Lords Sitting of 3 June 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chaworth (E. Meath)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TEES (NEWPORT) BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON BUILDING BILL. {H.L.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL (BURSLEDON BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you would allow me to ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House a question about business. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships to adjourn to-morrow for the Whitsuntide Recess. I would like to ask the further question When the noble and learned Lord expects us to reassemble, and, lastly, on what day he proposes to take the decisions of the House of Commons upon the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I propose that we should adjourn tomorrow. We shall not be able to meet in the morning because the Cabinet meets on Wednesday, but I am told that there is no reason why we should not meet at three o'clock. There will be very little business I think beyond the adjournment. There is one other matter and also there will be a Royal Commission. I say three o'clock for the time of meeting in order that those noble Lords who are going away may have an opportunity of getting away as early as possible. I hope that will be to the general convenience. We return on Tuesday, June 17, that is the Tuesday after Whitsun week. My own view was that we should that day take the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill, but, of course, if the noble Marquess has any reason for thinking that that would not be convenient, I should give great weight to his opinion. In all these matters, I desire and we desire to meet the general convenience of your Lordships' House. If it is thought that for the general convenience some other date would be preferable, it is not for me to object to that, but my own view would be to take the next stage of the Coal Mines Bill on Tuesday, June 17.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having given us the in-
1322
formation he has given. So far as my knowledge goes, there is no reason why the suggestion he has made with regard to the adjournment to-morrow should not be carried through. Neither would I suggest to your Lordships that June 17 is an undue day upon which to ask us to reassemble after the Whitsuntide Recess. I am afraid, however, that June 17, which the noble and learned Lord suggested, will not be at all a convenient day for us to consider the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Coal Mines Bill. The Bill is of very great importance and, judging from a report which I read this morning of a speech by the President of the Board of Trade, it is likely that questions of great difficulty and importance will be raised on the further stages of that Bill. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that June 24 would be a better day. That would give a week after the reassembling of your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret to hear the views of the noble Marquess as to the day on Which the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Coal Mines Bill should be taken, but if he tells me that after consultation with those with whom he does consult, and after ascertaining the feeling of the House on his side, he thinks that June 24 is the right day, I am very unwilling to take any objection to the day which he tells me in his view will suit the general convenience of the House. I do not know Whether the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has any views on the subject.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is good enough to consult me, may I say it is entirely a matter of indifference to me? I am prepared to come any day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that after what the noble Earl has said it may be taken that it would be for the general convenience of the great number of your Lordships that the Bill should not be taken earlier than Tuesday, June 24.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps, as I am not myself immediately concerned with the Bill, I may ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to tell your Lordships whether, from his point of

1323
view, June 24 will not be too late. If that is his view, I will assent to the noble Marquess's suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, may I say that June 24 will suit me?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, may I remind the noble and learned Lord who leads the House that when, about a fortnight ago, I at his request postponed my Question, he chose the day on which I should put it down again, and he promised me to tell the Clerks at the Table that no Government business should be put in front of that Question? I see that Government business has been put in front of it. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest that any blame attaches to the Clerks at the Table, who have to take instructions from the Government. I presume a mistake has arisen, but I would point out to the noble and learned Lord that bargains made in this House should be observed. It is no use making bargains and agreements if afterwards a bargain or an agreement is broken.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord and no one regrets more than I do that anything has been put in front of his Question. He is perfectly correct. I told him that if he postponed his Motion to this date it would come first. I can only say that I am not responsible, and that I regret that any Bill has been put down before it. I thought I had made arrangements that the day should be left quite free. I do not want to say more, but I am told that the Government business which has been put down will not take long. I apologise quite sincerely to the noble Lord because the promise I made him has not been kept, but I assure him it has not been my fault.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I can only say with regard to the Land Drainage Bill, that I put it down without being aware of the understanding to which the noble Lord has referred. I put it down to suit the convenience of your Lordships' House. I am quite in the hands of your Lordships, but I understood that it would suit the convenience of the House, owing to some engagements on the part of some of your Lordships for
1324
to-morrow, that we should take the Bill to-day. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can only say, as I was one of the few members of your Lordships' House who were present at the conclusion of the proceedings yesterday, that it was the act of the Under-Secretary of State for War, acting of course on his own responsibility, to put the Bill down, and nobody else was responsible except the noble Earl. I did suggest to him that it was not a very wise course, but he took a different view. No doubt, having great experience, he thought that it was wiser to act in a different way. I left it in his hands.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FYLDE WATER BOARD, OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, unfortunately I was not in the House yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition agreed to the Third Reading of this Bill being taken to-day. If I had been able to be present—and the noble Marquess knows why I was unable—I should certainly have protested against a Bill of this magnitude, which has been so much amended on Report, being put down for Third Reading without your Lordships having had an opportunity of seeing the amended Bill. It was not available until we came down to-day and was not circulated in the usual way. This is a Bill of great magnitude which affects local authorities very considerably. I have been asked, on behalf of the County Councils Association of which I am the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, to protest most strongly against the action of His Majesty's Government

1325
in taking the Third Reading without allowing us an opportunity of seeing the Bill as it was amended on Report. That seems to me to be a procedure which is hardly conducive to the dignity of this House. We have had no opportunity of considering the Bill in its new form or of consulting our advisers outside.
I had been given to understand that the idea was that there should be a full dress debate on the Third Reading and that, if the Government were not prepared to give some better assurances than they have already given as regards the effect of taxation falling upon the local rates, this Bill might not be allowed to go through your Lordships' House. At any rate a very strong protest has been made, and the County Councils Association is very strongly represented in this House. The association feels very strongly on this matter, and only last Wednesday their agricultural committee passed a very strong resolution which was confirmed by their executive. Let me just read to your Lordships the terms of that resolution. It was resolved:—
"That, as regards finance, the sub-committee are not prepared to depart from the position taken up by the agricultural advisory sub-committee, and they cannot, therefore, accept the clause proposed by the Government. Further, the sub-committee desire to make it clear that their demand for a grant of at least 50 per cent, of the total expenses of catchment boards is without prejudice to the right of the county councils to receive such higher grants as are now or may hereafter be payable in respect of certain land drainage schemes."
I understand that this resolution was passed practically unanimously by the executive of the County Councils Association.
There is a further point on which, I understand, there has been a great deal of discussion. Owing to illness I was not able to be here on the previous stages of the Bill. The point concerns the proposed grants. Does the Government intend to give any grants in respect of administration and maintenance, which may be very serious items indeed? I may remind your Lordships that in 1928–9 the Ouse Drainage Board spent £13,491 in administration and £24,194 in maintenance, showing that this involves a very heavy expenditure, which would fall entirely upon the county council. Those
1326
of us who are members of county councils know that there is very strong feeling regarding the way in which rates have been going up lately, and we are not at all inclined to have any further expenditure put upon us. Yesterday the noble Earl said in effect that the whole of this question was going to be left vague, and that in some cases the Government were going to give more than 50 per cent. I suppose he thought that there were so many rich county councils that the statement was justified. I do not know whether his own county council is a rich one, but I understand that it is not. We find it a very heavy burden when we have a county rate of 10s. in the £ instead of 5s. I am told that in some counties the rate has actually gone up to 14s. in the £ I think there are very few rich counties, and that all the counties will want at least 50 per cent., and some of there more.
With regard to the question of unemployment, we want to know whether the percentages are going to be greater than 50 per cent. in relation to unemployment. At the moment it is not at all clear what the Government means to do in another place. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, I can say that we felt that we ought to have an opportunity, after the Bill had been so much altered on Report, for further consideration of the matter, and we wanted seine declaration on the part of the Government as to what they mean to do regarding the financial clause. Evidently that is not the view taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps, with this new shuffle, we may have a Minister of Agriculture in this House, for the present Minister is to be a member of this House. We know that the noble Earl opposite does very well and understands the Bill thoroughly, but of course he is not able, as Under-Secretary of State for War, to give the assurances that a great Minister would be able to give to this House. The presence of a noble Lord representing the Ministry would make it much easier to carry through a Bill of this kind. I am asked by the County Councils Association to say, in consequence of the manner in which this Bill is being hurried through by the noble Earl—I know that he has the support of the noble Marquess, who can do exactly what he likes in this House—that when the Bill

1327
gets down to another place the County Councils Association will oppose it at every stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is entitled to some kind of reply from the noble Earl.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was going to reply, but I thought the noble Marquess intended to rise. I think a great number of the points have already been dealt with very fully on other stages and I will not venture to repeat things which have already been said. I am sure that we all regret very much the reasons for the noble Lord's absence from our debates up to now. We should very much have appreciated his advice and assistance on this Bill at an earlier stage, if he had been able to attend. The noble Lord has referred to the number of Amendments that were passed yesterday. Not a single one of those Amendments was on a new point, and every single one was passed with the full agreement of the House.
LORD GAINFORD: May I remind the noble Earl that a new provision giving power to exact tolls for navigation purposes was pressed, and was not passed?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that particular point was not included in the Bill, but every insertion made in the Bill was made with the full agreement of the House, excepting one or two Amendments which were inserted at the instance of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House against the desire of the Government. The only other point mentioned was the question of the County Councils Association. Perhaps the noble Lord, who has been unfortunately absent from our debates, has been able to be present lately at the discussions of the County Councils Association, but I rather got the impression that he was not up-to-date in his knowledge of what the County Councils Association are thinking about. I am given to understand, quite definitely, that we are in full agreement on every point in this Bill with the County Councils Association, excepting on the question of rating and the financial clause, which will, as the noble Lord said quite rightly, have to receive very full discussion in another place. I do not know whether the noble Lord is actually making any proposal, but I have endeavoured to deal
1328
with the points he has raised, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading. There is only one further point. I quite realise that in the last two stages of the Bill we have rather tried to hurry matters, but on another occasion I read out the course of this Bill and showed the tremendous amount of time which we wasted on this Bill in its earlier stages.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Not wasted, devoted to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: Whether it was wasted is a matter of opinion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the first place I would like to say, as the noble Earl has said, how very glad we are to see Lord Strachie once more amongst us and taking part in our debates. I listened to him with attention, and the only criticism which I venture to make upon his speech is that he attributed to me far greater influence and power than I possess. I deprecate very much that point of view. We are placed in a rather difficult position by the action of the Government on this Bill, in the manner in which I will describe. Let me first of all say that in every other respect except the matter of fixing the time for taking this Bill we have been treated very well indeed by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have sat through the very long discussions upon a subject which is not very thrilling, and I am bound to say that I have never heard a Bill conducted with greater consideration than has been shown by the noble Earl.
That is what makes me inclined to take a rather lenient view of the actual proceedings this afternoon. The noble Earl said that the Bill dawdled a good deal in its earlier stages. I have here the facts in that respect, and I do not propose to trouble you with them, but a good deal of the reason for the delay was want of full admission by the Government, or rather announcement by the Government, of their intentions in regard to the money which was to be supplied by the Treasury. There was also a White Paper which it was necessary to circulate, and which the Government had not circulated. Those were matters in which it was the fault of the Government, and not the fault of your Lordships, that there was delay. Then the Bill got

1329
into Committee. It was a laborious process, and there was a large number of Amendments. I will not say that the House was unanimous, as the noble Earl rather suggested, about the Amendments. That was not quite the case, but I think that on the greater number of matters on which your Lordships took a strong view the Government gave way. Perhaps I might say that they had no other course open to them than to give way, but they did give way and did it in very pleasing language.
So the Bill, in so far as major portions are concerned, is largely modified in the direction which your Lordships thought fit. I will not say that the Government went the whole way, but the result is in the nature of a compromise. Then, finally, came the question of the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Earl has always been very sanguine as to the time it would take to make the necessary arrangements between the stages of the Bill. He tried to take the Report stage too soon, and found it was necessary to adjourn and take a few more days before the Report stage. He thought he was ready, but oddly enough, taking advantage of the extra time, a whole row of Government Amendments appeared on the Paper. It was no surprise to me. I was too familiar with the process of getting Bills through to be in the least surprised at the misfortunes of the noble Earl. We have now come to the last stages of the Bill. I begged him to put it off to the last possible day before the Recess, that is to-morrow. He would not do that, and consequently the Bill is now before your Lordships.
What course ought we to take? I confess that after the great courtesy of the noble Earl and the great success of the Opposition in many of their Amendments, I feel very reluctant to refuse him his Third Reading before Whitsuntide, because in those valuable conversations which take place in other parts of your Lordships' House than this Chamber there was a sort of understanding that the Bill should get through before Whitsuntide if it could possibly be managed; and, therefore, I should be reluctant to prevent it. But I hope he will not think me too patronising if I ask him to let the Opposition, on another occasion when they are well disposed, advise him as to how many days the thing really takes, and to profit by their advice.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not quite understand that. Of course, we are always grateful to the noble Marquess for his advice, but does he think that we can take the Third Reading now?—because that is the one point. I hope it will be taken now; it was put down for to-day. But that entirely depends on the attitude of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The understanding I referred to was that the Bill should get through before the Whitsuntide Recess; but, as regards that, I do not wish to pronounce any opinion between to-day and to-morrow. I do not think it matters much.
LORD PARMOOR: You think the Third Reading really may be taken now?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is really for your Lordships' House.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the Government draftsman has had time to look through the very numerous Amendments made yesterday and to consider whether they will not necessitate some further Amendments after the Third Reading. I have looked through the Bill in the few minutes allotted to us since it was published, and I find some undoubted cases where there ought to be Amendments. I do not think they are of great importance, but they are proper verbal Amendments.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can assure your Lordships that the Government draftsman has been through the Bill, and is satisfied with its state.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Extent and short title.
78.—(1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."

1331
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is only a matter of form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 78, after subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT AND THE PRESS.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in moving the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill on December 2, 1920, the then Attorney-General stated that it did not deal with the Press; whether the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action against the Press; whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, and whether that information was obtained from or through indiscreet persons; and to move for Papers.
I do not wish to impute any blame to the police in this matter; they were only acting under instructions. Neither do I wish to suggest that, when an offence has been committed and the police are informed of that fact, the police should not take steps to ascertain from people who, they think, have same information upon the matter, whether or not they can give evidence on the question. But, of course, they should do it under the ordinary law and in the ordinary way. In this particular case they took action by the direction, I think, of the Prime Minister, who communicated with the Attorney-General, who then gave instructions to the police. They took action under the Official Secrets Act, 1920, which is an Act which gives special power of a very drastic nature to the police.
When this Bill was before the House of Commons in 1920 some remarks were made by the then Attorney-General, Sir Gordon Hewart. I need not say that he is a man whom we all know, and whom we all believe to be a man of exceptionally brilliant powers and qualities. He is certainly a very fine speaker. He said this:—
"May I add one word more upon a particular kind of objection which, oddly enough, has sometimes been taken to this
1332
Bill? It is said that this Bill deals with the Press. That seems to me to be an astonishing statement, and it is very strange that persons connected with the Press should say that this Bill deals with them."
Well, the persons connected with the Press seem to have had more of the gift of prophecy than Sir Gordon Hewart. He went on:—
"How can it possibly be said that it is the function of a journalist to retain for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State an official document that he has no right to retain, or which it is contrary to his duty to retain? So far from asserting that that is something aimed at journalists, I should have thought that the first comment of a journalist reading that provision would be this: 'Whoever may be the persons referred to, they are certainly not journalists.' It is proposed to put in the Bill, as I understand at the suggestion of some gentlemen connected with the Press, certain words in Clause 1 (c). There the Bill refers to forging, altering, or tampering with any passport or any naval, military, Air Force, police or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document'. It is said that that is too general, and it is desired that the words 'of a similar character' should be inserted. I am going to propose that in Committee, but may I pause to say this, that the criticism directed against those words seems to me entirely to ignore the fact that the governing words are, 'if any person for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place' does these things, and that part of the Bill is not aimed at the alteration of a document as such. It is aimed at the alteration of a document of a certain kind for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. Again, I should have thought with great respect, that that is a class of document and a kind of purpose with which the Press of this country has nothing, and will never have anything to do."
Those words were inserted during the Committee stage or the Report stage—I forget which—but, as the then Attorney-General said, they had very little effect on the question as to whether or not the Press is affected; as he wound up by saying:
"this is a class of document and a kind of purpose with which the Press of this country has nothing, and will never have anything to do."
I think we ought to learn a lesson from that. When noble Lords bring in Bills, and when we are told that it is not necessary to insert an Amendment because it is quite absurd to suppose that anything covered by the Amendment will ever be dealt with under the Bill, I

1333
think we must remember that, and have all these things put into the Bill, so as to make it quite clear that certain things shall not be done. It is no use trusting to the words of hon. and learned gentlemen or of noble and learned Lords that such-and-such things will not take place. New people come and old people go; the undertakings given in a speech in the House of Commons or in this place are forgotten.
The result is what we see—that powers which were never contemplated by the introducers of the Bill which became the Official Secrets Act of 1920 have been exercised against the Press. When this ease was brought forward in another place the present Attorney-General stated that the powers were very drastic. He said:—
"The House will observe that this offence differs fundamentally from an ordinary charge "—
and so on. Then he went on to say:—
"This drastic power should, in my view, be used sparingly and only where serious issues are involved. On Thursday, 1st May, there appeared in three newspapers statements to the effect that Gandhi's immediate arrest had been decided on. The Prime Minister informed me that he took the view that … this was a gravely serious publication "—
and that there must have been some leakage of confidential information, either in India or here. He then went on to say what steps were taken, and pointed out that three editors were seen and, finally, that the correspondent of one newspaper was seen. He was interviewed at his private house.
The Attorney-General then continued:
"The House would not desire me to make any statement as to the extent or nature of the information I have received, nor would it be proper to do so."
Why not? Here is an offence which is supposed to have been committed. Here are drastic powers which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said ought only to be used under very exceptional circumstances. Yet when those powers had been exercised we are not told what the result has been, whether there was any foundation for exercising them, and whether anybody is going to be proceeded against for the offence which undoubtedly was committed because information in some kind of way did leak out. It has been said that some person was indiscreet or was not so discreet as he might have
1334
been, and I think in the debate the name of the Home Secretary was mentioned. Whether the Home Secretary was discreet or indiscreet, I think we ought to have some explanation as to what really took place, why the police were instructed to exercise these extraordinary powers and, when they had exercised them, what they found out, and whether or not they are going to take action in the matter. The question of the liberty of the Press is a very important one, and I do not think that drastic powers which were granted to the Government under certain conditions should be used in contravention and contradiction of the understanding arrived at when those powers were granted. I beg to move.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I certainly find no fault with the noble Lord for bringing this matter forward, and I should like to assure him again that I regret that the undertaking given about the arrangement of to-day's business was not fully kept to. It was no fault of mine and, as you see, his speech has not been long delayed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord was acting without knowing. I do not impute any motive.
Loan PARMOOR: A full explanation of this matter has already been given, I think, in another place by the Attorney-General and before replying to the specific matters to which the noble Lord has referred, I am sure he is aware that the putting into force of the powers of the Act of 1920 to which he has referred, founded on the Act of 1911, is a matter wholly within the responsibility of the Attorney-General and that in reference to those questions he acts really in a quasi-judicial character. The responsibility rests on him and on no one else. That I think was fully explained by the Attorney-General in another place and there can be no question about it.
There is one other point to which the noble Lord referred. I admit that I entirely agree with him and I am sure that every legal authority would. After an Act has been passed, on the question as to what it means, how it should he interpreted and how it should be used we are guided by the words of the Act itself and not by statements made by either one side or the other at the time

1335
the Bill was before your Lordships' House or another place. In addition to that, the Attorney-General explained, and I might add one or two words to the explanation, that in moving the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill on December 2, 1920, the then Attorney General did not state that it did not deal with the Press. I forget whether the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, was at that time a member of your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No.
LORD PARMOOR: The Bill was originally introduced in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who was in charge of the Bill. The question was raised whether and to what extent it did or did not affect the Press. The Press on that occasion was represented by two noble Lords well able to look after the interests of the Press—the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Riddell. After discussion the consideration of the Bill was adjourned in order to allow of discussion and an arrangement was made. The result of the arrangement was—the noble Lord has the Bill before him—that in subsection (2) of Clause 1 these words were inserted in order to safeguard the position of the Press:
"for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State …"
I dare say the noble Lord will see those words in Clause 1 (2). When those words were accepted no objections were raised on behalf of the Press, nor was Clause 6, as far as I can find, ever under discussion in any form in your Lordships' House at all.
Let me refer to what was said by the then Attorney-General, now Lord Hewart. I think it is quite clear that the only matter he was referring to when he used the somewhat general language, no doubt, to which the noble Lord has referred, was the operation of subsection (2) of Section 1. He pointed out that the Press would not be affected, as no one would think that they would act for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord but may I say that what the then Attorney-General said was: "It is said that this Bill deals with the Press"—and not any particular portion of it.
LORD PARMOOR: It is always rather difficult to try to eliminate one phrase. If you look at what he was dealing with—I will read the words in a moment—it is clear that he was dealing, and dealing only, with subsection (2) of Clause 1. The words he used are as follows. I will read sufficient to show in what context he used the words to which the noble Lord has referred:—
"It is said that this Bill deals with the Press. That seems to me to be an astonishing statement, and it is very strange that persons connected with the Press should say that this Bill deals with them."
Why does he say that?
"How can it possibly be said that it is the function of a journalist to retain "—
these are the words which have been inserted so that it should not apply to the Press—
"for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State an official document that he has no right to retain, or which it is contrary to his duty to retain?"
I think it is quite clear that what he was referring to there was subsection (2) of Clause 1. By agreement, and after compromise in this House, the words "for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State" were included. It could not be said, so far as that subsection is concerned, that the Press were in any way interested.
Let me come to Clause 6, for it is only Clause 6 which is in question in the present matter. Clause 6, as was pointed out by the Attorney-General—I dare say your Lordships will not mind me reiterating what is practically his statement—is limited to the power of obtaining special information if there is ground for suspecting a breach of the Acts of 1911 and 1920. I recollect that when that clause was in this House I was one of the few Peers who then referred to it in the discussion. I certainly entirely agree with what the Attorney-General says, that this power ought to be used only in serious cases and not in any trivial case. The Attorney-General, in expressing that view, expressed the absolute truth in this case. It is not a trivial matter. It was a very serious matter. I think that was acknowledged on all sides. If I may use his own expression, he said that the power should be used sparingly and only where serious issues are involved. There is one other question that the noble Lord

1337
asked me in reference to that—namely, as regards the information on which the Attorney-General acted. The words of his Question are to ask whether the Government are aware of the statement made by the late Attorney-General, and whether the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action. He was aware of what had been stated by a former Attorney-General. It is quite clear that the statement has not the wide meaning which the noble Lord has attached to the words.
The noble Lord's Notice further states:—
"whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, and whether that information was obtained from or through indiscreet persons; and to move for Papers."
Certainly information of that kind cannot be disclosed, and ought not to be disclosed. If I may take the case of the particular journalist—I certainly will not mention his name, nor do I know him—he asked that the matter should be dealt with in as private a way as possible and without undue publicity. There is no mystery here. The Attorney-General has a responsibility. He receives information which makes him think it is his duty to put into operation Clause 6 in order to obtain certain information. He is satisfied, and he takes no further proceedings. No crime has been perpetrated by any one. The only question is one about disclosure. He got the disclosure which he wanted, and so the matter ended. Are we to re-open it on a plea which the noble Lord has brought forward? Are we to re-open matters which from every point of view ought to be treated as private, and which, if they were tested by publicity—there is no question of any offence having been committed—might really create extreme hardship against individuals? That is the very thing which ought not to be done, and in my view the Attorney-General was absolutely right when he refused to give any further information of that kind. He did state that the method of his inquiry was in accordance with the desires and wishes of the person who might have been implicated. No one was implicated, as a matter of fact, and it was at that person's desire that the method which was adopted in this particular case was adopted.
I am rather sorry about one other matter which I had hoped the noble Lord
1338
would not refer to. He brought in the name of a Minister in a very high position. I think, after the explanation of the Attorney-General, it was admitted on every hand in the other place that no blame of any kind or sort could be attached to that Minister in regard to this particular matter. I was glad when I read the Question on the Paper that no suggestion of that kind was made. It was completely answered elsewhere, with the assent, as I understand, of every one who heard the explanation given by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I sincerely hope that no further suggestion will be made in connection with the Minister. I think that I have answered the Question and there is nothing left to say, except this. The procedure under Clause 6 has been utilised several times since the Act of 1920 was passed. I dare say noble Lords opposite know better than any one else that it has been utilised in various cases. The expression used by the Attorney-General was "a very proper procedure." It is a useful procedure to use in a serious case, after great care and consideration. Fortunately for every one, it was not found necessary to go further, because the explanation he received was, in his opinion, satisfactory. I hope the matter will end there. I am certain that is where it ought to end in a case of this kind.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has answered my Questions, but not, as it seems to me, in a very satisfactory manner. The noble and learned Lord has shown, with the great command of language which he has, that when a former Attorney-General said that this Bill did not apply to the Press, he did not mean this Bill but he meant something else.
LORD PARMOOR: No. It is important that you should read it in the context where you find it. You will then find that it is perfectly clear he referred to subsection (2) of Clause 1, and not to Clause 6.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: When any ordinary person takes up a debate and sees that a person in the position of the Attorney-General states in plain and simple English that a Bill does not apply to the Press the natural inference is that the Bill does not apply

1339
to the Press. He does not know that the phrase "this Bill" must be understood to mean some particular section of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action against the Press. That seems to me to be a very extraordinary admission—that one Attorney-General should go directly contrary to the statement of a preceding Attorney-General. It only emphasises the fact that I alluded to a short time ago, that it is very necessary to put into every Bill that comes before us words that can be understood by the people, and cannot be interpreted by lawyers into meaning something which the ordinary person on reading them thinks they would not mean. Then the noble and learned Lord says, in answer to my Question whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, that he is not going to state it, that it would be quite wrong to do so. Why would it be wrong if an offence had been committed? This is not the day of the Star Chamber. When persons are tried for an offence to-day they are tried in open court and everyone knows what is going on. If there has been an offence, why on earth was not the person who committed the offence proceeded against?
LORD PARMOOR: I thought I had explained to the noble Lord that there was no offence.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If there was no offence, why on earth was action taken? There must have been some ground. It look to me as if the real facts were that some suspicion was aroused, and when those suspicions were found to be correct, it was thought advisable not to proceed any further. Being probably of a somewhat suspicious nature, I cannot conceive that anything else can be the case. I do not understand people in the position of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General taking this very drastic step, and then finding out that they had no reason to take it, and no business to take it. Have they apologised to the correspondent of the Press whom they questioned for three or four hours at his private house and threatened with imprisonment and all sorts of penalties? They ought to have apologised and they
1340
may have done so, but I should like to know if they have apologised. I must say I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble and learned Lord and the only hope I have that some good may arise out of this debate, and out of the debate in another place, is that these powers will not be taken advantage of in the future unless there is really some ground for taking advantage of them, and that they will not be used against the Press. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has anything further to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Motion?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I will not withdraw it, but I will not divide. I will have it negatived.
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.
The attention of the Committee having been called to an application by Mr. C. W. Maidment, principal doorkeeper, in respect of his age on retirement, it was decided that the age shown by his birth certificate should be accepted as the age applicable to the date of his retirement.
2. HOUSEKEEPER.
The Committee approved a payment of £40 in respect of furniture for the housekeeper's rooms.
3. JUDICIAL OFFICE.
The Committee sanctioned the continuation to Mr. V. M. R. Goodman, M.C., Clerk in the Judicial Office of a special allowance of £100 per annum, as from the 6th of March, 1930, consequent on the appointment of the present holder to the office of Clerk Assistant.
4. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Committee approved the following recommendations submitted by the subcommittee on the Refreshment Department:—

(i) That the contract with the present contractor should be renewed at the existing rate of subsidy;

(ii) That a circular should be issued to Peers, as on previous occasions, in connection with the maintenance of the Department.

5. CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND CLERK ASSISTANT.
A sub-committee was appointed to consider recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee of the 4th August, 1921, and to report thereon.
6. ESTIMATES.
The Estimates for the House of Lords Offices for the year ending 31st March, 1931, were laid before the Committee and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE rose to ask His Majesty s Government whether the route of the Indian air mail has now been definitely settled; whether any improvements or extensions in respect to this service are contemplated, and if they can give any information regarding other new or projected British services overseas; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel I must ask for indulgence in asking this Question because I have no qualifications what ever to speak about the air except as a member of the ordinary public. I may perhaps be excused, however, because in the first place nobody else, at any rate for a considerable time, has asked any Question as far as I am aware on the important matter of civil aviation, and because, secondly, I know that the Air Ministry are anxious to enlighten, as far as they can, ordinary public opinion.
I think no one who has actually had experience of the Indian air mail can fail to be impressed by what our Imperial Airways Company has achieved in maintaining a regular service between Cairo and Karachi. Although they fly for the most part over great expanses of barren desert, where other means of communication are practically non-existent, and although they have to contend with dust storms and sandstorms and all kinds of temperatures and weather, nevertheless they have kept up this weekly service for over a year, which is not only very useful to people wishing to travel to or communicate with India, but is also valuable to our great commercial interests
1342
in Persia and Iraq. Indeed, I believe that a demand exists for a double service between Cairo and Baghdad. But the point I want to make is that if you compare what has been done in this middle part of the route between Egypt and India with what has been achieved at either end, I think one cannot help noticing a most disappointing contrast. Although a service was started across Europe, and I believe exists again to-day, it completely collapsed for five months last winter. In India, where we have such great interests and where for several months during the year travel by ordinary methods is very unpleasant and sometimes even dangerous, owing to the great heat, and where one may almost say a developed civil aviation might revolutionise the conditions under which our people live, no company, as far as I am aware, either British or Indian or foreign, has been able to do anything except over a short stretch of line between Karachi and Delhi.
I know the question of air finance and air subsidies is a very complicated and very thorny one, but, speaking quite broadly, the condition seems to be this. It seems to be worth our while to keep up a service between Egypt and India, and I understand that we are now proposing to start a new service from Cairo right down Africa to the Cape. If it is worth while keeping up a service for Persia and Iraq and Baluchistan and through Central Africa, it does not seem that either the technical shortcomings of aeroplanes or lack of money really stands in the way of our flying anywhere we want, provided the countries over which we fly are prepared to co-operate with us. I have been myself a passenger not only on the Indian air mail but also on the Nile section of the proposed African route, and I know that in Africa you have some of the wildest country in the world, with great swamps thousands of miles in extent to contend with, and a very scattered European population. I am sure that if we manage to maintain a service there, it will be something of a triumph for the Air Ministry, and I am sure many thousands of British subjects, scattered though they may be, will be grateful to the Ministry for their initiative and enterprise. But it will be a triumph that will not show us how to solve what seems to me to be the much more considerable difficulties that we

1343
appear to be experiencing in flying over countries which are not prepared to give us all the facilities we want.
Last December—I think it was in consequence of an accident—it was decided, I understand, to change the route that had been originally followed by Imperial Airways across Europe, and some new arrangement had to be made with Italy. I remember reading in the newspapers that the company had not been able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the Italian Government. I do not know what the difficulty was, and I do not ask the Minister to tell me—I am sure that the Italian Government were absolutely within their rights—but I want to draw attention to the fact that for five months in consequence our service across Europe ceased. It entirely collapsed. On the Asiatic side, we have never had this sort of interruption as far as I know. There has been no interruption of this sort, though an interruption has been threatened. I understand the Persian Government will not allow us to send more than one aeroplane a week in either direction across Persia, and will not give us sufficient security of tenure to enable our company to put up permanent buildings. That is probably the reason why, good though the aeroplanes are, the ground accommodation for passengers—I mean at the places where they have to spend the night—is really rather rudimentary.
I do not desire to exaggerate these matters. It is not a very serious matter if our passengers are not as comfortable as they might be just at present, and it is not even a very serious matter if for a few months they have to go as far as Athens by train. But I think anybody might wonder what is going to happen in the future, whether these are merely temporary set-backs or an indication of a growing tendency to restrict international flying. At any rate, now that we have a new service through Europe, I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether the contracts or agreements under which our company operates have been established on a basis of sufficient permanence to enable it to provide regular services the whole way to India and to justify the expenditure of money on putting up proper accommodation for passengers and, perhaps, even starting new features, such as night flying.
I do not believe that our business people will ever use the air as it is used in foreign countries unless they can really rely upon the companies keeping to certain routes and maintaining regular schedules. I notice that Germany has nearly 18,000 miles of regularly operated air routes, that France has 20,000 miles and America as much as 46,000 miles. I particularly noticed, in regard to America, that in 1929 they carried 3,427 tons of mails. I know that the words "regularly operated air route" are capable of very wide interpretation, but I think the figures are sufficient to show that aeroplanes are obviously becoming, if they are not already, an essential factor in competitive industry. Our Dominions and Colonies have just under 15,000 miles, but the only air link that we have with any part of our Empire is this Indian route, which covers, I believe, about 5,000 miles. I am only expressing that which I have been able to observe, but it seems to me that, whereas the services of other countries are largely internal services and can develop under stable conditions, our air service goes almost entirely over foreign countries and is entirely dependent upon their good will.
Some days ago your Lordships passed by a large majority a Resolution in favour of Imperial economic unity, and I suppose that, if this is ever to come to anything, the question of air communications will become more important than ever. That is really why I am anxious to know how far this vital and apparently very vulnerable link in our air communication is going to be safeguarded, whether by a general diplomatic convention common to a number of countries or by private contracts or agreements with the countries over which we fly, or whether it is the intention of those responsible to make modifications in the route to suit political conditions. Of course no one can expect the Minister to say anything that is likely to endanger the success of any negotiations that he may have in hand at the moment, but I think these questions rather force themselves on the attention of anybody who has been out to those places, and I for one should be very interested in anything which he has to say on the matter.
The second part of my Question deals with the future of British commercial aviation, and I feel that this is such an

1345
immense subject that I can do no better than to invite the Minister to tell us anything that is likely to be of interest. He might like to say something about this new African route or about the airship position, but the only specific question that I should really like to ask him concerns the immediate development in India. I must explain that I have no special knowledge of these matters, but I understand that the intention of the Government of India is that commercial aviation in India shall be developed by a kind of equivalent of our Imperial Airways. If that is so, can the Minister tell us anything about the intentions of this company in regard to linking up Bombay and Calcutta with Karachi? I know that India has been much in the limelight recently, but I understood from the debate a little time ago that the ordinary functions of government were not being seriously interfered with, and the advantages of these two extensions seem to me so obvious that one rather wonders that they have not already taken place. Apart from the advantages to India, it is obviously a link in our chain with Australia and also in the communications between the Dutch East Indian possessions and the French possessions in Indo-China.
I said at the beginning that I was not going to presume to offer any criticism, because I think that no one who is not an expert has any right to do so, but perhaps I might offer one suggestion which is so small that I do not think there is any harm in my making it. It has to do with publicity. While all these alterations are being made and new services are being started and others stopped, I think it would be of great advantage if the most up-to-date information could be made readily available to anybody who is interested, regarding not only our own services but also the services of foreign nations. I know that in Paris, London, Berlin and the great capitals it is easy enough to get such information, but I do not think it is easy to get information in the East. So far as I know, there are two timetables, one a French publication and the other issued by the Deutsche Luft Hausa, and although I know that it is not the business of the Ministry to distribute time-tables, I think it would be a great advantage if these publications, or something like them, could be made available
1346
at any of the centres served by our company. I think it would also be a great improvement if notices of alterations and the opening of new services could be given as soon as they occur and in whatever country they originate. It may be that the improvement of international flying information is very difficult to arrange but I do think it could be improved in those parts of the world and, as this seems a comparatively small matter, perhaps the Minister would consider it.
On the general question of publicity, it seems to me that the exploits of ladies such as the Duchess of Bedford and Miss Johnson, which everybody acknowledges to be very magnificent, tend to concentrate public opinion more and more on what can be done by aeroplanes and perhaps to obscure a little what actually is being done by the regular services that run every week. Of course we can look on these air companies as purely financial propositions in themselves and say that—for all I know this may be the case—our Imperial Airways service to India is running to full capacity already, and therefore it would be waste of money to spend anything extra on advertisement. If, in the opinion of those more qualified to judge than myself—and I think there are a good number of them—there are perhaps more intangible advantages both to commerce and administration to be derived from linking up British interests by air, I think perhaps one of the best ways of making sure about the future success of these companies would be to spread as far as possible the knowledge of what is being done at present. I know that Imperial Airways is a private company, and I know that the Minister has pointed out in another place that agreements which they make with foreign countries are really their own concern, but they are a monopoly company, which we subsidise, and everything which they do, it seems to me, is of the greatest importance to the public. I beg to move.
LORD TRENCHARD: My Lords, although I was not directly responsible in any way for civil aviation during my time at the Air Ministry, I have always been enormously interested in the subject of civil aviation, owing to its vital importance to this Empire, and not only to the question of the defence of this Empire. Before the noble Lord, the

1347
Secretary of State for Air, Lord Thomson, replies, I would just like to say one or two words as to the principles upon which I think civil aviation ought to be run. I cannot help feeling that a great number of people are continually asking: Does civil aviation pay? Does it pay 5 per cent, on the money invested? Is this altogether fair to civil aviation? Would it not be more far-seeing to look at civil aviation from the point of view of how much it is going to benefit the Empire as a whole, owing to its help in the direction of quicker communications? I think nobody will fail to admit that quicker communication between different parts of the Empire is becoming more and more a vital matter every year, and I would like to ask: What is civil aviation worth to the Empire? What is it worth to the political life of the Empire? What is it worth to the industrial life of the Empire? What is it worth on the administrative side? What is it worth to the defence of the Empire?
Can its value be put into figures? Perhaps not, but surely it touches a much wider field than is apparent at first sight. One can only say that in the years to come its value to the Empire will be very great. A system of rapid inter-communication between all parts of our Empire would mean an enormous speeding up of civilisation and industrial progress. It would mean that countries and districts which at present are only just beginning to be opened up would be quickened into life in a fraction of the time, if people could get to them quickly. Experts, men of great ideas and enterprise, hesitate to go from one part of the Empire to another if it means the wasting of weeks and months in travelling. They cannot afford the waste of time, but surely they would go if the means of communication were quickened, and that would help in the development of the Empire. Not only would empty spaces be filled, but places which are now being developed would quickly be improved enormously. Industry would be quickened, and by quickening industry greater markets would be available. As it was put in another place, communication with civilised centres means civilisation. This question has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, from a little different angle but it comes to the same
1348
thing, that civil aviation by quickening up communications is vital, and will become more vital.
The money necessary for civil aviation is not in my opinion in the nature of a subsidy to civil aviation until civil aviaton pays. Surely we should look upon it more in the nature of a payment for what I may call, for lack of a better name, "unforeseen benefits"—benefits that will certainly accrue from a thorough development of our communications. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is very keen to see civil aviation developed—nobody is keener—and therefore I am confident that he will not take my remarks as being in criticism of the present or any other methods. On the contrary, my only object is to ventilate the subject, so that it may perhaps be realised that there are benefits to accrue from the development of civil aviation which cannot be set forth in terms of a percentage on the money laid out.
With regard to the other point which Lord Gage raised, freedom of the Air, that is to say, liberty to all to fly anywhere, no matter what lies below them, I would like to point out that this question has been debated constantly ever since 1919, when the Air Convention was first signed. It is well known that a certain number of Powers chose to regard the provisions of the Air Convention as signifying the right of any one Power to fly over the land of any other Power on certain specified routes. A large number of Powers, however, took the opposite view, and maintained that freedom of the air was only conditional; that is, conditional on an agreement with the Power whose land was flown over. As far as I remember this point was again debated last year, or the year before, at a full meeting of the Air Convention, and I believe that twenty-seven nations voted against freedom of the air being absolute. In other words, if aeroplanes of one Power wished to fly over the land of another Power an agreement must first be made. That decision, made At a full meeting of the Air Convention, secures to each and every Power what I may call the "flying rights" over its own territories. Any Power can, of course, assign these "flying rights" to another Power, or to any flying concern, on Any terms they choose, but the fact remains that these "flying rights" exist, and to my

1349
mind, taking human nature for what it is, no other decision would have been practicable.
Freedom of the sea is possible because the sea does not pass over or under any nation's country. The air, on the contrary, does, and after all the air is as free as the sea for there are no limitations on the flying of any Power over any part of the sea. Where the sea is free for ships it is free for aircraft. To ask for absolute freedom of the air, therefore, is to ask for something very much greater, and far in excess of the freedom of the sea. We are peculiarly well situated outside of Europe with regard to the making of flying agreements with foreign Powers, should they wish to fly over our territories. Should we be justified in considering for one moment the jettisoning of a right which is a most valuable asset to the British Empire? I feel that we gain most by upholding the decision which was made last year or the year before by the vote of twenty-seven nations, and we have most to lose by overthrowing it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, for having raised this question. Civil aviation is a fertile field and needs constant weeding because of its fertility, and any one who, like himself, has taken the trouble—I will not say the risk—of flying over our air routes and expresses an opinion in this House will always be heard gladly, at least while I occupy my present position, and his suggestions, which are most constructive, will be most welcome. Civil aviation is quite one of the most important functions of the Air Ministry. Personally I put it second to none, and it is a question which cannot be ventilated too often and one on which too much information cannot be given.
The noble Viscount has put certain questions with regard to our air route to India and with regard to the permanence of arrangements which can be entered into on that route. I would like to remind him of a fact which he probably knows extremely well already—namely, that we are situated in rather a difficult position in this matter. We have our own small island with excellent railways, and roads which are really motor race tracks, and here we cannot develop
1350
civil aviation to quite the same extent that larger countries with less good communications can develop it. On the other hand, we have a far-flung Empire which we can only reach by crossing other people's territory, and to do so we have to enter into a variety of agreements with the Governments of those countries.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard has referred to that very delicate subject, the freedom of the air. It is rather a misleading phrase. Generally speaking, the freedom of the air is really a freedom to operate along certain air routes. We British have always held the view that any civilised State to-day will and should possess an international air route across its territory, and by freedom of the air we mean that any country, a member and a subscriber to the International Convention, would be able to fly along such an international air route in the territory of another member of that international body. That, unfortunately, is not quite the case. The whole dispute at the present time turns on the interpretation of Article 15 of the International Convention, and Article 15 no one quite understood.
I cannot help thinking it must have been drawn up by some great international jurist, because so little did any one understand it that various countries put up their own interpretations of this Article, and the interpretation put up by the French representative, now a member of the French Government, was this:—
"Every contracting State may make conditional on its prior authorisation the establishment of international airways and the creation and operation of regular international air navigation lines, with or without landing on its territory."
The words I would like to draw your attention to are, "may make conditional on its prior authorisation." That is to say, any country in Europe has, we will say, an air line, and other members of this international body are not allowed to use that air line freely: they can only do it on the prior authorisation of the State concerned. That interpretation was accepted by 27 votes to 4 on the international body. Twenty-seven countries voted for that very restricted interpretation of the freedom of the air, and four countries voted for a wider interpretation. Those four countries were Great Britain, the United States, Sweden and, I think, Holland or some other

1351
Scandinavian country. We were in the fortunate position of having voted for the wider interpretation, but were voted down.
My own policy ever since that date has been to adhere loyally to the majority's decision, but I would like to add that our representative on that body then and there moved an addition to the clause I have just read out, and the words he proposed to add were:—
"Such authorisation may be refused only on reasonable grounds."
That proposition was turned down by eighteen votes to eleven, but on this occasion the French Government voted with us. That is the position; and when the noble Viscount says to me: "What assurance can you give us of permanence of arrangement and regular travelling on the route to India, which inevitably must cross Europe?" I can only tell him that that permanence will entirely depend upon the local arrangements we make with each territory we pass over.
I may say this, that so far as Britain is concerned we have not the least difficulty in reaching agreement with the countries that the air line to India now passes over—not the least. France has always been most kind to us in this respect, and indeed it was only last summer that I was able to conclude a general agreement on a reciprocity basis with the Secretary of State for Air in France. All through now to the Balkans, to Salonika, and to Athens, we experience not the least difficulty in concluding arrangements on a reciprocity basis. The noble Viscount has referred to certain difficulties with Italy, and to the breakdown of our communications with Egypt in the latter part of last year, which he attributed to an accident. I need hardly say that I am not in a position to go into our difficulties with Italy, but from the point of view of the Government I can assure him that there has been no real friction of any sort, kind, or description, but a certain amount of rivalry between Imperial Airways, our company, and the company that operates the line for Italy. That was a rivalry largely of a trade character. And the difficulty in regard to it is that Italy stands out for the restricted interpretation of freedom of the air, and when we come to make a special arrangement with Italy it is rather difficult to find a basis of re-
1352
ciprocity because we have nothing to give Italy in return for the privileges we enjoy on Italian territory. We have offered them various facilities, but they really do not require those facilities. The consequence is that we shall have to continue to negotiate in the same friendly spirit with Italy as that in which we have conducted our negotiations in the past, and I have not the least doubt that in the end we shall come to a satisfactory arrangement.
But in the meantime the existing arrangement is by no means bad. It is now an established route across the Balkans to India, the Mid-European route, and that is functioning with the greatest regularity and, indeed, with remarkable punctuality. The route to India now passes from London to Cologne, Nuremberg, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, a place called Uskub in the Balkans, down to Salonika and, since April 15, the whole of that route has been by air. Without intermission the service has functioned really with remarkable precision. I do not deny that in the winter months, when there is snow on the Balkan mountains, that route may be dangerous on occasions and it may be necessary to resort to a train service over certain sections of it. The loss of time will not be great; but, of course, it would be preferable to have a through air service, as is being maintained at present with extremely satisfactory results.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the times taken. The route goes from London to Egypt entirely by air in three days; from London to Iraq, with one small rail journey from Alexandria to Heliopolis, in four days; from London to Karachi in seven days, sometimes in six and a-half days, and from London to Delhi in eight days. It is no mean performance when you come to think of the vast variety of territory that is passed over and the number of agreements that have to be entered into with all those countries. When you leave Europe you reach Arabia; when you leave Arabia you reach Persia. The noble Viscount complained, and I have no doubt he has some reason for so doing, of having possibly passed a very uncomfortable night at Jask or somewhere else, and of insufficient accommodation, and he asked me, I think, why

1353
we could not arrange for more permanent buildings there. I want to speak quite frankly. Our concession from the Persian Government expires, I think, in twenty-two months and until we are certain that we can renew it, it would not be worth while for the company to build permanent structures for the reception of passengers by the air route. I need hardly say that every effort is being made to persuade the Persian Government, or to come to some definite arrangement one way or the other with them. But in the hot season in Persia diplomatic deals go slowly. I hope we shall have a satisfactory solution of this matter some time about next October. As soon as that deal is settled one way or the other—we cannot press people, we can only make a fair offer, we can only offer to a Government like the Persian Government some advantages from this communication which should be obvious—when that deal has been concluded, at once the accommodation will be improved by the company.
The noble Viscount referred to possible extensions of our civil aviation system and I should like to refer very briefly to that. I would point out that at this present moment there are in the British Empire something like 22,350 miles of air route in regular operation. As a people we rather decry our own efforts and make little of our achievements, but I would like to point out to the House that that is the second largest mileage for air routes in the world. It is second only to the United States, which enjoys unique advantages in this respect from the extent of its territory. The British Empire has more miles of air route in regular operation than either Germany or France, and Germany, it must be remembered, is singularly favoured in a geographical sense. It is the sort of focal point of Europe on the highway to the wide spaces of Russia and, so to speak, the link between Europe and Asia. But in spite of those advantages, the British Empire has at this moment 22,350 miles of air route in regular operation, equipped, I think we may say without undue national pride, by some of the finest flying machines in the world and certainly piloted by some of the best pilots. It is a feature of travel on the Continent by air how every traveller of whatever race will always go in a British aero
1354
plane if he or she can. That, I believe, is largely due to the excellence of our pilots. But it is in some measure due to the ground organisation and the care that has been taken to eliminate all possible risks through faulty structure.
The extensions that we anticipate are twofold. One, through India to Australia. The exact date when that extension will be effected depends to a very large extent on the Australian Government, but I have hopes it will be at the end of next year. At the present moment discussions are going on with the Government of India regarding the route across India. The air mail is functioning as far as Delhi, Karachi to Delhi, by charter rates and not under the general system that we are all aiming at, of one overhead establishment, the great trunk route to Port Darwin and on to Australia under one management. I am afraid that ideal has not yet been achieved. Whether it will be achieved or not I cannot tell you for the moment; I am anyhow a little doubtful. The other extension that we contemplate is through Africa from Cairo to the Cape. That should be completed as far as the Great Lakes in Central Africa by the end of this year and to Capetown itself by the spring of 1931. I should like here and now to pay a tribute to the Government of South Africa, who have been most helpful in this matter and have practically agreed to their share of the subsidy. Those are the extensions that I think the noble Viscount asked me about.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord tell us how long it will take to go to Capetown by that route via Egypt?
LORD THOMSON: I am afraid I could not say exactly but I will have that looked up. I could give a guess but I would rather give an exact answer. It is a point that I have not looked up, but I will let the noble Viscount know. The question raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard in regard to subsidies is the next point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. I frankly confess that if I could have dictatorial powers in this matter for a short time I would endeavour to work along the lines he has suggested and plan Empire air routes, not so much from the point of view of whether they are paying propositions or not, whether they are commercial or not, but

1355
with a long view to the future and with the idea of really linking up the Empire both for communication and strategical purposes. I should like to do that, but it would cost a great deal of money. What has been done up to date is that with a view to securing contributions of a private nature and capital from private sources, subsidies have been given to companies to operate certain lines. In the end it has come to this that a monopoly of the subsidy has fallen into the hands of a given company.
That company in this case is Imperial Airways, and it is no good concealing the fact that a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed at this monopoly of subsidy given to one company. I do not myself quite like subsidies, and especially a monopoly of subsidies. I think it is wrong. In fact, I do not like subsidies paid out of public funds being used to pay dividends to private investors. I do not think it is right, but that system is one which I inherited, and, while I have expressed my personal point of view, in common justice to the arrangement that has been entered into, and to Imperial Airways, I have to say this, that it has been found necessary in every country that operates commercial air lines to follow our example. I would like to give you the case, for example, of the different European countries that are doing exactly the same thing as ourselves. In Germany one monopoly company, the Luft Hausa; in Holland, one monopoly company; in France, three monopoly companies, with special provision to avoid competition between them; Belgium, one monopoly company; Sweden, one monopoly company; in Italy it is proposed to merge the six existing companies into two monopoly companies, one for service over land and the other for service over seas; in Spain, one monopoly company.
Your Lordships may well ask: "Why is this?" I think the answer is that unless the Government assistance is concentrated on one company, if it is distributed among several, there is a very considerable danger that all those companies will go bankrupt. It sounds magnificent to have a lot of companies competing with one another, but the whole process of rationalisation—and this is in a sense rationalisation—is to eliminate competition as far as
1356
possible, and especially in an industry like civil aviation. So precarious are the commercial prospects of any aviation company at the moment that it is necessary, and has been proved necessary in all those cases I have quoted, to give one company, or a group of companies, a monopoly of the subsidy. Therefore, against my better judgment, I might say certainly against my predilections, I find myself the inheritor of a system, whose good points I feel it my duty to point out.
Now I would like to give your Lordships some figures with regard to our monopoly company, and the monopoly companies of two or three other countries, because here we do shine. I would like to point out, first, that I do not suppose any one with a responsibility for civil aviation would justify the granting of subsidies unless there was a fair prospect that in the end the company would be self-supporting. If I felt sure that civil aviation would never pay, would never be a commercial proposition, I think I would be more strongly opposed than I am to the granting of a subsidy at all. I would then be much more definitely determined to see to it that civil aviation was an affair of the State, for State running. But, though I can give you no really good reason, I do believe that, somehow or another in process of time, either by a reduction in the cost of running, or some new invention, we shall see commercial aviation on a self-supporting basis; but in the meantime I have had figures worked out so as to afford a fair basis of comparison between the value received for our subsidy and the value received in other countries, and these are the final figures.
In Germany, which is a very leading country in commercial aviation, 68 per cent. of the receipts of the Luft Hausa, the monopoly company, are represented by subsidy. When you travel as a passenger in a German aeroplane 68 per cent. of your ticket is being paid for by the taxpayers in Germany, or the ratepayers of some municipality. In France, 77 per cent. of the receipts are paid for out of public funds. France is actually spending nearly £1,600,000 a year on subsidies to civil aviation. I have been charged, not by any one in this House or any one in my own Department but by the Treasury, with being a little grasping in the matter, yet I have not reached

1357
£500,000. In Great Britain only 50 per cent. of the receipts of Imperial Airways are paid for out of subsidies-50 per cent. compared with 68 per cent. in Germany and 77 per cent. in France. I think that is a good showing, because to hear people talk about our civil aviation one would think it was a most wasteful, crazy concern. As a matter of fact, those figures are very convincing as regards the businesslike manner in which our monopoly company is managed.
There is another basis of comparison which I would like to give, and, indeed, it is more searching—the cost per ton mile of the machines. The cost per ton mile—that includes passengers, goods and mails—in France is 16 s. 9d. paid out of subsidy; in Germany it is Os. 4d.; in Britain it is only 6s. 9d. If you take our European routes, and they are the fairest comparison, because none of these other countries go quite so far afield or to the same extent afield as we do, it is only 3s. 4d. per ton mile on our European services. That is another tribute to the businesslike manner in which our civil aviation service is conducted. I have given your Lordships those figures with the special purpose of proving that the system, which I do not really like myself, thanks to the highly efficient method in which it is worked, should justify itself in the eyes of all business-minded people.
There is one other point which may interest the noble Viscount. He talked about extensions. We are now discussing, and I think we are seeing the light at last, the opening up of what are called Atlantic Airways in the Western Atlantic. I need hardly say that such a development call only be carried through in cooperation with the Canadian Government, but we are meeting with the most sympathetic response. A great deal of work in that connection has been done by the Consultative Committee which was set up last July, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of that Committee for the very excellent public service they have rendered. When I mention their names, you will realise haw busy these gentlemen are. One is Sir Alan Anderson, representing shipping. Another is Mr. Quirey, representing railways, and a third is Sir It. Nugent, representing the Federation of British Industries. The Members of Parliament are Sir William
1358
Brass from the Conservative Party, Sir Archibald Sinclair from the Liberal Party and Mr. Snell of my own Party—all very busy Members of Parliament, you will admit. The three gentlemen from business life are well known for their activities. In addition, we have Colonel O'Gorman, a well known authority on aeronautical science.
These gentlemen have made many reports. They are continually putting up reports to me which are of the greatest value, and I need hardly say, in view of the character of these gentlemen—as I warned them from the first—I have the very greatest difficulty in turning down any scheme they recommend. In fact, their recommendation would carry weight with any one. They have reported most sympathetically on this Atlantic Airways scheme, and I repeat that I am fairly confident now that we shall be able to do something of that kind. We shall then have established something on the far side of the Atlantic independent of the monopoly subsidy, something new, something which I trust may lead to the sale of British aircraft in South America and other parts of the world, something which will certainly develop and quicken our communications.
There has been a Bill introduced in another place called the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill, and I was amazed to find that many people thought that Bill meant that the Secretary of State had a Million pounds a year to play with for civil aviation. I wish it were so, my Lords. That Bill has been introduced merely with a view to giving the Secretary of State for the time being statutory authority to enter into longterm agreements. That statutory authority makes the agreements binding on succeeding Governments. We are continually entering into such agreements, as I have already indicated, and we shortly will be entering into another rather large one with regard to South Africa. The Bill is there, but I am afraid that the Air Ministry have got to go through the usual process before they can extract a single farthing out of the Treasury.
They have to go through negotiations with the Treasury first, every penny expended is shown in the Estimate, and the debate on the Estimate affords an opportunity for a thorough discussion of subsidy policy. So I can reassure your Lordships if you were afraid that in

1359
any sense of the word I had "got away with it," because I have not. There is really only a difference in form and not in substance. I would remind your Lordships that the sum of £1,000,000, which sounds rather large in view of the moderate Estimates this year, is not so large as appears at first sight. It includes contributions from the Dominions and Colonies. It is quite possible that the contributions from those sources may within the next few years amount to something like £370,000, so that with £400,000 odd we have already we are in the neighbourhood at once of £750,000. That leaves only £250,000 for developments, some of which are not yet even in sight. It also includes anything which may be done with regard to subsidising airship navigation.
I have answered nearly all the questions, but if your Lordships will allow me to inflict myself on you for a little longer, I would like to say a few words in conclusion on the subject of airships, because I am aware that there has been a great deal of disappointment in regard to the airship programme. I would like to remind your Lordships that the airship programme, which I had the honour to introduce in this House in 1924, was then described by me, not once but several times, as experimental and tentative. It was never claimed that we were going to build two commercial airships which would at once take the air as their native element, and fly to all parts of the globe. That was not so at all. If you will allow me to re-enumerate the stages of that programme, I think you will see that there is some justification for my remark. It was to begin with experiments and research, and then to go on with full scale flying with an old airship, reconditioned. There was then to be the construction of an experimental section. The fourth stage was meteorological investigation of the most searching character on the Indian route. The fifth stage was the provision of ground organisation, and the sixth stage was the building of two ships. The building of those two ships was only started three years ago.
Now many of your Lordships may wonder at the insignificant character of the results achieved. Well, I repeat it is an experiment and the final stages of that experiment will only be made this month in regard to one ship and in
1360
September in regard to the other. If there is any blame to be imputed in this matter, I would like to take it at once. This is one of the most scientific experiments that man has ever attempted, and there is going to be no risk, while I am in charge, of the thing being rushed or of any lives being sacrificed through lack of foresight. It is far too scientific and important a matter for that. I am grateful to the Press for the advertisement they have given to it, but as a matter of fact this scientific experiment really does not need advertisement. Sometimes undue publicity is a little inconvenient, as when people get the impression that you are building an airship which will take one hundred M.P.s all over the country. That was the greatest error of all my life. I was punished by weather. These are scientific experiments, and they will not cease to be experiments until these supreme tests of the airship have been completed.
One will take place at the end of this month to Canada, and the other to India in September. I regret extremely the disappointment that has been caused in Canada by the delay. Hopes were raised in Canada that early this month there would be the ship over Montreal where the Canadian Government, at their own expense, have built a mast. No one deplores more than I do their disappointment, but it cannot be helped. We are not going to send that ship while there is anything perceptibly wrong with her, and though what was wrong was of a very minor character, it is going to be put right before the ship goes. Until the test flights have been finished it is impossible to give an idea of what future airship policy is going to be. If the almost unthinkable happened and these ships failed on their final flights, there might be a strong movement towards scrapping of the programme. That would be heart-breaking. I cannot tell you what magnificent work has been done by the airship men. There are officers in that work to-day who have sacrificed promotion and many other advantages in order to get on with this great experiment. We have a body of enthusiasts at work there, and only the worst of luck could interfere with the success of the experiment. If we have bad lack I should have thought it was in the British character to stick to it still and triumph over temporary adversity.

1361
Supposing—and I think this is very likely to be the case—that these two final flights prove satisfactory, it may be urged that the construction should then proceed forthwith of a 7,500,000 cubic-ft. ship, as that would be about the size for a ship that would be a commercial proposition. Whether that ship would be constructed at Cardington by the Government constructors is an open question. It is certainly one of the policies open to the Government. The second policy is to invite the collaboration of the big shipping companies. If, for example, during the course of this year several flights take place over great distances and careful records are kept of the expenditure of fuel, the running costs, the risks to be avoided and the methods of navigation to be pursued, I have many good reasons to believe that the great shipping companies would be interested, and not only shipping companies at home but shipping companies on an international basis. I have always regarded airships as an international means of navigation. My object has been to make British ships the best and safest in the world, because I feel that we ought to take the lead in this matter, this being essentially an Empire problem.
The third course is the one that I think is most likely to be pursued in the event of our having a good record of achievement during the autumn of this year. This is a point which may interest some of your Lordships. You may well ask why it is that the "Graf Zeppelin" can go round the world and make enormous flights while our two ships spend their time mainly in their sheds. That is a very easy question to answer. The Germans have 30 years' experience of building airships. They ran commercial ships from Lake Constance before the War. I do not wish to decry the virtues of our own people, but in view of that experience I think it is only natural that we should accept the fact that there are very few Dr. Eckener's in this world. We have not had time to produce our Dr. Eckener—one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. They are not found in every generation.
Then again, though I wish to say nothing in depreciation of the "Graf Zeppelin" as a ship, I do not think you could compare it as a structure with R.101, or even R.100. We have started out on the design of these two ships on
1362
a basis of first principles. We have not copied any well-known model, but we have produced two ships that are the strongest in the world. One of Dr. Eckener's principal experts, after seeing R.101, said to me: "That is the safest conveyance on land or sea or in the air." He was enthusiastic about its qualities. During the construction of these two ships we have never attempted to secure a gain in lightness at the expense of solidity. We have produced two almost unbreakable ships in any foreseeable weather conditions, and providing they are properly navigated. There are improvements to be introduced into both of those ships which will considerably lighten their loads, but those improvements will be on the basis of "Safety first"—exactly on the same basis as that on which the ships were originally constructed. "Safety first" may not be a very paying proposition in regard to politics, but I am sure it is the right thing in regard to airships.
What have we achieved? We have those two ships, and we have a magnificent ground organisation and design staff. We have spent £2,300,000 odd on the whole programme. I read in the newspapers about a £1,000,000 ship. Those two ships put together only just cost £900,000. There is no £1,000,000 ship. The figures are certainly rather interesting. The cost of the two ships together was £894,000, research cost £305,000, and then we have a ground organisation which includes two of the largest sheds in the world, three mooring masts—one of the great developments due to British enterprise—and, last but not least, an immense amount of knowledge. Personally I believe the knowledge we have gained, which we could not have gained unless we had built the ships and had practical experience, is alone worth £2,300,000. There are various improvements in sight, and if we can only keep our design staff going I have not the least doubt that our experiment will have been amply justified.
There are three conditions of safety, as my advisers tell me, in airship navigation. The first is sound construction and first-rate material. Those, I think, we have. The second is good navigation and well-trained crews. Good navigation is necessary to avoid thunderstorms and electric discharges, and well-trained

1363
crews are as necessary on airships as, or even more necessary than, on any seagoing ship. It is amazing how the men are training in airship practice. They take to airships like a duck to water, I was going to say, or like an eaglet to the air. They seem to be at home in it at once. The third condition of safety in an airship is good meteorological information, communicated promptly and systematically, and that also is being attended to and, I think, is satisfactory.
The hour is late and the faithful few have listened to me with a patience for which I am indeed most grateful. I wanted to make a statement about this new experiment. I wanted, if I could, to reassure people as regards the progress that is being made and the success that we have achieved hitherto. I have always been an enthusiast in these matters. I take a special pride in the fact that I introduced this programme and I want to see it through to ultimate success. I can only add this, that in spite of many setbacks and some disappointments my faith is absolutely undimmed, and I am sure the people of this country will be right in continuing these experiments. They can continue them on the basis of research alone and they will find that their money has been well expended. It is unnecessary to point out what the airship may mean to our race and to our Empire. It is essentially a vehicle for going over wide ocean spaces. It is not much for going over land. It would link up our Empire in a way that, so far as I can see, no other means of transport can approach. It combines speed, safety and indeed amenities, because to travel in an airship is by far the most delightful form of travel that I personally have ever experienced. I hope I have answered the questions put to me sufficiently. The noble Viscount has moved for Papers. I do not know what Papers I could give him. I could give him an advertisement for the publicity of Imperial Airways future movements, but that he can secure for himself. If there are any Papers that I can, without disclosing confidential information, supply to him, I need hardly say that they shall be supplied.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord opposite
1364
I am enthusiastic in this matter. I think I was a member of the Civil Aviation Board at the Air Ministry before he became Secretary of State for Air, and I should like in a few words to congratulate my noble friend Viscount Gage for having brought this question forward and for having elicited the most interesting statements to which we have listened. I did not expect, being used in another place to Ministerial evasions, so clear and full a statement as has been given by the noble and gallant Lord. I am grateful to him and I am sure that the country will be equally grateful when it reads his statement to-morrow morning. Whether I should go so far as to join with him in the hope that he will be Minister for Air sufficiently long to see the fruition of these experiments I can hardly say, but at least I hope he will live to see the result of these experiments under some Government equally concerned with their development as he is himself. Perhaps it is only fair I should have made that remark, as a tit for tat for his remarks about "Safety first."
There are one or two points of importance to which I should like to refer. First of all, with regard to the Convention and the question raised by Lord Trenchard about the right of flying over any country in the world. Personally, I think, I should have been inclined to vote with the majority on the Air Convention. It might become in the future, when the air becomes as densely populated as many people think it will, desirable to allow free and unlimited flying over all countries. I should, on the other hand, have voted for the modification—namely, that the right of flying over air routes should not be unreasonably withheld. While that was not passed I think the noble and gallant Lord has given us sufficient information to show that most countries are reasonable, and that Great Britain is not finding any great difficulty in getting through the air routes connecting our country with outlying parts of the Empire. I should like, of course, to see the extension of air services made as rapidly as possible. I was struck by one point referred to by the noble and gallant Lord—namely, that Germany is the focal point of general air transport. I think he will agree with me that Egypt is the focal point of air transport for our Empire.

1365
There was one point not raised by the noble Lord, but which is of very great interest as confirming what he said with regard to the ability of our pilots and the excellence of our machines. He did not mention the new industry which has sprung up, that of surveying by aircraft. I believe one company has conducted air surveys during the last seven years, with fees amounting to £133,000. This survey from the air is an entirely modern invention. Eleven thousand square miles of our own territory on the Zambesi have been surveyed, 1,000 miles around Iraq and 2,000 miles in India, and quite recently, when I was travelling in Egypt and the Sudan, I found that a very large and important area was being surveyed by British machines—something like 20,000 miles over a part of the country which could not be surveyed by any other means.
LORD THOMSON: I might add that 90,000 miles of territory in Northern Rhodesia have been surveyed, and the work completed in two years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like to add one word of testimony to the bravery of the young men flying these machines through the Sudan. It is a very dangerous country, if any unforeseen accident occurred and the machine had to come down. All this work of surveying is being done by air, and it could not have been done five or six years ago. I may mention another point in confirmation of what was said by the noble and gallant Lord with reference to the excellence of our machines. I think it is on record that in the export of aircraft we beat all other countries in the world. During 1928 we exported 352 aircraft, as compared with America, the nearest other country, 102; and we exported 432 engines against 179 by America. All through the War we raced ahead in the desire to improve aeroplane engines, and last year we exported 1,148 aeroplane engines against 321 exported by America. The total value of aircraft and engines exported was over £2,000,000 sterling. That does show that under the fostering care of the Air Ministries of various Governments and the skill and ability of our aircraft constructors and engineers, we have got far ahead in this matter.
I do not like to criticise, and it is not by way of criticism that I say one word more in regard to subsidies. Like the
1366
noble Lord opposite, I confess I do not like subsidies. I should like to see some other companies, perhaps, taking a share of the great work. I can understand that in Germany, Italy or France, which are self-contained countries, it is perhaps desirable to have some sort of monopoly for air services, but we have no air services in England at all. We are either too small or our railways are too good. We have no air services in this country, say, from London to York, or from Manchester to London. All our air services are run to different parts of the Empire, and I should have thought that, allotting as we have done to the Imperial Airways our great route to India, it might be quite possible to institute, or permit the institution of, some other company to take air passengers to some other part of the world, say Africa. I only throw out that suggestion for the consideration of the Secretary of State himself. But even then he told us that Great Britain only spent last year in subsidies something like £465,000. Our own Dominion of Canada spent a great deal more—nearly £750,000 in subsidies; Australia £250,000; and India £178,000; while France spent nearly £1,600,000, Germany £500,000, Italy something over £500,000 and the United States of America, including their air mail subsidy—which, of course, the noble Lord will agree is a subsidy to the air services—well over £3,500,000.
Now, if your Lordships know anything about me, you will know that I am not an extravagant Minister. Having had the privilege of serving for some few months at the Treasury, I am all for the utmost economy. But I do want the noble Lord to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, said in regard to the benefits to be derived from subsidies. It is not merely the fact that we can carry a ton of food or a ton of passengers at a particular price. The benefit is in the enlargement of the communications of our Empire. I see the noble Lord is not inclined to disagree with me in that respect. I think he will agree that, with a far-flung Empire such as ours, we must depend upon communications. The greatest Empire before ours which the world ever knew, the Empire of Rome, was built up by road transport. Her communications were through that marvellous system of roads which was instituted by the Roman Empire. We had a hundred years ago the inception of

1367
the great railway system, and now we see the era of what I think will develop into an enormous system of air transport. I want this country to be well in advance of other countries, and I especially desire that the utmost effort should be made to link the Empire together by air transport. There are, of course, other methods of linking the Empire together, and I am not going to draw a red herring over the interesting debate we have had to-day by mentioning any other methods; but I am satisfied that one of the best possible efforts we could make to link the whole Empire together would be by an intensified development of the air services of this country.
I congratulate the noble Lord on the statement he made in regard to airships. Again, I am not going to criticise. Again, I feel that it would be foolish to break off the experiments before they have been thoroughly tried out; and I sincerely hope and trust that the experiments which have taken so many years to perfect will prove to be successful, and that we shall have airships second to none in the world. But these, on the other hand, cost a vast amount of money, and,
1368
compared to the ordinary aeroplane of commerce, they are a very expensive method of transport, and are bound to be for some years at all events. I do not know whether I could ask the noble Lord to plead with the Treasury, perhaps in the early future, for a larger grant for the development of civil aviation. It is not money thrown away. It will be money well spent, and particularly in the development and improvement and the closer building together of our Empire.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken for the information they have given, and I regret that your Lordships have not been in attendance in larger numbers to hear what has been said. No doubt in years to come the attendance at debates on civil aviation will be larger. I do not wish to press my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock till tomorrow, three o'clock.