Lords Sitting of 24 November 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

FIREARMS BILL. [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the provisions of the Firearms Acts, 1920 to 1936, relating to firearms, imitation firearms, and other weapons, and to ammunition; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DISEASES OF FISH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships for any length of time, for no doubt a number of members of your Lordships' House will recall that my noble friend Earl De La Warr, in his then capacity as Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, moved a Bill of a similar character to this Bill in 1934. That Bill passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House and was subsequently given a Second Reading in another place, but the state of Parliamentary business did not allow sufficient time for its further progress. Objections to certain of the proposals that were incorporated in the Bill were raised by various parties concerned, including representations made by the fish farmers. Discussions have since taken place with these interested bodies, and as a result the present Bill, though substantially unchanged, contains certain modifications. I believe that today there is a general consensus of opinion among the persons and bodies most closely connected with these matters in favour of legislation on the lines of the present Bill.
324
Its main object is to combat the disease that is known by the name of furunculosis, which affects particularly salmon and trout. The disease first appeared in this country about thirty years ago, and has spread rapidly during the last few years through many of the salmon and trout rivers of both England and Scotland. Your Lordships will, I think, appreciate the serious nature of this disease when you remember that the commercial value of salmon fishing in England and Scotland altogether is of the order of £500,000 a year. As to trout, the trout streams of Southern England may be worth, in certain parts, between £1,000 and £2,000 a mile. The ravages of the disease, if they are not checked, may seriously damage the legitimate interests of many sections of the community, such as anglers, owners of fishing rights, fish farmers and, of course, local authorities, who may be faced with a considerable fall in rateable values. Therefore, the disease of furunculosis is a menace both to sport and to trade. This Bill is based upon the recommendations of a Furunculosis Committee which was appointed in 1929 and presided ever by Professor Mackie, of Edinburgh University. The Committee made an exhaustive examination of the disease and issued three Reports, the final one of which was published in July of last year.
I will mention very briefly the main provisions and principles of this Bill. In the first place, imports of live freshwater fish are to be permitted only under licence, and imports of live fish of the salmon family are to be prohibited altogether in order to safeguard our in and fisheries. In Clause 2 any waters that are known to be infected may be declared an infected area and the transport of fish, of eggs of fish and of foodstuffs for fish from that area may be prohibited or regulated. The provision of the original Bill to the effect that the Minister might also authorise the destruction of fish farmers stock has been deleted from this Bill, since it was felt on further consideration that it was an undue restriction upon the livelihood of fish farmers. Under the remaining clauses there are in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 provisions for the examination of waters to see if infection is present, for the making of a Standstill Order where infection is suspected, and for the payment of the market value of fish which are taken for examination and are found to be free of disease.

325
Modifications have been made in some of these provisions since 1934 to meet representations by fish farmers and other interests; but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with a detailed explanation of those modifications at this stage. I should, however, add that this Bill, like its predecessor, may be extended by Order in Council to cover other diseases affecting freshwater fish, and I think your Lordships will agree that this is a useful precaution to take; but our immediate aim under the Bill is the control and eradication of furunculosis, and I suggest that the proposals contained in the Bill are well designed to bring us towards that very desirable goal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I desire to offer full support to this Bill, and may I congratulate the noble Earl on the very lucid way in which he explained it in a terse but very complete speech. This, in my opinion, is the best Bill this Government has introduced and I hope it also means a more vigorous policy on behalf of the Ministry concerned with regard to our freshwater fisheries. The noble Earl said that the commercial value of salmon fisheries in this country was £500,000. I should have thought that that was an under-statement. I do not know whether it included net fishings. There is, however, something much more important than the commercial value of salmon fisheries, and I am speaking on behalf of anglers, many of them artisans and other working men, who heartily welcome anything to improve our freshwater fisheries. A pure river is a tremendous asset to the community. There is not only the value of the fish, which is very considerable throughout the country. There is also the pleasure which is gives to anglers. The interests of farmers and stock-breeders must be considered, as well as the general health of the community, and there is the æsthetic value of a pure river.
There is a sort of idea about that salmon fishing is the monopoly of wealthy men. That is not so at all. I know many working colliers, for example, who are successful salmon fishers—more successful than I sometimes am I am sorry to say—and it is in their interests
326
that this Bill is particularly valuable. Rich men can rent fishings in Norway or the North of Scotland and pay high rents for their fishings, but the humble man has to rely upon waters in his own neighbourhood. The number of anglers in the country is increasing ever year. I think that is a very good thing, and therefore this is not a Bill simply to put up the value of fisheries for wealthy landlords or to help at the Government's expense those people who can afford to pay a good deal for their salmon fishing. It affects the poor man who is an angler. I have sympathy for all anglers. One of the few points of agreement which I have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he is a salmon fisherman.
There is one other question which I hope the Government are going to look into further and that is the question of pollution. I hope that they will encourage local authorities to deal with this matter more actively. I do not know how much it affects the question of fish disease, but I am told that industrial pollution is one cause of fish disease, and it is no use passing this Bill if you are going to allow our freshwater fish to be destroyed by horrible effluents from industrial works. It is necessary that we should take a broad view of the matter. In the last century we destroyed for ever some of the most valuable salmon fishings in the country. Industries were allowed to be set up, which lasted for a time and then went out of existence. We now see their remains and bones disfiguring the countryside. But in the process there was destroyed for ever the value of a salmon river that had been pure for centuries and a source of pleasure and wealth to the community. I think this question of pollution has been far too much neglected.
In connection with the use of rivers by the community I want to draw attention to the new spirit which is abroad, shown by many landlords and riparian owners, of throwing open their fisheries to local residents. I want to mention, if I may be allowed to do so, two members of your Lordships' House who have given an excellent example to the whole community by allowing local people to fish in parts of their rivers. It has been found that these local people make very good watch-dogs. They are interested in preventing pollution and illegal methods of fishing. In the first place

327
I would mention, if he will permit me, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, whom I see in his place. I hope he will not mind my saying that his action on his own property in Wales, in allowing local people to fish on certain days, has had a most beneficial effect upon the fishery. He has set an admirable example. The other member of this House whom I would mention is Lord Leconfield. On his property in Cumberland he has done the same, and the effect has been to bring up a river which was almost ruined to what is now a very valuable salmon fishing, to the advantage of everyone concerned. I trust your Lordships will not mind my mentioning those two members of this House.
I would just like to refer to two other matters which are perhaps almost Committee points but still of some importance. Your Lordships will see that Clause 4, subsection (3), provides that the onus is to be on any person entitled to fish in any waters of reporting infection, etc. That is quite good, but I would ask the noble Earl if he will take steps to see that people generally know of this provision. The debates in this House and another place are not always very well reported in the newspapers and a Bill like this may pass almost unnoticed. I suggest that special steps should be taken by wireless or by the Post Office to make this provision of the Bill known generally. The other point is this, and it is advice which has been given to me by a great expert on this subject: it is very necessary, I suggest, that in the regulations to be drawn up—Departmental Orders, etc.—very careful instructions should be given as to the disposal of diseased fish taken out of the water. They must not, I am informed, be buried in the earth near the river. If they are buried in places where the water drains into the river some of the good will be lost. They should be buried well away from the river in dry earth or, better still, destroyed completely. I am told that that is very important and I would draw the noble Earl's attention to it. This is an excellent Bill. I hope it will get a quick passage through the House and will effect the objects intended.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome to this Bill on behalf of those in Scotland who are interested in
328
it. I am very glad to see that Clause 11 extends the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. But I would like to remind your Lordships that some eighteen months ago we had a promise in this House, in answer to a question put to the Government, that there should be some extension of recent legislation to bring the Fishery Acts in Scotland up to date, and this clause, perhaps not intentionally, reminds us that such legislation is very out of date in Scotland. It refers to the salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1868, and although we welcome a little modern legislation for salmon fisheries in Scotland, yet I think it would be very much more to the point if we could be promised by a member of the Government representing the Scottish Office that we shall have some more legislation for Scotland to bring our salmon fisheries up to date. We have been promised a draft Bill for some time. It has not made its appearance and there seems to be no sign of its coming. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can say that there is going to be a Scottish Bill to bring up to date the legislation dealing with salmon fisheries I am sure we in Scotland would very much welcome that fact. But meanwhile we are very content to know that this question of the diseases of fish is going to be dealt with in Scotland as well as in England.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) who, I know, is a very keen fisherman, that last Session a Bill entitled the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill was brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford, dealing with the pollution of rivers. I think he himself took rather an important part in the discussion, and it had the very object for which he was speaking this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, this Bill is identical with a Bill that has twice passed your Lordships' House, and only differs in one word from the Bill

329
which passed a year before that. Unfortunately, it has been crowded out in another place. Its object is to make it quite clear that the position of the Judges is what it always was—an independent position and not to be confounded with that of the Civil Service, as certain events during the crisis of 1931 made it appear that it had been. I may just add that on the last occasion it had the warm approval of the Lord Chancellor, whom we are sorry not to see in his place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, there is just one point about this Bill—which I heartily welcome—that I do not quite understand. As your Lordships all know, there is a question before Parliament now about salaries of Ministers of the Crown, and it is proposed to level them up. So far as I can make out in looking through this Bill, there cannot be any alteration made in the salary of one of His Majesty's Judges if this Bill passes. I do not think that is right, because it is well known that the salaries of the Judges have not been raised—I think not since about 1805. Many people think that, considering what the Surtax and Income Tax are in these days, the Judges should also receive higher salaries than they do at present. Clause 1 says that:
"In any statute hereafter enacted no provision for the alteration or diminution of the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments…"
of certain servants of the Crown shall apply to Judges. It seems to me that there may be some difficulty in the matter if it is found at some future time that Parliament decides to raise the salaries of the Judges. I am not sure on that point, and I should like to be reassured.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I am not competent to express an opinion upon the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord. I have no doubt that that aspect of the case was duly considered by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, when he was drafting the Bill. What I rise to do, in the regrettable absence of the noble and learned Viscount who usually sits upon the Woolsack, is to express on behalf of your Lordships that admiration which I feel sure you must feel for the
330
laudable tenacity of purpose which has been displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, in his endeavours to guide this measure to the Statute Book. If I remember rightly, on no less than three occasions your Lordships have expressed approval of this or a very similar measure, but on each occasion, owing to action, or rather inaction, in another place, the noble Lord's endeavours have been defeated.
Let me only add on this occasion that had the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor been present, he would on behalf of the Government have repeated what he said when the Bill was originally before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, was of opinion that as the result of certain provisions of the Economy Act, 1931, the constitutional position of the Judiciary had been assailed in consequence of certain reductions of salary which were enforced upon them by that measure, and it was with a view to preventing that in the future that the noble Lord introduced his Bill, his object being, as he told us, to ensure and maintain the independence of the Judiciary. Let me repeat what the Lord Chancellor said on the former occasion—namely, that we are as anxious as any one in this House to see the independence of the Judiciary ensured and maintained. Since therefore we are strongly in favour of the objects of this Bill, the attitude of the Government may I think be said to be not merely one of benevolent neutrality towards it, but one of keen support of the object which the Bill has in view.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I would like to say one word in answer to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. I think he has not read the whole clause to which he refers, because he will see later that it only says that the alteration of salaries shall be prohibited "unless expressly stated." That is to say, it is not to be done as part of an all-round reduction of salaries, but if you are dealing with the Judges' salaries, either increasing or diminishing them, you must prominently draw the attention of Parliament to the proposal you are making, so that the change shall not be made casually and without consideration, as perhaps was done in the case of the Economy Act. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will tell me if

331
I am wrong, but I believe that that is the true meaning of the Bill.
I would add that I think that the experience of this Bill shows rather a lack in our Parliamentary procedure. Here is a Bill to which there really is no opposition—certainly not in this House nor, so far as I know, in another place, and yet it is held up year after year just because there is no opportunity of getting the opinion of the other House. Surely, as a matter of constitutional right, there ought to be some procedure for dealing with Bills of a substantially unopposed character, so that by setting aside one day or one afternoon or some such time, which could only be used for that purpose, these Bills could be dealt with and disposed of. At present they are opposed only to keep off other legislation to which there is objection. I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the question because in these days it is important that we should make our Parliamentary procedure not only adequate but more than adequate, in order to meet possible criticism.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I just say that my noble friend's explanation of the clause is exactly what I should have given myself, and I cannot add anything to it? I would also thank the noble Marquess for his kind words, and express the hope that when the fullness of time arrives he may be able to induce the authorities in another place to find just the very little time that is necessary to carry this Bill into law.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, before moving the Second Reading of this Bill, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence and patience on this the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House? It may be convenient that I should, in moving the Second Reading of this short but necessarily somewhat complex Bill, remind your Lordships quite briefly of the origin and history of railway freight rebates. I
332
shall then endeavour to state the course of the events which have rendered the Bill necessary and explain the broad lines of the solution which the Bill propounds. In 1929 Parliament decided that industry should be assisted by being relieved of three-quarters of the burden falling upon it in the form of local rates, and by the Local Government Act of that year it was enacted that the rateable values of industrial hereditaments should henceforth be taken to be one-quarter of their net annual values. At the same time freight transport hereditaments—that is, railways, canals and docks, were similarly derated, but in their case it was directed that the relief should not be given to the owners, but should be passed on to their customers in the form of reductions in or rebates from transport charges. In the case of the railways Parliament went further and prescribed a system of rebates to be allowed by the railway companies from the carriage charges for certain specified traffics called "selected traffics" of the three basic industries—coal mining, iron and steel, and agriculture.
Briefly, a Fund, known as the Railway Freight Rebates Fund, was to be established in which the rate relief of the railway companies was to be pooled and from which there was to be refunded to each of the companies the amounts of the rebates allowed by it to the selected traffics. The Railway Rates Tribunal was charged with the duty of approving a detailed scheme and of fixing the rates of the rebates to be allowed from time to time in such a way that coal selected traffics received rebates amounting to 70 per cent., agricultural selected traffics 20 per cent., and other selected traffics 10 per cent. of the net revenue of the Fund. For this purpose the Tribunal have to estimate the rate relief of the railway companies and the amounts of the railway carriage charges which will be paid on each group of selected traffics.
The scheme began to operate accordingly on October 1, 1929. In the following year there was passed the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, which provided for the revaluation of the railways in cumulo. This Act of if 30 involved a complete revaluation of the railways for rating purposes at quinquennial intervals beginning in the financial year 1931. The revaluation of the

333
railways has proved to be a lengthy process, and has involved legal proceedings including an appeal to your Lordships' House. Meanwhile the railway companies have been rated, and have paid into the Rebates Fund, on the basis of provisional assessments in existence prior to 1931. It is only within the last few months that the rating authorities and the railway companies have agreed upon the valuations in cumulo in respect of the last quinquennial period (1931 to 1936) and the present quinquennium (1936 to 1941).
The position which has resulted in the Railway Freight Rebates Fund is briefly this: The payments of rate relief by the railway companies under the provisional valuations have been in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000 a year, whereas on the basis of the valuations recently agreed they should have been not much more than half that amount. In the present quinquennium they are likely to be about £2,300,000. Now this means that the companies will have paid into the Rebates Fund up to the 31st December next a sum of something like £9,750,000 in excess of their actual rate relief. This sum will, as soon as the amount has been ascertained, be due for repayment by the Fund to the companies. At the same time the income or the Fund during the current quinquennium will be reduced to about £2,300,000 a year. The Fund has distributed in the form of rebates all its resources except a sum of £1,000,000. Therefore, unless steps are taken to meet, the situation, the whole of the resources of the Fund for some years will be required to repay the railway companies the sums overpaid by them in the past. There will be in the meantime nothing available for rebates, and the scheme will come temporarily to an end. I think it is only fair that I should state that the railway companies have always anticipated that their assessments were bound to be heavily reduced and that during the past five years they have repeatedly warned all concerned of the situation which would then be created in the Fund; but, apart, from the desire of traders to secure distribution by way of rebates up to the total and immediate income of the Fund, it has not been open to the Tribunal to proceed on any basis except that of the assessments actually for the time being in force.
334
There can be no question as to the legal or moral rights of the railway companies to be repaid the amount of their past overpayments to the Fund. The intention of Parliament in 1929 was clearly that the railways should pass on their rate relief to their customers, but not that they should subsidise industry at the expense of their own shareholders, and the Act provided that the difference between their estimated and actual rate relief should be adjusted as soon as ascertained. The steps which the Government propose to meet the situation are broadly twofold. Firstly, that the debt of the Fund to the railway companies shall be discharged from the proceeds of an issue of stock by the Railway Clearing House, the statutory trustees of the Fund, to be repaid over a period of sixteen years. By this means the annual charge on the future income of the Fund will be reduced to the sum required for the service of the loan—that is, the annual sum required for interest on and repayment of the principal. Secondly, a temporary reduction in the list of selected traffic so that the reduced sum available for rebates shall be concentrated on those traffics assistance to which will, in the opinion of the industries concerned, be most helpful to them.
For a period of seven years, which may be extended by the Minister of Transport to a maximum of sixteen years (the period over which redemption of the proposed stock issue will be spread) the rebates will be confined to exported coal, coke, and patent fuel. These will benefit to the extent of 80 per cent, of the sums available, and milk and live-stock traffic will receive the remaining 20 per cent. This concentration of the benefit is proposed after consultations by the Departments concerned with the coal mining, iron and steel and agricultural interests. The iron and steel trade, which is in a comparatively flourishing condition, will have temporarily to forgo its share of the rebates. The Treasury are satisfied, as a result of discussions which have taken place, that if this Bill is passed into law at an early date there is every prospect that the proposed loan can be raised on favourable terms. In the circumstances, your Lordships will not expect me to attempt to indicate what such terms are likely to be; but I am

335
able to say that we anticipate that, if Parliament approves this Bill and effect is given to the arrangements which we propose, there will be sufficient left in the Fund, after providing for its liabilities, to allow of rebates upon exported coal, coke and patent fuel of about 5½d. a ton on the average. Thus the coal export trade will retain a substantial proportion of the existing rebates on exported coal, which average about 8d. a ton. The rebates available for milk and live stock are estimated to be only slightly less than those which are at present enjoyed by those traffics—namely, 15 per cent. on their carriage charges.
I have indicated the main features of the Government's proposals as embodied in this Bill, but they do involve a number of consequential and complementary amendments in this complex scheme which will be found in the Schedule to the Bill. I do not propose to enter into a lengthy explanation of these matters of detail, though I or the noble Viscount who will reply to the debate will endeavour to explain any points upon which elucidation is desired. Your Lordships will observe in Clause 1 of the Bill that it is proposed that the Railway Rates Tribunal shall, as soon as the Bill has become law, make such alterations in the rebates scheme in operation, including, of course, the rates of rebates, as may be necessary to bring the scheme into conformity with the Act, and that such alterations shall take effect on the 1st January next. The Government attaches great importance to the passage of the Bill into law at a very early date, not only because delay in the adjustment of the scheme is increasing the indebtedness of the Fund at the rate of something like £50,000 a week, but also in order that advantage may be taken of the favourable conditions which exist to-day for the raising of the proposed loan. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Erne.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I desire to congratulate, if I may, the noble Earl on making his first speech in this House. I am quite sure that it will be the opinion of noble Lords present that he has so well discharged his duties to-day that we shall hope to hear him often speaking on other subjects and on other
336
occasions in our debates. I have not put down a Motion upon the Paper for the rejection of this Bill, because the coal trade realises that it is far better to take half a loaf than no bread and that it is necessary for legislation to be passed. There is, however, some difference of view as to whether Amendments should be down on this Bill, and I am going to ask the Government to postpone the Committee stage as long as they can, or at any rate until those parties which are interested in the Bill, who will meet to-morrow, have had an opportunity of expressing their views to the Government in the event of their requiring to have Amendments put down and considered by your Lordships.
The main point which I desire to raise to-day is that the relief which has been so clearly explained by the noble Earl is quite inadequate to meet the situation in connection with the export of coal from this country. Owing to the high railway rates which existed the Government thought it right in 1929 to introduce a Bill by which it was enacted that relief should be given which, as the noble Earl has explained, was equivalent to about 8d. or 8½d. a ton on all exported coal. This Bill will reduce the average relief by 3d. a ton. That reduction of 3d. will put us in a worse position to-day in competition with foreign countries who sell their coal abroad. But in many cases the reduction will be from 4d. to 6d. a ton, instead of 3d., where there is a long haulage over the railway companies' lines. Such a loss to the exporting collieries in the distressed areas means that collieries will have to close down and will be unable to continue operations, and further distress will occur. It is absolutely essential in the interests of the exporting collieries that more help should be provided by the Government in some other form if they are not prepared to continue or increase the relief which has hitherto been given them.
Whatever the necessities were in 1928–29 they are exaggerated to-day and there is very much greater need. The exports of coal in 1928 were 49,000,000 tons. This year they will not be above 31,000,000 tons. The total consumption in the competing markets of the world shared by Great Britain with all other coal-exporting countries. In 1928 our share was 10½ per cent. To-day we are

337
only supplying 6.3 per cent. Yet consumption has steadily gone up in the world. Foreign markets bought in 1928 465,700,000 tons and this year they are buying 489,400,000 tons. In other words the increase in the consumption of foreign countries buying coal has gone up by 5 per cent. and we have not shared in that. On the contrary, we have had to reduce our exports. Why? Because the help that we hoped the Government would have given the industry in connection with the export of coal has been wholly inadequate compared with the help given in other countries. If Great Britain had supplied the same percentage as in 1928 20,000,000 more tons of coal would have been exported than is being exported at present, and 50,000 more men would have been employed.
It is not due to the fact that we have neglected trying to secure markets. We have improved our production of coal, we have classified it, we have screened it, we have cleaned it, we have sized it and we have made it more marketable than it ever was before. Yet coal exported is a steadily diminishing quantity. Manufactured fuel is in much the same position, having fallen in the last two years to October 31 from 587,000 tons to 428,000 tons. The coke industry claims that it is entitled to be helped in the same way as the coal industry. There was a speech delivered in another place last week by the Member for a South Wales division who stated that if the 100,000 tons of coke now being imported into this country had been excluded by the Government it would have meant employment for an additional 660 men in South Wales. That is an indication, at any rate, that the coke industry desires the same assistance as the coal industry. But the main reason why we cannot maintain our position as exporters of coal and coke is the fact of the great subsidies which are granted by competing countries producing coal.
In Germany there is an average difference of 6s. 9d. per ton between inland coal and coal exported by the Rhenish-Westphalian Syndicate who send a great deal of their coal to Hamburg for export. The railway rate is 14s. per ton less upon coal sent to Hamburg for shipment than that charged for coal to be consumed in the City of Hamburg. There is a discount of 3s. by a release of blocked marks which form 20 per cent. of the normal
338
price. In other words, coal is being subsidised in one form or another in Germany, if it is intended for export, to the extent of 24s. per ton in some cases. I would ask your Lordships: How is it possible with a subsidy of that kind in Germany for us to compete satisfactorily and upon an equal footing? It is quite impossible. In Belgium there is a subsidy of 4s. a ton on 4,000,000 tons of coal exported and the railway rate advantage for exported coal is 2s. 3d. per ton as compared with inland carriage.
In France the rates are from 30 to 50 per cent. lower for export coal than for inland coal. If I may read a technical arrangement they have in France it is this, that subsidies are payable to mines working at a loss under the terms of a law of August 18 last. A credit of 30,000,000 francs—£300,000—has been paid for the period from July 1 to September 30 this year and on a quarterly output of approximately 10,000,000 tons that is equivalent to about 7d. per ton over the whole output. France, therefore, also subsidises export trade. Holland subsidises it to the extent of 3s. per ton, and as 40 per cent. of the export trade is from State mines, the loss on export coal in Holland is borne by the Treasury. Poland reduced by 16 per cent. their rates on inland coal last year, and still the price of the coal which goes to Danzig and Gdynia is so favourable as compared with the inland price that they give a benefit of 7s. 6d. per ton on all coal which is sent from the Polish coalfields to be exported. I must apologise for giving these statistics to your Lordships' House, but they establish the case that this country is up against keen foreign competition subsidised in a way which renders it quite impossible for us to carry on one of our great staple industries and one which is of vital importance to this country.
There is, as your Lordships are aware, a great adverse balance between our exports and imports. The adverse balance recently indicated in the Press is £276,000,000, whereas before the War it was only £134,000,000. I suggest that this deficiency is not made up by investments or by the cost of carriage in transit—what are generally called unseen items in connection with our adverse balance. The country is steadily losing by its foreign trade operations, and it is vital in the interests of the country that this

339
adverse balance should be reduced. There is no better way of doing it than by encouraging the exportation of our coal, and if we were only fairly treated by the Government as compared with the treatment which is given to coal producers in other countries, I suggest that that adverse balance would be considerably reduced. Then, again, if no further help is given we cannot expect to have anything but further distress in South Wales and in the Durham district where the export coal is produced. It is possible, of course, that we may gain a little trade back from Italy, but that is very difficult to acquire when once you have lost a market. There is bound to be considerably increased depression and there is bound to be a considerable increase in the money which must be spent on what are usually called "doles"—unemployment benefit in one form or another. I suggest to the Government that it is far better that they should face the position by a subsidy and so help industry than that they should be called upon to consider an increased "dole" in the distressed areas in South Wales and in Durham.
The other day we had rather an interesting debate, promoted by Lord Lloyd, in which Lord Essendon took a considerable part, advocating that something should be done for shipping to help the Mercantile Marine. I believe your Lordships all thought that something more ought to be done to assist shipping. We had a very pleasant answer from Lord Templemore on behalf of the Government, but he only gave what seemed to me to be very cold comfort. I suggest that a subsidy on coal would help the shipping industry. It would enable increased quantities of coal from this country to be taken overseas. It would, of course, involve freight back again from other countries, and the very fact that you had a freight outward in coal would tend to diminish the freight on the other commodities brought back into this country. It would therefore be a benefit all round. On these grounds I suggest to the Government that the time has come when they might subsidise the export of coal, I hope in the way suggested in at any rate one organ of the Sunday Press last Sunday, when it said that the Government were contemplating an export duty
340
on coal to the extent of 6d. a ton. That 6d. would be invaluable at the present time if they could not make it any more, but it is absolutely essential in the interests of the finance of the country, in the interests of the distressed areas am in the interests of the miners and the coal industry that they should receive further help than that which has been indicated by the provisions of this Bill.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Gainford in congratulating the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. This afternoon will pass from most of our minds as one afternoon among many spent in this House, but it will remain for ever fixed in his memory as the first occasion on which he had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships. I have no doubt that we shall often have the great pleasure of hearing him again. I rather doubt whether this Bill is the malign agent which my noble friend Lord Gainford seems to indicate. The decision which will so adversely affect the coal trade really lies rather further back. But I should like to support a great deal of what he has said about the bad condition of the coal trade, and to this effect: that what the coal trade is going to lose as a result of that decision will have to be made good by the Government in some form or other.
What I think was the most significant point among the interesting figures which the noble Lord gave us was that which emphasised the pennies for which we scramble in the coal trade of this country as compared with the shillings which are given to the coal trade abroad. In spite of that handicap we still manage to keep our end up after a fashion, but, as in the case of shipping, which we discussed the other day, there it no doubt that no industry in this country can, unassisted, stand up against heavily-subsidised industries from abroad, and that the Government have got to make up their minds either to do something of the same kind to maintain those industries which are affected by competition from foreign subsidised industries or else to let the industries in question go under. I am afraid there cannot be two ways about that. Although I know the very great reluctance of the Government to grant subsidies—and I

341
must say that it is a reluctance which I myself feel, and I do not think any of us like subsidies—the time has come when we have to realise that it is impossible for any industry in the world to stand up against a State-aided competitor without assistance.
The point in regard to this Bill to which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention, however, does not concern the coal industry, but rather the agricultural industry: the artificial—or rather, synthetic—fertiliser industry. In the second paragraph of the Schedule to this Bill, where it amends Part II of the Eleventh Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929, you will see that it proposes to leave out the words from "Manure, street, stable or farmyard, in bulk" to "Potatoes, except new potatoes as defined in the Classification of Merchandise for conveyance by railway." The effect of leaving out those words is to remove the advantages of the railway rebate from all classes of agricultural produce and from all classes of fertilisers, synthetic and natural, and to concentrate the benefits of rebate upon dairy produce and live stock. I venture to suggest that there may be grave disadvantages in this course. So far as fertilisers are concerned, the benefit of that rebate has always been passed on to the farmer, and there is no doubt that fertilisers are not only a most important part of this industry, but vital to the country as such, because only one of two things can happen if you apply less fertilisers to the soil: you either take a smaller crop or else you are going to rob the soil. It is true that the increase of price which will result from the loss of this rebate will not be great by itself, but it will fall at a time when the price of fertilisers is bound to rise, and is bound to rise because there is a tendency, a very marked tendency, on the part of the raw materials from which synthetic fertilisers are made to go up in price.
In particular there is the increase in the price of coal. Industry has agreed in many cases to increased prices for coal, even where forward contracts were made, in order to help the coal industry, and in due course that increased price is bound to be passed on to the farmer through the synthetic fertiliser industry. Apart altgether from the fact that it is a pity, perhaps, to do anything which may cause
342
the farmer to use less fertiliser, you get other agricultural industries affected, particularly the potato grower, who is going to be hit twice. He is going to lose the benefit of the rebate and is also going to pay the increased price of fertilisers. The noble Viscount who is going to reply will know very well that the potato grower uses more fertiliser in relation to his crop than any other farmer. I have no doubt that the other agricultural interests—the foodstuffs producers, for instance—who are also affected by this Bill, would ask that the rebate should be distributed over the whole of the agricultural interests instead of being segregated.
This matter has been discussed by the National Farmers' Union and they decided to recommend to the Government the form of rebate proposed by this measure, which is confining the advantage to milk and live stock. But there is a very strong opinion within the Union opposed to this point of view, and I would suggest to the Government that they may be well advised to consult again with the National Farmers' Union and the interests concerned in regard to this matter—I would not say necessarily before this Bill passes through this House, but before the final stages in another place. I would like to ask the noble Viscount to see that this is done before we are finally committed to the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is with unusual pleasure that I associate myself with the two noble Lords who have just spoken in congratulating the noble Earl opposite on his maiden effort in your Lordships' House. I think it will be generally granted that he has had quite exceptional obstacles to overcome in making his first contribution to your Lordships' debates, and that he has surmounted them with conspicuous success. Whatever the merits or demerits of the particular Bill may be, I think it will be generally agreed that it is an exceedingly complicated and technical measure, and it must have required considerable patience and concentration to master its elaborate contents.
It is my duty to say a very few words indeed on behalf of the Party that I have the honour to represent in your Lordships' House. In spite of the two speeches to which we have just listened

343
I am inclined to think that this Bill will not give rise to any considerable volume of political controversy. We regard it as being essentially, in its general outline, a perfectly sensible arrangement for meeting a perfectly legitimate grievance on the part of the railway companies. It seems to us that in view of the fact that they have paid, during the past five years, a considerable amount that they did not really owe, the Railway Clearing House, acting as trustee for the Fund in question, was perfectly entitled to ask the Government to obtain for it through Parliament the power to raise a loan, by means of which the excess payments should be refunded, and that, I take it, is the fundamental purpose of the present measure.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): And to redistribute what is left.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: And to redistribute what is left in a rather different way. While expressing our agreement with the main purpose of the present measure we naturally reserve our right to table Amendments, if we think fit, at a later stage during the progress of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would like, if I may, to associate myself with the compliments which have been paid to my noble friend. I think it is rather bad luck that the first time he has to pilot a Bill through this House, and at the same time to make, a maiden speech, my noble friend should have been called upon to explain what is probably the most complicated Bill of its short length any of us have ever seen. His exposition was a model of making it possible that he who runs may read what nobody, except perhaps the most expert draftsman, could possibly have understood. I am left with no further exposition to make, but with merely the duty of replying to some relevant points which have been raised in the debate.
As to the need of this Bill, and the general good sense of it, there is no question. Speakers from all sides of the House have agreed upon that. It is, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, think said, a very practical and businesslike way of dealing with an extremely difficult situation. We all contemplated that the railway companies would be liable to pay rates on a much higher
344
scale than in fact it has turned out they were liable to pay. There is no doubt that they were owed something between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 from the Fund, and a very practical arrangement has been made for liquidating that debt on terms which are fair to the railway companies, but certainly not unduly generous to them, for the railway companies have forgone any claim to interest in respect of past payments. It then remains to divide what is left in the most convenient way possible. My noble friend Lord Gainford said that he certainly was not, going to reject the Bill which gave him half a loaf. He might more truly have said three-quarters of a loaf, because actually the benefit which coal, coke and patent fuel will continue to receive under this Bill is not on the average one-half but three-quarters, or very nearly. The average has been hitherto about 8d.; the average in future will be something better than 5½d.
We have very carefully considered the relative claims of the different industries which benefited before under this Bill and, while keeping for agriculture the one-fifth of the Fund to which it was previously entitled—and I do not think anybody would quarrel with us for doing that—we have concentrated the whole of the remaining four-fifths upon export coal, coke and patent fuel. We therefore have done as much as we possibly could for that section of the coal industry which we thought made the greatest demand. It actually works out most favourably for the most depressed areas, because my noble friend knows—no one better than he—that South Wales and Durham, both of which he quoted, are the areas with the shorter hauls to their ports of shipment; and I believe I am right in saying that the actual loss in freight rebate which will come to South Wales and Durham (I must of course take an average figure) is not the 2½d. which is the average over all, but something much nearer 1½d. Therefore we have not merely concentrated on giving coal the benefit, but that kind of coal which we thought most deserving, and it will so work out that the depressed areas get the largest measure of the benefit.
I may, in passing, answer a point raised as to whether coke was included. I think it is perfectly plain that coke is included, because my noble friend will

345
see that the first words of Part III of the Eleventh Schedule of the original Act of 1929 are "Exported coal, coke or patent fuel." If my noble friend turns to paragraph 3 of the Schedule of the present Bill he will see that no alteration is made in that, but the words that are cut out are:
"Coal, coke or patent fuel delivered to and used in iron and steel works."
It cuts out the coal, coke or patent fuel which goes to the steel works, but it preserves intact the three classes of fuel which are exported. I think that answers the point of detail which my noble friend raised.
But I do not think he is asking for anything to be inserted in the present Bill. He is rather using this Bill as an occasion (and I do not blame him) to stake out a claim, if I may so put it, for some form of subsidy to be paid either to the whole or some select part of the coal industry. I am sure he will agree with me that if that were ever to be considered, the worst possible way to do it would be to put it into this Bill. I am not promising him a subsidy at all, but I think he will remember this—I certainly remember it very definitely from days when I was President of the Board of Trade—that we always contended most emphatically, and I think with conviction, to other countries as well as to ourselves, that this was not a subsidy at all; that when the Local Government Act was passed giving the relief of industrial rates all round, that was not a subsidy, it was merely an alteration of the incidence of local and national taxation; and that the passing on by the railway companies to some of their customers of the relief which they got under that Act was not at all a subsidy, but was merely a convenient and proper way of giving effect to the general rating relief.
We always maintained that—and I think we were quite right—in international negotiations. My noble friend will remember that we maintained that thesis with success. But if we were now to make this Fund a sort of composite fund, consisting partly of the rate relief which the railway companies receive and partly of a direct subsidy from the Government, then obviously we could no longer, in any of these cases where it is, important that we should establish a claim, contend that this was not a subsidy. There may or
346
there may not be a case for claim for a subsidy for some part of the coal industry. I am not going to argue that case one way or another to-day. Appetite grows with eating, and respectable Liberals like my noble friend, who a few years ago would have been shocked, and indeed horrified, at the idea of receiving anything so iniquitious as a subsidy—I remember my noble friend's virtuous indignation about the beet subsidies in old days—when they get into bad company feel that they also should be among the sinners if there is something going.
LORD GAINFORD: I have objected to subsidies, I have objected to tariffs, and I have objected to artificially raising duties against the consumer. But when other nations by their policy deprive us of the means of carrying on an industry, with a view to destroying it, I feel that other steps have to be taken, even though they are regrettable in principle, because we cannot as a nation allow our industries to perish in that way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Like my noble friend I also have been guilty of every heresy, and am not in the least ashamed of it. Indeed, the noble Lord has shown to-day that he can advance both a moral and an economic case with a wealth of argument and illustration. But I do not think he really expects me to deal with the merits of that to-day. I would only say that, apart from this being technically an obviously inappropriate measure on which to consider it, if we are to consider, as we must, any claim put forward by the coal industry, we have to consider it on a wide front. We have to take any claim that may be made for a subsidy or for assistance in conjunction with all those other measures which we are trying to concert, and hope to accomplish for the improvement of that industry.
The other point that was raised was whether we were distributing agricultural relief. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not put in a plea for a subsidy—perhaps I should say a further subsidy—for agriculture. What he said was that you ought not to give it all to milk and live stock; you ought to give some of it certainly to fertilisers, and perhaps you ought to give some of it to potatoes. Potatoes were to have their share because they also were users of fertilisers. Really the problem we have to face here is how to divide a rather small sum. I call it a

347
rather small sum because to-day we think in such large sums. We have to divide a sum of £300,000 to the best advantage. We can give something very substantial if we allocate it simply between milk and live stock and cut other agricultural articles out. I think it only makes a reduction to 13 per cent. of what was before 15 per cent.; the figures are of that order. If, however, we are to take in fertilisers, which are about £600,000 in traffic, and potatoes representing about £2,500,000—I am not sure I have got the figures right, but in the aggregate it is something like £3,000,000 as against £2,500,000 for live stock and milk—obviously we are going to reduce the relief which any one of these articles gets and make it much less worth while.
I base my answer really on the very practical step which the Ministry of Agriculture took. They did the practical thing, when they had something to give away or keep, of consulting the farming interests where they would best like it to go. I am informed that there was the fullest possible discussion with the National Farmers' Union, and while I have no doubt that in such a case there never could be complete agreement, the view was most emphatically expressed by the Farmers' Union that they desired to have the relief concentrated upon these two commodities, milk and live stock.
LORD MELCHETT: I think that actually the thing was decided by a vote, and a vote by a very narrow margin, as a matter of fact. There is a very strong body of opinion that differs from the majority view.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know where the voting took place, but I am advised that when the Farmers' Union met the Ministry that view was quite definitely expressed. I do not say it was a view with which everyone agreed, but it was the view that the Farmers' Union decided and were justified in putting forward. There was no misunderstanding about it. After all, it is a very simple issue, whether the money is to go in twos or threes. Therefore the Ministry does not think any useful purpose would be served by discussing over again with the very representative body the facts that were so fully discussed before.
I have only this to add. I very much dislike on principle asking your Lordships to proceed with anything like undue
348
speed with any Bill in this House, but there is a very special case of urgency for this measure. First of all the issue has got to be made of this stock amounting to something like £8,500,000 or £8,750,000. Obviously it is very desirable that this should be issued as quickly as possible, and at the most appropriate moment from the market point of view. I am advised that it is highly desirable that the issue should be made as near to the 14th or 15th of next month as possible. Furthermore, the Railway Rates Tribunal have got to meet after this Bill becomes law in order to settle the whole of the rebates which are to come into force on January 1. The legal term ends on December 21, and though I understand that the Tribunal have generously said they will sit on, if necessary, into the Vacation, yet every trader naturally wants to know where he stands. He does not want to come to January 1 knowing only on December 30 what the railway rates are going to be.
Therefore, there is a tremendous case of practical convenience for getting this Bill through as quickly as possible. We are all in agreement generally about the Bill and the desirability of passing it. There must obviously be an opportunity for Amendments to be put down. Your Lordships will remember that there is not only the opportunity of the Committee stage but, if second thoughts come or representations are made, there is also an opportunity of putting down, in this fortunate House, Amendments on Third Reading. I am not going to ask your Lordships to pass the whole of the stages of the Bill this week. I do not think that would be fair or reasonable, but I would in the peculiar circumstances ask your Lordships to agree to take the Committee stage on Thursday. There is a meeting to-morrow morning of certain bodies, and that would give an opportunity of putting down Amendments for the Committee stage. We should then take the Third Reading on Tuesday of next week, when there would be a further opportunity, if thought necessary, of putting down further Amendments. I dislike asking for such precipitancy, but I think that in all the circumstances the House will agree that is a reasonable course to adopt.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEFENCE: BOMBERS FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government how many types of heavy bomber are included in the Government programme, the number of such bombers ordered, their speed, range and their load-weight of bombs, the date on which deliveries are expected; and also move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is really this. It is to ask the Government to tell us what their programme is for rearmament in the air. Since I took my pilot's ticket in 1916 in France I have always taken the very deepest interest in aerial matters. I have followed very carefully the various developments that have been made throughout all the countries in the world. I have friends almost everywhere to whom I can go and ask. I have found from experience that if I want to know anything about what is going on in the Royal Air Force in this country I can get that information more expeditiously and more accurately abroad than in this country, because they know backwards exactly what we are doing. Therefore I had no fear in putting down this Question that there would be any feeling in the Government that they could possibly be telling any of the Air Staffs of Europe something they did not know quite well already. I can also see there might be some feeling in the Government's mind that they did not want to let the people of this country know the very lamentable state we were in.
When I spoke in the debate last week the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, said that I had no right to make the assumption that there was only one type of heavy bomber in the Government programme. I never made such an assumption. The assumption that I made, and make, was that there was no type of heavy bomber in the Government programme. One has got to see exactly where one is, and possibly the best way is to see what it is that we have got against us. I am going to give a few figures because I think it is necessary that I should do so. The strongest heavy bomber—and we have to realise that the heavy bomber is the striking force of every Air Service—is one that is in America. It is the "Boeing 299." Its range is 3,000 miles, its top speed is just over 260 miles an
350
hour, and the total bombing load that it can carry is 5,000 lbs., call it roughly two tons. It actually flew 2,780 miles non-stop at a cruising speed of 231 miles per hour when it was doing its trials. As a matter of fact only six of these machines are being made and, therefore, it is obvious that they cannot be released from the United States of America to help us in any programme we have.
Leaving America, we come to Europe. The strongest Air Force probably in Europe at the present time is that of Italy. Italy has improved enormously in this respect in a very short time. They have done it because they have a very wonderful organisation of aerodynamic laboratories in which they have been doing a great number of experiments that, unfortunately, we have not been doing in this country. Let me tell your Lordships what their heavy bombers are. They have a "Fiat B.R. 20" which, flying at full load, has a range of 2,000 miles, a top speed of 273 miles per hour, and carries 3,000 lbs. of bombs, that is about one and a half tons. Their second one is the "Savoia S 79 B." That also has a range of 2,000 miles, a top speed of 258 miles an hour, and carries 4,400 lbs. of bombs, which is about two tons. They have a third one which has not quite got the performance of the others. It is one that was made in a hurry for the Abyssinian war. It is the "Savoia S 81." That has a range of 2,000 miles and a top speed of 217 miles; it can carry 6,400 lbs. if you take its range as less than 2,000 miles, or 4,400 lbs.—that is, about two tons—if you take its range as 2,000 miles. That is what Italy has in the way of heavy bombers.
Now we come to France. France has a bomber, "Amiot 144," which has a range of 2,480 miles, a top speed of 242 miles and carries 2,200 lbs. of bombs, or about one ton. As a matter of fact, I myself checked the figures of this particular machine. I went over to France and saw it, not only by reason of the great courtesy of the manufacturers, Messrs. Amiot, who are friends of mine, but also of the French Government. I was told every conceivable thing about that machine and what the French Government had done before they accepted it as their first bomber. Further, they offered to give us, if we wanted them, some of these in very large quantities and with quick delivery.

351
We could have taken them if we had wanted to do so. I took all the figures and that offer to the Air Ministry here. It was returned without thanks.
Next we come to Germany. Germany have not quite so many bombers of the type that really come under the class of heavy bombers, but they have the "Dornier Do. 17." That has a range of 1,200 miles, a top speed of 304 miles, and carries 1,760 lbs., which is about three-quarters of a ton, of bombs. They have also the "Heinkel III." That has a range of 1,000 miles, a top speed of 255 miles an hour, and carries 2,000 lbs. of bombs. They have in addition the "Junkers J U 86," which has a range of 1,200 miles, a top speed of 226 miles and carries 2,000 lbs. of bombs, and the "Junkers J U 52," which has a range of 1,260 miles, a top speed of 180 miles an hour, and carries 2,000 lbs. of bombs. That is what we have against us, and it is a very formidable array.
What have we got at present for us? In the squadrons we have at present only two types, neither of which are heavy bombers as heavy bombers are known to-day. The first is the "Virginia" (Vickers). That was a very good machine when it first came out sixteen years ago, but it is a bit out of date to-day. It has only got a, range of 1,000 miles, a speed of 124 miles an hour as against the others I have mentioned of over 200 miles an hour, and it carries 3,000 lbs. of bombs, or about one and a half tons. That is one we have got, completely out of date, but I gather it will be replaced by a newer machine as soon as it can be got. One has to remember, however, that when you are replacing a machine it does not mean that you are necessarily increasing the number of squadrons you have got, because what you are doing is this: you are taking away the obsolete machine and putting the other in its place; you are not putting the other in a new squadron. The other one we have got is the "Heyford" (Handley Page). That has got a range of 960 miles only, and a top speed of 145 miles, and it carries 1,500 lbs., or about three-quarters of a ton, of bombs. Those are the only two we have in the squadrons to-day.
Besides those we have a certain number of prototypes which are going to come
352
in, or some of which are going to come into the programme. I say at once—and I am going to give the figures—that there is not a single one of them that comes into the class of heavy bombers. The first is the "Whitley" (Armstrong Whitworth). That has only a range of 1,000 miles. There is another type with a range of 1,400 miles, but both of these are far too small. The last one that I mentioned has a top speed of 170 miles, and it will carry 2,200 pounds of bombs at a range of 1,400 miles, or double that quantity of bombs at a range of 1,000 miles—that is to say, two tons and one ton. That is not what is known to-day as a heavy bomber. You have another ore the "Harrow" (Handley Page), which has a 1,000 miles range, a top speed of 195 miles and carries two tons of bombs. Here I am speaking without knowing whether I am right. I will say at once that I do not know whether I am right about this, but I rather gather that the "Harrow" is not really going to be carried out, but that another type, the "Handley Page 52," will probably be taken in its place. That has a range of 900 miles with two tons of bombs, or 1,500 miles with one ton of bombs, and a top speed of 260 miles an hour. I agree that that is getting near the class of heavy bomber, but I do not call it anything like a heavy bomber because it has not the range.
You then get the "Blenheim" (Bristol). The "Blenheim" is not a heavy bomber at all, but it is a light dive bomber. From what I have heard I believe it to be extremely good, but it has only a range of 1,100 miles. It has a top speed of 290 to 300 miles per hour and it only carries half a ton of bombs. You then have the "Battle" (Fairey). That has a range of 1,100 miles, a top speed of 270 and carries half a ton of bombs. That is a light dive bomber. Then you have the "Hendon" (Fairey). That has only a 960 mile range, a top speed of 150 to 160, and carries three-quarters of a ton of bombs. We have not got in the programme any really heavy bomber that is in the class of heavy bombers that other nations have against us, and the difficulty is that you have to get—or at least I suggest that you have to get—them quickly. You cannot delay. We are in too big a danger to delay. They have to be got, and they cannot be got in this country quickly.
One of the big authorities—Mr. Lester Gardner—of America did the whole tour of Europe, and reported that in the air England is at least three years behind any Continental nation in construction and design and possible output. That is the report of a man who knows what he is talking about. I do not like to put forward one's own personal views, but I can tell you that I am not talking on a subject of which I know nothing. I have been constantly in touch with people in France, in Belgium, in Germany, in Italy, and I know what is being done there. I also know what is being done in this country. I see no reason to doubt Mr. Lester Gardner when he says that to-day we are three years behind everyone. It is not the fault of this country. It is the fault of those people who have been governing this country. They would not look after the air. They let it drop and if you let a thing drop like that, it cannot suddenly be taken up again.
One of the big difficulties—the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Air mentioned it in the debate last week—is the fact that there is a great dearth of expert engineers. We are living in a specialised age. You cannot take an engineer from something to which he has been accustomed, and put him on to something to which he is not in the least accustomed, and expect him at once to be able to do that job. It is impossible. A person who makes precision works for a watch is an engineer, and so is a person who makes horse-shoes. But you do not expect a watchmaker to make horse-shoes, or a blacksmith to make precision watches. They must be trained, and that training takes time. Training an aircraft engineer takes two or three years. We had experience of that in war time. When I was employed during the War as liaison, officer between this country and France, because both countries were short of munitions I had to make contracts by which England would supply France with certain things and France would supply England with other things. When we were making those contracts the difficulty was always to know whether we could get the work done, whether there were sufficient engineers trained for that particular work. As I have said I can see no reason why the figures I have asked for should not be disclosed to your Lordships and to the people of this country,
354
when we are perfectly aware that they are well known by the Air Staffs elsewhere. Therefore, I ask the Government to give these figures frankly and without trying to conceal anything, in order that they may as quickly as possible get out of the slough into which they have fallen. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I shall only reply to the Motion, and I think your Lordships would only wish me to do so, in a sentence or two. The noble Earl has quoted some gentleman who said we were three years behind the whole world. I suppose that is the reason why every other country in the world is coming to ask me to let them have some of our new machines. I am not responsible for any question that the noble Earl puts upon the Paper. I am responsible in the public interest for the answers which are given in this House. I have not been long in your Lordships' house, but I think your Lordships will give me credit for giving as full and clear answers as it is possible to give consistently with the public interest. I can say that I have made as full statements as possible in the Defence debates which we have had in this House. I am not going to trouble about many of the statements made by the noble Earl. His suggestion that he can find out everything he wants to know about the British programme and performances in foreign countries may perhaps satisfy him, but what I am invited to do is to give particulars of machines and of secret lists, none of which have ever been given, and which nobody has yet, as far I am aware, ever asked in your Lordships' House should be given. I say most emphatically, with a full sense of responsibility, that whatever may be the right of the noble Earl to put this Motion on the Paper, I should be guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty if I gave the information asked for.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, that answer does not satisfy me in the least, but my feeling, looking round the House and seeing that there are not too many members here, is that it would be really a waste of time if I went to a Division. Therefore I do not press for a Division, and I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS PRICES.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee, to consist of seven members, to join with the Committee of this House, to inquire into the powers of regulating charges possessed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company and other gas companies authorised to operate under a basic price and basic dividend system, to consider whether adequate protection is afforded to the interests of the different classes of gas consumers under such powers, and to report what action, if any, is necessary; and that they have made the following orders: That leave be given to the Committee to hear the parties interested by themselves, their counsel or agents, so far as the Committee think fit; that, the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; that three be the quorum; and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members appointed by them.
The said Message to be taken into consideration to-morrow.