||King, E. M.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M|
|Daines, P.||Kinley, J.||Robens, A.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Kirby, B. V.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshirs)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lang, G.||Roberts W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lavers, S.||Royle, C.|
|Deer, G.||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Sargood, R.|
|Delargy, Captain H. J.||Levy, B. W.||Scollan, T.|
|Diamond, J.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.|
|Dodds, N. N.||McGhee, H. G.||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.|
|Donovan, T.||Mack, J D.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mckay, J. (Wallsend)||Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)||Shurmer, P.|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||McLeavy, F.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Simmons, C J.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Mann, Mrs J.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Farthing, W. J.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Margeand H. A.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Follick, M.||Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Snow, Capt. J. W|
|Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C.A.B.|
|Sparks, J. A.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.||Wilkes, L.|
|Steele, T.||Usborne, Henry||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)||Vernon, Maj. W F.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Stokes, R. R.||Walkden, E.||Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)|
|Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)||Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)||Willis, E.|
|Stubbs, A. E.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)||Wills, Mrs. E. A|
|Summerskill, Dr. Edith||Warbey, W. N.||Wilson, J. H.|
|Swingler, S.||Watkins, T. E.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Symonds, Maj. A. L.||Weitzman, D.||Woods, G. S.|
|Taylor, H. B. (Hansfield)||Wells, P, L. (Faversham)||Wyatt, Maj. W.|
|Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)||Yates, V. F.|
|Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)||West, D. G.|
|Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|
|Thomas, John R. (Dover)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.||Mr. Collindridge.|
|Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)||Wigg, Colonel G. E.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hope, Lord J||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Birch, Nigel||Howard, Hon. A.||Nield, B. (Chester)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. W.||Hurd, A.||Pete, Brig. C. H. M|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O|
|Carson, E.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Raikes, H. V|
|Clarke, Col. R. S||Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Rayner, Brig, R.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lambert, Hon. G.||Scott, Lord W.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.||Langford-Holt, J.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spence, H. R.|
|Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W||Lindsay, M (Solihull)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Drayson, Capt G. B.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Low, Brig. A. R. W.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Fletcher W. (Bury)||MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.||Touche, G. C.|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||McCallum, Maj. D.||Turton, R. H.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gage, C.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Haughton, S. G.||Marsden, Capt. A.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Ma-shall, D. (Bodmin)||York, C.|
|Hogg, Hon. Q.||Meller, Sir J|
|Hollis, M. C.||Molson, A. H. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Drewe|
Question put, and agreed to.