Commons Sitting of 17 March 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Rear-Admiral Thomas Benjamin Stratton Adair, Glasgow Burgh (Shettleston Division), took the Oath and signed the Roll.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Reigate Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 31st March.

ARMY, 1918–19 (VOTE 10, WORKS AND BUILDINGS).
Copy presented of Statement of Proposed Expenditure out of the Vote of Credit on New Works, etc., of a permanent character amounting to £2,000 and upwards for the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  WILD BIRDS' PLUMAGE.
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, considering that no steps have been taken to prevent the import of wild birds' plumage, the export of which is prohibited in various portions of the British Empire, he will put a stop to the issue of licences by the Paris branch of the Department of Import Restrictions pending final settlement of the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The licensing of goods of French origin in Paris is the result of an agreement concluded with the French Government in August, 1917 If any modifications are made in this agreement the hon. Member's suggestion will be considered.

  COTTON HOSIERY.
  Colonel YATEasked what is exactly the existing rate sanctioned for the import of cotton hosiery into the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Pending a decision as to the new rate of import to be allowed, the import ration is suspended. The old rate was 50 per cent. of 1916 imports.

  MINERS' FEDERATION.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as. to the number of miners who were eligible to vote in the recent decision to strike and the number who voted for the strike; and whether the Board has at any time collected information as to the system of voting in this and other trades in order to see if the freedom of the men and women employed is safe guarded in a similar way to their votes at a general election for Parliament?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The membership of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain at the end of 1917 according to figures supplied to the Ministry of Labour by the Federation was 769,470. It is presumed that all were entitled to vote. The members who voted, as stated by the Leader of the Labour party in this House on the 24th February were 611,998 in favour of a strike, against 104,997, total 716,995. The attention of the Government has not been drawn to any cases of intimidation of working men or women in connection with voting under Trade Union methods.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government consider this proposition: It is intimidating to men who have to vote in public when there is a large organised body of opinion in favour one way or the other?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will put the point to my right hon. Friend.
  Colonel W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Miners' Federation voted according to the rules and that no one has any right to interfere?

  COTTON OPERATIVES (JAPAN).
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Japanese cotton operatives are em-

  1697
  ployed twelve hours per day for an average pay throughout the mill of 1s. 6¼d. per day per person; that the Japanese millowner employs his machinery an average of 144 hours per week; and whether, in view of this competition, he has any proposals to make to assist those engaged in the cotton trade in this country to maintain their trade?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member is doubtless referring to the import of Japanese cotton hosiery. There is a restriction on the import of all such hosiery. The question as to the rate of import to be allowed is now under consideration.

  RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION (COST OF LIVING).
  Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the position in which superannuated members of the various railway funds have been placed by the increase in the cost of living; and whether he will take steps to minimise the hardships which result from the fact that for many years to come pensions will be based largely on the lower salaries of the past?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this matter, but the Government control of the railways does not extend to railway superannuation funds, and I do not see how members of those funds can be treated, so far as the Government are concerned, differently from persons in similar positions in other classes of the community.

  MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked what was the value of imported manufactured goods during January and February of this year on which no import duties were paid?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The declared value of goods classed as wholly or mainly manufactured, registered as imported into the United Kingdom, free of import duty, during each of the first two months of the present year amounted, in round figures, to £26,600,000 in January, and to £18,700,000 in February.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is the Board of Trade taking any steps to secure this trade for production in British factories?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are doing the best we can for British trade.

  RAILWAY FACILITIES, EASTER.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the importance of improving the health of many thousands of workers, he will reconsider the question of cheaper travelling facilities at Easter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret to say that the position of the railways does not admit of cheap travelling facilities being given at Easter.

  PAPER SUPPLIES.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the removal of all restrictions upon the exportation of Scandinavian paper, several British mills are closing down, thus causing widespread unemployment?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member presumably refers to restrictions on imports into the United Kingdom, and not on exports from Scandinavia. It is not true that all restrictions on import of paper have been removed. Imports are being admitted up to 75 per cent. of pre-war imports up to the end of April, 1919. But in the cases of imports from the Empire there is no such limitation. I am informed that certain mills are closing down owing to unsettlement in prices arising out of the relaxation of restriction of imports of paper. Such imports are not derived exclusively from Scandinavia, but also from Canada, Newfoundland, and the United States.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is there any shortage of paper in this country at the present time?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

  NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the North Staffordshire Railway Com-

  1699
  pany have given, or have been asked by the Board of Trade to give, any date by which they hope to resume work on the Trentham-Newcastle light railway; and and whether any reply has been received from them?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The railway company inform me that they cannot at present give a date for the resumption of this work, although as the hon. and gallant Member has already been informed by letter, they hope to be able to arrange for such a resumption.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will these men be informed that their demands will not be refused until the question of nationalisation is settled one way or the other?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether that will be so or not.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be possible for a railway company to decide these matters under the new Transport Bill?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not the question on the Paper.

  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (PROPOSED COMMITTEE).
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked if the proposed Committee on industrial insurance will include in its terms of reference the conditions of service of all grades of the outdoor staffs of life insurance offices?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The terms of reference to the Committee to be set up to inquire into the question of industrial assurance are under consideration. I am, therefore, unable to state at present whether the matter referred to by the hon. Member will come within the scope of the inquiry.
  Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what prospect there is of this Committee being appointed, and whether steps can be taken to ensure that when the evidence, which is of great public interest, is taken, it will be heard in public?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are very anxious to appoint the Committee as soon as possible. I am afraid I cannot answer about taking the evidence in public without consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  WAR INDEMNITY.
  BRITISH EXPORTS TO ALLIED COUNTRIES.
  Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a full and clear interpretation of the intention of His Majesty's Government in relation to the outflow of British exports to Allied countries, as a charge against the possible indemnities such countries may receive, can be issued for the information of Members of the House and the public?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have nothing to add to the statement made to the House by the Minister of Reconstruction on Monday last.
  Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish, and circulate among Members of the House, a copy of the Report of the Committee over which Mr. Hughes presided, and appointed by the British Government to inquire into the financial wealth of Germany, both present and potential, with a view to deciding what proportion of the Allies' war expenditure it would be just and reasonable to exact from her?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Committee referred to was appointed to advise the Cabinet. It is therefore confidential, and it is not proposed to publish it.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the Report withheld because it is of too robust a character, in view of the present opinions of the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member must be aware that Reports specially asked for by the War Cabinet are not intended for publication, but only for the use of the Government.
  Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the full bill will be presented at the Peace Conference, and if it is decided that only a small amount can be exacted from Germany at the present moment will it be considered to be only a sum on account?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give no such promise. It never has been and is not the policy of the Government to demand more than, in their opinion, can be got out of the enemy.
  Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: I give notice, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, that I will raise the question of indemnities on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.

  AFTER WAR TRADE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  Mr. G. DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will undertake that, in those cases where British manufacturers invest additional capital in the extension of buildings and the erection of plant, the period before the review takes place will be extended beyond 1st September, so as to prevent dislocation of enlarged industrial effort and the displacement of additional numbers of employés?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hardly think that any good purpose will be served by postponing a review of the conditions upon which the future licensing policy will be based.
  Mr. DOYLEasked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make subsidies under certain specific safeguards to certain new manufacturing enterprises in this country for the extension of old or the creation of new industries; and whether in the case of such industries so subsidised, where articles are available for export, will the restrictions as applicable to non-blockaded and blockaded countries apply?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The extent to which State assistance should be accorded to special industries, and the forms which any such assistance should take, are under consideration. As regards the second part of the question, I am not sure that I appreciate what the hon. Member has in mind; and I am not in a position to say what restrictions on the direction of exports from this country may be deemed necessary or desirable.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    COAL CONTROLLER'S STAFF (COST).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade who is the present Coal Controller; what is the number of
    1702
    staff employed in this department; what buildings they occupy for offices; and what is the total cost of this Department for last year and the estimated cost for this year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The present Controller of Coal Mines is the hon. Member for Pembroke, who was appointed to succeed the late Sir Guy Calthrop on the 11th March. The staff of his Department numbers approximately 910, of whom 530 are in London. In addition about 450 engineers throughout the country render honorary part-time assistance in connection with the campaign to secure economy of fuel in industrial works, etc. The Holborn Viaduct Hotel, containing 134 rooms, and twenty-two rooms at Bank Buildings, Holborn, are occupied by the staff of the Department in London, while outside London there are about forty separate offices. The cost of the Coal Mines Department during the financial year 1918–19 is approximately £250,000, and the estimated coat for the year 1919–20 is £517,253, the increase being due largely to the fact that payment of the claims of local authorities and gas and electricity undertakings and companies in respect of work done by thorn under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders will fall mainly within the coming year.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of this the poor people of Nottingham, who are not far from the coal mines, cannot get coal?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should spend more money?
    Sir J. D. REES: Oh! no, no.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not this cost supposed to come out of the extra tax upon those collieries that are working at a profit under the Coal Bill of last year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure about that. I do not think the answer I have given refers to that at all, but I will inquire.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this £500,000 is the cost of compensating poor collieries and undertakings, or is it purely the cost of the clerical services of this Department?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give details till I see the Paper. I cannot carry all these figures in my head.

    IMPORTS INTO LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked if any coal was imported into London from Canada or the North American Colonies during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914; and if he will give the quantities in tons for each year, and who were the principal importers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: 33,092 tons of coal were imported into London from Canada in 1912, and none in 1913 and 1914; no coal was imported into London from the North American Colonies in these years. It is not possible now to give the names of the importers.

    SHIPPING FREIGHTS (NORWEGIAN IMPORTS).
    Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether any rebate on freight has been conceded to Norwegian coal importers; and, if so, what was the total value of such concession and for what reason was it given?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the SHIPPING CONTROLLER (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Under a general agreement and under arrangements with the Norwegian interests concerned, a large amount of Norwegian tonnage was chartered by the British Government for employment on Allied service in exchange for the carriage of coal to Norway in British ships. The total freight paid by the Norwegian coal importers has proved to be in excess of the total charge which the British Government was entitled to make on the basis of the agreement and the excess, which in all will amount to about £1,500,000, is being repaid in accordance with the original understanding.
    Captain BARNETT: Has any similar rebate been made to British importers and particularly to British importers of wire nails?
    Colonel WILSON: I do not think that question arises.

  IMPORT LICENCES (GLASSWARE).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether licences granted for the importation of lighting glassware are transferrable; if they are not, is he aware that the attention of the Board has been called to such an offer having been made; and what action does he propose to take to prevent trafficking in these licences?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No licences are transferable without the express authority of the Controller of the Department of Import Restrictions. Information has been received that one concessionaire under the glassware ration proposes to sell his licences, and when he makes application for the licences suitable action will be taken to prevent the proposed sale.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BUTTER.
    Sir J. D. REESasked when restrictions upon the export of butter from Ireland will be removed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy):I have been asked to reply. The Ministry of Food already purchases the total exportable surplus of butter from Ireland, and it is anticipated that it will be necessary to continue to do so during the next season.

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
    Mr. HURDasked what arrangements are in progress for the continued and most advantageous use on the land of the agricultural machinery of war agricultural committees as they become available for purchase; and whether special terms and priority of purchase can be offered to actual farmers and to owners who are prepared to place the outfits at the disposal of farmers in their districts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen):Implements and machinery as they become surplus are being sold by public auction in the locality in which they have been at work. It is not possible to arrange for special terms to any class of purchaser, but, so far as my information goes, the purchasers have for the most part been farmers.
    Mr. HURD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that is the best way of getting cultivation extended?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That would require a long answer, but that is our present view anyhow.

    CEREALS.
    Major O'NEILLasked what will be the guaranteed prices of cereals of the 1919 crop?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave to the question addressed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton on the 10th instant.
    Major O'NEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman, at any rate, give me certain figures relating to cereals below which the minimum prices, for 1919 will not be fixed in view of the fact that there is very grave disquietude among the farmers of the country?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I realise the position entirely and sympathise with the farmers, but as I have said before, and I can only repeat now, that I hope to be able to make a definite statement in the course of this month and at all events before Easter.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: If the Government cannot make up their mind will they refer this question to the National Agricultural Council which represents all interests in the industry and get an answer from them?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no doubt the Government can make up their minds.

    CANADIAN STORE CATTLE.
    Captain SHAWasked under what Act or Order the importation of Canadian store cattle into this country is prohibited; and if, with a view to reducing the price of beef, he will take steps to have the embargo removed?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Diseases of Animals Act of 1896 forbids the landing in this country of animals from any country except for slaughter at the port of landing. The only exceptions admissible under the Act are with regard to animals intended for exhibition. In these cases quarantine is enforced. No legislation to amend the above-mentioned Act is at present contemplated.

    WHEAT.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the difficulty of British farmers in disposing of their wheat in competition with imported supplies; and whether he will consider the desirability of insisting on a definite percentage of British wheat in all loaves produced for the British public?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I must refer the hon. And gallant Member to the answer I
    1706
    gave to the question addressed to me on the 11th inst. by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley.
    General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extraordinary difficulty in which agriculturists are placed owing to the present situation in the country?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, we are quite aware of it, and we are taking every step that we can to help them.

    DEMONSTRATION DAIRY FARMS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether consideration can be given to the establishment by the Government of demonstration dairy farms managed on purely commercial lines, as examples, both on intensive arable and extensive pasture lines?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are establishing ten demonstration holdings managed on purely commercial lines as examples of intensive dairy farming on arable land. The Board are doubtful whether demonstrations of dairy farming on extensive pasture lines are necessary in present circumstances, but will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

    PEAS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether a very large acreage of blue peas was grown last season, and that, owing to the purchase by the Government of largo quantities of Japanese peas (now being exported to France and Belgium) and the prohibition of the export of home-grown, the home trade is completely blocked, and growers are unable to find a market for their produce, although compelled to thresh for use of straw; and whether immediate action may be taken in conjunction with the Food Controller?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The acreage under blue peas is not distinguished in the returns from the acreage of peas generally, but there was a considerable increase in the production of peas in 1018. The Ministry of Food have made no purchase of Japanese peas since the 17th December, 1918, but small quantities of such peas previously purchased have been delivered since then. I am informed that none of these have been exported to Belgium or France, and that home-grown peas will be

    1707
    freely licensed by the War Trade Department for exportation to approved destinations.

    MILK (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF DAIRYMEN).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Food Controller whether he has seen resolutions passed by the National Federation of Dairymen's Associations at Liverpool on 19th February; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action upon such resolutions?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Two of the questions raised in these resolutions have already been dealt with. The restrictions on the use of milk as a beverage in catering establishments were removed on 9th March last, and the operation of the Egg (Prices) Order is being suspended as from to-day. In view of the shortage of butter supplies, the Food Controller is not at present prepared to act upon the resolution recommending that the restrictions on the sale of cream should be withdrawn. Full consideration will be given to the other resolutions in determining the policy to be followed as regards the future of milk control.

    MILK AND CHEESE (PRICES).
    Captain FITZROYasked the Food Controller whether, having in view the necessity of ensuring a certain supply of milk, he will announce without delay the fixed maximum prices for milk and cheese, based on the ascertained cost of production not only for this summer, but also for the winter of 1919–20?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Food Controller is fully aware of the desirability of making an announcement as soon as possible in regard to the prices of milk and cheese during the coming summer and the winter of 1919–1920, and hopes to do so as soon as the Travelling Milk Commission now engaged in ascertaining the cost of production has made its Report.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: When will it be published?
    Mr. McCURDY: I do not know.

    CHEESE.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that hardly any cheese can be
    1708
    obtained in London; and will he make such arrangements as will mitigate the shortage?
    Mr. McCURDY: The supplies of cheese now available for distribution to the civilian population throughout the country are very low, owing to the limited facilities for the transportation of cheese from Australasia, the only source of supply ouside this country at the present time. It is anticipated that there will be considerable improvement in the position in the early summer.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he puts the prices down when no cheese is to be obtained?

    NEWSPAPERS (NO-RETURNS ORDER).
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked why the No-Returns Order governing newspapers and periodicals is maintained in spite of the renewed supply of paper, and what special reasons exist against its abrogation?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Salford on the 13th inst.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why this No Returns Order is going on is because the papers supporting the Government do not wish it to be withdrawn?

  INDIA.

    REVOLVER LICENCES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India on what terms will licences to carry arms be issued under the new Regulations in India; and will the carrying of revolvers be permitted?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The detailed conditions on which licences to carry arms will be issued have still to be worked out by the Government of India. The Secretary of State understands that for revolvers and pistols licences will be issued only in cases of real necessity and to persons of approved character, and that the licence fee will be raised for such weapons and also for breech-loading rifles and smooth bores.

    SECRETARY OF STATE'S REPORT
    Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAYasked whether the opinions of the provincial governments in India on the Report of the Secretary of State and Viceroy have been officially received from the Government of India?
    Mr. FISHER: The reply is in the negative.

    FAMINE RELIEF CODE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the propriety of suggesting to the Government of India that the title of the Indian Famine Relief Code should be changed to that of the Famine Prevention Code, in order that the fact may be appreciated at home, that when it is brought into force, because food grains rise above a certain price, famine is prevented by such action and the people are not suffering from but are saved from famine?
    Mr. FISHER: This suggestion was communicated to the Government of India a few years ago, and they preferred not to act on it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there a possibility of reopening the question once more: they may have grown wiser in the interval?

    ROWLATT BILLS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether the Rowlatt Bills provide for indefinite imprisonment without trial; and whether the Indian members of council have unanimously opposed these Bills?
    Mr. FISHER: In November last the Government of India sought the approval of the Secretary of State in Council to the publication of the Bills with a view to introducing them into the Legislative Council and approval was given. So far as Indian opinion had manifested itself in the Legislative Council, the Secretary of State had no reason to believe that it was opposed to a fair consideration being given by the Legislature to legislative proposals embodying the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee. A resolution moved in the Legislative Council on the 23rd September that the consideration and disposal of the Committee's recommendations should be kept in abeyance until a further inquiry was made had the support of two members only.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the inquiry that is held after one years' imprisonment without trial is an inquiry before a judicial authority of any sort or merely a private administrative inquiry?
    Mr. FISHER: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether the Rowlatt Bills were approved by him before being submitted to the Legislative Council; and, if so, whether he made any attempt to gauge the temper of the Indian people on the subject before he gave that approval?
    Mr. FISHER: The Government of India has informed the Secretary of State that the Bill, as modified in Select Committee, limits the total period of confinement to two years and gives the person concerned the right of having his case re-examined at the end of the first year by the investigating Committee. The Indian members, in opposing the introduction of the Emergency Powers Bill, supported an Amendment to defer the consideration of the Bill until six months after the expiry of the term of office of the existing Council.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that the Secretary of State gave his authority to the Bills being published, but did not give his authority to them being introduced into the Legislative Council?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not think so.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether that is not the case?

    INDIAN SERVICE (GRATUITIES).
    Lieutenant-Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War what gratuities are to be paid to the Regular officers of the Indian Army and the Royal Indian Marine and when such gratuities are likely to be given; and whether officers of those Services who have been invalided out on account of wounds or causes resultant from the War are eligible for such gratuities?
    Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India regarding gratuities for the Indian Service on the lines of those granted to the British Service. Invalided officers will be included in any grant of gratuities that is decided on.

    CZECHO-SLOVAK REPUBLIC.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact that while both the French and Italian plenipotentiary representatives to the Czecho-Slovakia Republic have been duly accredited by their respective Courts, the English plenipotentiary representative has not yet been accredited by Great Britain, despite the fact that he has already been in Prague some months; and whether he is aware that the absence in Prague of an accredited Minister from Great Britain gives rise to the feeling that Great Britain does not consider the Republic of sufficient importance to warrant this?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household):The present British Representative at Prague is Mr. Gosling, His Majesty's Chargéd' Affaires, who was received in audience by the Prime Minister of the Czecho-Slovak Republic on the 15th of January, and who accupies a position in Prague identical with that of the Czecho-Slovak Representative in this country. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (REORGANISATION).
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether a reply has yet been received from the Treasury in reference to the scheme of reorganisation of the Board of Agriculture?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer is in the negative.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICEMEN).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary if he will obtain from the county councils of England and Wales information which will enable him to lay upon the Table a statement showing the number of ex-Service men who have actually been settled on the land up to the 1st March, and also the number to the same date in regard to whom negotiations are in progress?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The county councils have been asked to supply information on these points, and I hope shortly to be able to supply the particulars desired by my hon. Friend.
    Major WOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also consider the advisability of giving particulars of that land provided by land owners directly without the intervention of the county council?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will consider that.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the number of discharged soldiers and sailors in England and in Wales, respectively, who have applied to the various county councils and to the Board of Agriculture for land for settlement purposes; what is the total acreage represented by such applications; and what steps have been taken in England and in Wales, respectively, by the county councils and the Board of Agriculture to meet the applications?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Six thousand six hundred and thirty-five applications have been received by county councils in England and 436 in Wales. The acreage applied for is, approximately, 121,400 acres in England and 8,000 in Wales. The Board have received 441 applications for land on their land settlements. The amount of land required or arrangements to acquire which have been concluded is, approximately, 18,815 acres. Additional land is being acquired every week.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 7,000 applications have been successful, and how much land has been granted?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In order to give complete figures, I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: Are there any?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly.
    Sir K. WOODasked whether forty allotment-holders of the Sunbury and District Allotment Holders' Society have received notice from the council of Sunbury to quit their allotments situated in Lower Sunbury; and whether he will take steps to see that these men are secured in the tenure of their allotments for at least two years after the War?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Inquiries have been made into this case and it appears that the district council gave notice to

    1713
    quit to the allotment-holders under a misapprehension as to the powers of the Board. The position has been explained to the council, and the notices to quit will be withdrawn.
    Sir K. WOODasked whether a number of allotment-holders cultivating land at Sharlston Road, Mortlake, have received notice from the urban district council of Barnes to quit their allotments; whether this particular piece of land had been lying unused for twenty years before it was taken over for food production, was very rough, necessitating much hard work and time by the cultivators, and has been in cultivation under the Cultivation of Lands Order only for the past year; for what purpose this land is required; and whether, should the land be required for some purpose of greater necessity than the production of food, the allotment-holders will be allowed to cultivate it until it is actually required for that purpose and will, on dispossession, be provided with an equivalent amount of land in substitution?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am glad to say that the Board have decided that the allotment-holders at Sharlston Road shall not be disturbed at present. If later on the land is required for building purposes, every endeavour will be made to provide them with other land.
    Sir K. WOODasked whether, seeing that the Circular of the Board relative to the tenure of allotments under the Cultivation of Lands Order and Regulation 21, dated November, 1918, expressly provides that certain particulars must be proved to the satisfaction of the Board before allotment-holders are dispossessed, and in view of the necessity of continuity of policy in these cases, he will secure that the Board's policy in this respect shall be carried out; that local authorities shall be instructed to remit to the Board all cases of proposed termination of tenancy of allotments; and whether, in view of the anxiety among allotment-holders at the present time in regard to their tenure, some machinery will be set up to enable allotment-holders to have a voice in the interpretation of the conditions under which allotments have to be surrendered in the public interest?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The intention of the Board is to retain possession in all cases except where the compensation
    1714
    would be excessive or when the land is situated in parks and open spaces. Each case has to be considered on its merits, and absolute uniformity of treatment is impossible. Local authorities have been instructed to submit their proposals to the Board for approval. The Board are always glad to consider representations from allotment-holders, but they cannot delegate their responsibility of deciding what land shall be retained or not.
    Captain BARNETT: Would my hon. and gallant Friend consider the desirability of asking for further powers for his Department in respect of the Cultivation of Land Orders, so as to protect the interests of allotment-holders?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will await the introduction of the Land Settlement Bill, I think he will see that further powers will be asked for.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether there is a keen desire on the part of the members of the Maypole and District Allotment Holders' Association, Bexley, to secure a lease of the land they are at present cultivating, with a view to obtaining more adequate security of tenure than they have at present; and, as the Board have recommended allotment-holders to lease ground wherever possible, whether he will make representations to the urban district council of Dartford to effect a lease of this land or, failing that, a lease of other land in the district to satisfy the demand for allotments?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have no special information about this case, but inquiries will be made with the object of giving the association all possible assistance in obtaining land for allotments on lease.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will greater power be taken with regard to security of tenure for these allotment-holders?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that my hon. Friend had better wait for the introduction of the Bill.

    TANKS (INVENTION AND DESIGN).
    Sir CROYDON MARKSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether it is intended to act upon the recommendations made in the Report of the Committee presided over by

    1715
    Lord Moulton by paying the awards to the persons found by them to be entitled to such for the invention and design of the tanks?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The recommendations made in the Report of Lord Moulton's Committee is being referred to the Royal Commission on Awards.

    CLAPHAM COMMON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions for what purpose he is still retaining about seventeen acres of Clapham Common for his Department; if the London County Council has repeatedly applied for its release so that this acreage can now be used for its original purpose of an open space for games; and if he will give instructions to release this land at once so that it can be used during the ensuing summer months?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The seventeen acres in question form part of a total area of twenty-six acres used by the Ministry for testing anti-gas respirators, and for the storage of respirators and helmets returned from France. The remainder of the ground is, at the request of the London County Council, being reinstated for use as an open space during the summer. The seventeen acres retained are still being used for storage purposes. No request has been received from the County Council for vacation of this apace, but I am making inquiries as to the earliest date at which it will be possible to surrender the whole area.

    OFFICE OF WORKS (WAR CONTRACTS).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the First Commissioner of Works if any contracts were placed by his Department during the War without a break clause; and, if so, will he state, approximately, the number of such contracts and equally the number of contracts containing such a clause?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): No contracts made by my Department during the War contained a break clause. My reply to a supplementary question last
    1716
    Monday was given under a misapprehension. In regard to the furniture contracts, to which I understand the hon. Baronet to refer, it would have been inadvisable to insert such a clause, even if the contractors would have agreed to one. It was necessary to induce furniture manufacturers to set aside their private work, for which there was a great demand, and to concentrate on the urgent Government requirements. Instead of having to make compensation under a break clause my Department has been free to negotiate with contractors for the cancellation or diversion of their contracts, and as a matter of fact has secured the cancellation of over £300,000 worth for the small compensation of £50.
    Sir R. COOPER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his is the only Department which has not such a clause in all war contracts?
    Sir A. MOND: I have gone carefully into the matter, and, looking through one of the break clause contracts, I am very glad that we have not got them.

    WAR MEMORIALS (VILLAGE HALLS AND INSTITUTIONS).
    Major BREESEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the return to civil life of a number of men who have served in the forces of the Crown and have enjoyed during their period of service the social amenities provided in connection with regimental institutions, and the absence of any such facilities for recreation and social intercourse in the rural districts of the country, he can state what contribution, if any, he proposes to make from State funds in aid of such forms of war memorials as are contemplated in the erection of village halls and institutions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor):The Local Government Board are prepared to sanction expenditure by local authorities for this purpose.
    Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Would not an economical solution of this important question be to use the obsolete hutments all over the country for this specific purpose? Would this suggestion be considered?
    Major ASTOR: The use of the huts for all purposes is being considered.

    MILITARY SERVICE.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view of meeting the views of those who consider it undesirable to retain so-called conscientious objectors in prison, he will afford to the latter after the signing of the Peace Treaty the option of joining the Non-Combatant Corps for road making and other essential work in the devasted areas abroad, and thus give the opportunity for the genuine conscientious objector to be distinguished from those who have no genuine conscientious scruples?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE of WAR (Mr. Churchill):I am informed that it has always been the practice to release any man of the class referred to who has given an undertaking to serve in any non-combatant unit, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that any conscientious objector who is prepared to give that undertaking will be afforded the opportunity. I understand, however, that many genuine conscientious objectors have persistently refused to do any work whatever under military control, and I am afraid, therefore, it is not possible to apply the test suggested in order to distinguish genuine from non-genuine cases.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the same to the notice of conscientious objectors and so knock the bottom out of this agitation which is going on?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that most conscientious objectors obtain by good conduct a remission of part of their sentences, an arrangement could be made whereby they would benefit by this remission and be allowed to see their families at home before being re-court-martialled and again imprisoned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no advantage in considering this question piecemeal. It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be dealt with until demobilisation is further advanced.

    WAR WAGE ADVANCES.
    Captain COOTEasked the Prime Minister what is the position with regard to the draft Bill to restore the right to
    1718
    strike and keep up wages for six months, stated to have been submitted to a joint committee of employers and men?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): I have been asked to answer this question. The prohibition against strikes, contained in Part 1 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, was removed by the repeal of that part of that Act by Section 6 of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1916. This Act also maintains wages at their existing level for a period of six months from the date on which it was passed, namely, 21st November, 1918. The question of the future method of dealing with war wage advances is now under consideration by a Joint Committee set up as a result of the recent Industrial Conference.

    GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS, KEMPTON PARK AND SLOUGH.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister what Department is responsible for the accumulation of Government motor cars at Kempton Park and other depots; what percentage of these cars has been disposed of since the Armistice, including deliveries to which the Government is committed under existing contracts, and how many cars are now in stock; whether he is aware that they are daily depreciating in value; and when and by what means they are to be realised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The War Office is responsible for all Army mechanical transport vehicles at Kempton Park, and certain other depots. The vehicles are collected from all Government Departments, and after being sorted, classified by makes, etc., they are handed over to the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board at the Ministry of Munitions for disposal I am informed that the motor cars thus put forward for disposal to date amount to just under 17 per cent., and that about 30 per cent. of these have actually been disposed of, while a further 394 cars, which are ready for disposal, will be sold by auction in due course after full publicity. Auctions are being held at as frequent intervals as possible. The number of cars in stock at the depots under the War Office is 3,362, including current deliveries of new vehicles. I have no doubt a good deal of depreciation is taking place in this and other Government stores. Every effort will be made to accelerate disposals.
    Major E. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is proposed to move any of these cars to the depot at Slough?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that it is quite possible the same may be moved to Slough, but that is getting on to a subject which is really better suited to Debate.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are these cars being preserved, even though they are getting into a state of deterioration, in order that they may be moved to Slough and thus justify the Slough experiment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not believe that it is as bad as all that.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the photographs in the public Press showing the conditions at Kempton Park; whether they are true, and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that some of the conditions at Kempton Park are deplorable, and that some of these cars are up to their axles in mud. One of the reasons it is proposed to move some of them to Slough, so I am advised, is that they can stand there under better conditions.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will Slough be put up before these cars are put up for auction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that I had better go into that matter now.

    BOLSHEVISM.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to collect information and evidence concerning the aims and objects of the Bolsheviks, with special regard to their treatment of women?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think such a Commission is necessary in view of the large amount of information and evidence already available.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the evidence to be circulated throughout the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe it is arranged that is shall be published, but I cannot pledge myself to that circulation.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are the Government taking any definite steps to deal with Bolshevism in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are doing as much as they can. The amount of their success must be judged by the hon. Member.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not Bolshevism in this country a pure bogey?

    LOSS OF SS. "HAMPSHIRE."
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has any objection to now publishing the Report of the inquiry which was held into the loss of the "Hampshire?"
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Admiralty see no reason to depart from their previous decision not to publish this Report.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: What considerations of public interest stand in the way of letting the public know the truth of the circumstances under which Lord Kitchener met his death?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Reports of Courts of Inquiry are never published. I have not gone fully into the question, but perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Admiralty what is the objection to publishing it.
    Sir R. COOPER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in Lord Jellicoe's book that the "Hampshire" was sent up an unswept channel?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does the Government not recognise the unfairness of holding Courts of Inquiry on such matters, the Reports of which are never published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There are reasons for and against, but I do not profess to be familiar with the subject, which has often been discussed in this House.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case you can hold courts-martial, and that there is no precedent against publishing what transpires there, whereas the Reports of Courts of Inquiry are never published. Is there not grave reason to think that Courts of Inquiry are not properly held?

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further announcement in regard to the construction of the Channel Tunnel?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether, in the event of the British and French Governments coming to an understanding on this project, it will be necessary to delay the commencement of operations pending the ratification of the scheme by the President of the United States?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Supplementary questions are now invading the time needed for the questions on the Paper.

  NAVY, ARMY, AND AUXILIARY FORCES.

    PARLIAMENTARY THANKS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he can announce the day on which the thanks of the House of Commons shall be given to the Navy, Army, and Auxiliary Services, including the Mercantile Marine, for their services in the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not yet possible to give the date.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that in numerous cases soldiers or their wives or dependants write to different Government Departments for information or redress and for weeks and sometimes months receive no reply; and whether, in view of the fact that such omission has caused, and is causing, discontent, he will give directions that all letters and complaints from the classes above referred to shall be promptly attended to and replies sent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
    1722
    As regards the second part, the local pensions committees have been established all over the country for the express purpose of giving information and redress on the spot, and it is to them that applications should be made in the first instance.

    POST OFFICE EMPLOYES.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he is aware that in 1914 and 1915, owing to the need of men in the Army who possessed the ability to administer large telegraph and telephone offices, his Department was asked by the War Office to select suitable men for such work; that they were for the most part of the minor establishment of the Post Office and normally their salaries were totally inadequate to maintain their families and also the ranks of commissioned officers, and that they were promised full civil pay as well as the emoluments of officers of the Royal Engineers; under what authority it has been advised that these men are not to receive the gratuities granted to their comrades in the British Army, and whether the postal authorities are about to represent to the War Office the need for the immediate withdrawal of the Army Council instruction withholding this right;
    (2) Whether, seeing that, in response to the questions raised by Members in the House in 1918, he promised to consult the Law Officers of the Crown regarding the legality of the action of his Department in withholding allowances and gratuities from Post Office servants who accepted military service in response to a promise admittedly made, he will say whether the Law Officers have decided such stoppages were illegal, and refundments in certain cases have been made; whether he can state why separation allowances granted in 1917 onward have been paid, as a result of this decision, while the gratuities, an essential part of military pay, promised in 1914–15–16 have not been paid;
    (3) Whether, in 1914, the Post Office authorities promised full civil pay in addition to military pay to expert telegraphists who volunteered for the Royal Engineers (Signal Service);whether the Departmental authorities agreed with the officials of the postal telegraph trades unions that the application of these terms were to be identical with those enjoyed by the Army Post Office in South Africa;

    1723
    and whether, in view of the pledges given to men who enlisted knowing these conditions in 1914 to 1917, he will state why the gratuity given to soldiers and officers is being withheld?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford on the 12th instant.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Minister of Pensions whether disability pensions equally with wound pensions are to be free of Income Tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The answer is in the affirmative.

  HOUSING ACCOMMODATION (LONDON).
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent decision in the Law Courts restraining owners of large and empty houses in London from turning them into flats without the consent of the ground landlord; and, in view of the admitted shortage of housing accommodation, what action does he propose to take?
  Major ASTOR: I have seen a report of the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The Government do not propose to introduce legislation dealing with the specific point raised by the case.

  ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from, the Joint Industrial Council for the Road Transport Industry expressing the opinion that the departmental responsibility for roads and road traffic should be vested in a board rather than in an individual Minister, and that on the board there should be an equal representation of labour and employers with the State representation; and whether he will give effect to that resolution?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    DEPARTMENTAL CONTROLLERS (PLEDGE OF SECRECY).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister it, in view of the fact that controllers and other officials temporarily or otherwise engaged during the War in Government Departments are now transferring their services to private or other firms, he will require each of such controllers or officials in all State Departments to make a written declaration that no information of a Government, industrial, or commercial nature, whether verbal or in writing, shall be communicated to any person or be utilised in any way in relation to his future employment; and will he make any breach of such declaration punishable under the Defence of the Realm Regulations or by other means?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is already covered by the Official Secrets Act, 1911 (S. 2), but the Government is at present considering whether it may not be desirable to provide further safeguards.

    SALONIKA FORCES.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the hardships inflicted on a number of men serving with the Salonika Forces, who have been away from home for over three years without any leave, he will guarantee that such men will be immediately discharged?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Such men as are eligible for demobilisation are being demobilised as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service and transport facilities permit.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is immense dissatisfaction owing to the impossibility of getting men away from Salonika?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am only aware that everything is being done, in accordance with the scheme which was announced to Parliament, to bring men home and release them.
    Major M'MICKING: Will the men who are eligible for release, and who have been sent from Salonika to Batum, en route for Baku, be allowed to return home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given a very full explanation to the House of the policy we are pursuing. We are pursuing it honestly in all directions. We are only keeping certain classes of men, and we are giving them leave—such leave as there is—and we are bringing all the others home for demobilisation at the earliest possible moment.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Ought not men who have not done any service overseas to be sent to Russia to take the places of these men, so that these men can return home?
    Major M'MICKING: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that some of these men are over forty years of age?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are eligible for demobilisation if they are over forty, and they will be brought home if it is possible.

    KHARTOUM: GARRISON.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that no officer or man in the British battalion of the Khartoum garrison, who joined the Army before 1st January, 1916, will be ordered to proceed to the Sudan, but will remain in Egypt until the necessary shipping is available to bring them home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to my previous reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend, in which I stated that men due for demobilisation in the British battalion which is detailed for the Khartoum garrison will be released under the same conditions as all other men serving in the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. The military authorities in Egypt are in possession of all instructions governing the release of personnel, and their transport home, and it may be accepted that men qualified for release will not be retained for one moment longer than is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Does not my right hon. Friend see that under that arrangement a man for whom no accommodation could be found to come home might be sent to the Sudan?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that will occur, but, of course, units have to be kept as units until means of taking men out are found.

    INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will receive a deputation of women on the question of the Income Tax on married women?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reply to questions on this subject, I regret that I am unable to receive such a deputation.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday.

    ARMAMENT BUILDINGS.
    Captain FITZROYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that Armament Buildings, when completed, were intended for occupation by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, he will ensure that the Board are enabled to occupy this building at an early date or that another building is made available for the Board without delay?
    Sir A. MOND: This question has been fully considered, and I regret that there is no possibility of Armament Buildings being available for accommodating the Board of Agriculture and' Fisheries at an early date. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the importance of concentrating the whole Department in one building is fully appreciated, but unfortunately there is no suitable accommodation available at the present time in Westminster.
    Major E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to find accommodation for the various other Departments which need it?
    Sir A. MOND: There is no other accommodation to be found.

    WAR SHRINE, HYDE PARK.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the present condition of the War Memorial in Hyde Park; and if he will state if he proposes to take any action in order that it may be kept in a proper condition by the addition of flower beds or in some other manner?
    Sir A. MOND: The war shrine in Hyde Park was erected by private subscription for a specific occasion—namely, Remembrance Day, 4th August, 1918, and consequently was intended to be of a temporary character. There is no authority to maintain this shrine out of public funds, but I have instructed the park staff to give all possible assistance, and this has been done. I am in communication with the donors in regard to the present condition of the shrine, for which they are responsible; but, of course, the scarcity of flowers in the winter has made it difficult to maintain it up to its original standard.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Major BREESEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the provisions of the School Teachers' Superannuation Act, in regard to teachers' superannuation allowances and gratuities, can be extended so as to include Article 68 teachers?
    Mr. FISHER: This question was considered when the School Teachers' (Superannuation) Bill was under consideration, and an Amendment to include these teachers was rejected by the House of Commons. I am not prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the Act in the direction suggested.

  IRELAND.

    AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS (LONDONDERRY).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. W. Taylor is Secretary of the Londonderry Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers; that he is not a member of any other organisation of a political or other character; that his house was searched for firearms and seditious literature in his absence; that no incriminating matter was found; and that the correspondence and books of the trade union were carelessly handled; if so, will he state on whose authority and for what purpose the search was made; and whether an apology will be sent and an explanation given to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers for the misuse of its property?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson):The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information that Mr. Taylor is a member of any political association. On the 28th February, after a serious explosion in Londonderry Prison, the rooms of William Taylor, along with those of others, were searched for bombs. The bombs used were made in the Craig Engineering Works, Derry, in which Taylor was formerly an employé,and the police had information that bombs had been taken from the works. The search was undertaken by a most experienced and careful sergeant of police, Mrs. Taylor being present. The books and correspondence referred to were not interfered with.

    IRISH TRANSPORT UNION.
    Mr. W. COOTEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Irish Transport Union, a Sinn Fein organisation, recently started a branch of their union in Caledon, county Tyrone, recruiting to their ranks the majority of the workers of the Caledon Woollen Mills, Limited, who are of the same political faith; that they then proceeded to call out the workers unless every employé in the mill joined their union; and that, having taken out the majority of the workers, they commenced to beat with hurleys and sticks and otherwise abuse the fifty-three workers who remained; that a force of police under the command of District-Inspector Bane were sent to maintain order, but that this officer made no attempt to interfere when women workers were beaten; that the local shopkeepers were threatened if they should supply food to these fifty-three workers and that the situation was so much out of hand that District Inspector Bane had to be superseded by another inspector before order could be restored; and will he have this inspector's conduct investigated?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A branch of the Irish Transport Union has been recently formed at Caledon, and was joined by a majority of the workers in the woollen mills there. On the 21st February two of the workmen employed in the mills, who were active in the interests of the union were dismissed, and an organiser of the union arrived in the town that evening and called out the workers. About 200 out of 250 obeyed the call. It is not a fact that the workers who remained were

    1729
    beaten with hurleys and sticks. The local shopkeepers were approached with a view to getting them not to supply goods to the non-strikers—they were not threatened, and the movement failed. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that District Inspector Bane was superseded. He was very unwell, and was granted leave on medical certificate, his place being taken by another officer.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that this matter was entirely a social one, and not political?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have given a very full answer.

    SINN FEIN PRISONERS (BELFAST GAOL).
    Mr. DANIEL WILSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state what are the facts with regard to the conditions of health of the Sinn Fein prisoners in Belfast Gaol?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are at present forty-six of these prisoners in Belfast Goal of this number six are in hospital. None of the six in hospital are dangerously ill. Of the forty not in hospital twenty-six are in fairly good health, and in fourteen cases health is moderate.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee if the restrictions on the sale of spirits, beer, and wines applicable to clubs and licensed houses are applied and enforced in the House of Commons?
  Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER (Chairman of the Kitchen Committee): Yes, that is the case, in accordance with the terms of a Resolution adopted by the House on 28th February, 1917.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Did not the effect of the Resolution expire with the last Parliament?
  Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: We were not so advised.

  LETTER DELIVERY (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. STURROCK:asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience experienced in Scotland by reason of the late morning deliveries of
  1730
  letters from the South; whether, in view of the business interests involved, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter; and what progress is being made in absorbing all available labour in appointing letter sorters and deliverers throughout Scotland?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will inquire into the matter with which the first part of the hon. Member's question deals, if he will be so good as to let me know what places he more particularly has in mind. But the trunk night mail train has not and cannot yet resume its pre-war timing. Men returning from the Army are restored to duty without avoidable delay. It is the duty of postmasters to recruit temporary labour as required to carry on the work during the absence of the regular staff.

  TEMPORARY POSTAL WORKERS.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Post master General whether he will grant at least one month's clear notice to all temporary postal workers as recommended by the Civil War Workers' Committee set up by the Government; and whether temporary servants will have an opportunity of qualifying for regular employment?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It is arranged that in all such cases the customary week's notice shall be preceded by a warning of at least a week. I have further decided that where this period can be increased that shall be done, but I can give no pledge upon the subject. I hope to be able to absorb into the regular staff a number of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors already employed in a temporary capacity, and also some temporary women with telegraphic qualifications, I regret that I cannot say anything further on this subject at present.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received an application from the Joint Executive Council, representing 20,000 temporary postal workers, for a gratuity of 10s. per month for services rendered during the period of the War; and whether, if this application has been refused, he will further consider the advisability of granting at least some compensation to those civil war workers on the grounds that the rate of wages have been leas than the current rates paid to other Government workers with no advan-

  1731
  tage of sick pay or privileges conferred upon them as at present conferred on the established staff?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have already considered this request and regret that I cannot accede to it. Those officers who have no employment to return to upon discharge will be eligible for the usual unemployment pay.

  SUBMARINE CABLES.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Postmaster General if many of the submarine cables are interrupted or out of repair at the present time; if the delay in delivery of cable messages is attributable to this cause; if the cable-repairing steamers have been released and are at work; and, if not, when will they be able to effect the repairs needed?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Several submarine cables starting from this country are at present interrupted, especially on the route of the Eastern Telegraph Company. The delay in the delivery of cable messages is largely due to this cause, combined with the large increase of traffic, and especially of Government traffic, the curtailment of which I am doing my utmost to secure. All suitable cable-ships are engaged on the work of repair, but at this season of the year such work is difficult. No cable-ship is or has been taken by the Government from her proper work for other purposes, and there is therefore no question of the release of such ships.
  Sir A. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect an improvement shortly in the time taken in respect of these cables?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I hope so. We are doing everything we can to expedite them, and also to curtail the very large number of Government messages.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the delay due to the inordinate length and often very unnecessary character of Government messages?

  HOUSE PAINTING.
  Sir A. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the shortage of white lead in the country, and the
  1732
  impossibility of getting good paint for house painting; what steps he is taking to remedy this shortage; and when he expects that good paint at a reasonable price will be available?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: There is at present a shortage of white lead, as until recently manufacturers were unwilling to purchase pig lead, partly owing to a fear of a fall in the market. The market now shows signs of increased strength, and the position should gradually improve.

  HOUSING.
  WEDNESBURY TOWN COUNCIL.
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Wednesbury Town Council have secured a site of 30 acres for the erection of 300 houses; whether the erection of these urgently-needed houses is being delayed owing to lack of materials; whether these materials can now be sup plied, and at what prices; whether the Board is continually issuing new Regulations which militate against the successful prosecution of these local housing schemes; and whether he will speed up the machinery whereby the sanction of the Board can be secured, and thereby facilitate the development of such local housing schemes?
  Major ASTOR: I think the hon. Member must have been misinformed. No housing scheme has been submitted to the Local Government Board by the town council named, and I am not aware that they have prepared such a scheme. I should be glad if the hon. Member can use his influence with the council so as to expedite the provision of houses. Arrangements have been made by the Director of Building Material Supplies of the Ministry of Munitions for the supply of materials for housing schemes, and there is no reason for delay on the part of the council on this account.

  POPLAR GUARDIANS (OFFICERS' WAR BONUS).
  Mr. JOHN JONESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the officers employed by the Poplar Board of Guardians applied for a war bonus of 35s. per week; whether the

  1733
  board of guardians granted the application, but his Department declined to sanction the increase on the grounds that it is in excess of the rate laid down in the Treasury scale, which is 23s. per week; and whether, in view of the great increase m the cost of living, this matter can be reconsidered?
  Major ASTOR: An application was received from the Poplar Board of Guardians for sanction to the payment of a war bonus of 35s. a week to all clerks over eighteen years of age in their service. Those clerks are in receipt of a war bonus in accordance with the Civil Service scale framed to carry out the awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government employés, which scale the Local Government Board have recommended local authorities to adopt. My right hon. Friend does not consider that he would be justified in sanctioning payments by way of war bonus to clerks of a local authority in excess of those for the time being authorised for Civil servants.

  COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for "War whether he can now announce the composition and terms of reference of the Committee on Courts-martial?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to do so on Thursday.

  FLIGHT CADETS (EGYPT).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War why flight cadets who have risen from the ranks are being sent home from Egypt with third-class passages, while cadets who have not so risen are given second-class passages, although in many cases the latter have had shorter periods of service than the former; and if he will give instructions that this discrimination shall be avoided in future?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury):I have caused inquiry to be made of the Air Force authorities in Egypt, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  TAXI-CABS (PETROL).
  Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to minimise the pre-
  1734
  sent shortage of taxi-cabs, he will arrange that a more ample issue of petrol is made to such vehicles?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question. The limitations as regards the amount of petrol allowed to applicants for motor spirit licences were removed at the end of last year. Owners of taxi-cabs are now licensed to obtain as much petrol as they desire to use in their vehicles.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

    CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL.
    Sir J. D. REES (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that while the Leicester and Derby Chambers of Commerce have nominated Mr. Frank Moore to represent those chambers and Nottingham upon the Consultative Council on Imports and Exports, the lace trade of Nottingham, which is vitally concerned in the importation of lace, embroidery and hosiery remains unrepresented; and whether, in view of the magnitude and importance of these interests, he will consent to the appointment of an additional representative of the Nottingham lace and embroidery trades upon the Council, which commences to sit this week?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend regrets that it is impossible to provide for separate representation of each industry on the main Committee, but arrangements will be made to secure that no final decision will be reached on questions affecting any important industry, such as the lace trade, without full consultation with representatives of the industry concerned.

    CERTIFICATES OF NATURALISATION (REVOCATION).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number and names of the men whose certificates of naturalisation have been revoked under the recent Act, and give the reasons in each case for such revocation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Forty-two certificates of naturalisation have been revoked under the powers of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens

    1735
    Act, 1914, as amended by the Act of 1918. The Orders revoking the certificates are published in the "London Gazette," and contain the names of the persons affected and the reasons for revocation. It is proposed also to give similar particulars in the annual Parliamentary. Return as to Naturalisation. The Return for the year 1918 is in preparation, and will shortly be published.

    WORKMEN'S COMMITTEES AND SOVIETS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the communication that is still maintained between the shop stewards and workmen's committees' movement in this country and the leaders of the Soviets' Government in Russia, having for its object the fomenting of labour trouble and the expropriation of the bourgeois class in Great Britain; and what steps is he taking in the matter?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware that there is direct communication between shop stewards and workers' committees in this country and the Soviet Government in Russia, but individual shop stewards have been in communication with revolutionary Russians and are publicly representing the state of affairs as described in the Press as being greatly exaggerated. They profess to have secret sources of information, which, as far as I am aware, do not exist, or, if they do exist, are certainly unreliable.

    WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether the Government has made any arrangement with the representatives of the railway interest as to a modification of the Ways and Communications Bill, and, if so, what?
    Mr. SHORTT: I would ask my hon. Friend to wait for the statement which will be made a, little later to-day.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he or the proposed Minister of Ways has made any promise to road engineers as to their personal position in the event of the Bill being passed; and, if so, what?
    Mr. SHORTT: Intimation has been given, to these officers that if State funds
    1736
    were allotted to relieve local authorities of part of the cost of the salaries of the staff, the proposed Ministry would require a voice in the appointments made and the I salaries paid.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that all that has been promised? Has not a distinct promise been made to these men that they should receive half their salaries paid by the State?
    Mr. SHORTT: No. I do not think so.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the circular issued by the Association of Municipal Engineers enclosing a letter from the Minister of Ways and Communications?
    Mr. SHORTT: No. I have not.

    ARMY OFFICERS' EMOLUMENTS
    Lieutenant-Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue the new scale of pensions for officers of the Regular Army; whether he is aware that until such scale is published there is bound to be a block in promotions as a result of supernumerary promotions made during the War; whether, in estimating the new pensions, the extra expenses of regular officers during the last four and a half years, their loss of health and the extra cost of living generally, will be taken into consideration; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting the pension rates on a sliding scale, so that officers may start drawing pensions after a lesser period of service than has hitherto obtained, thus giving them a chance to start employment in civil life at a younger age?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these points will be fully borne in mind in the consideration of the whole question of officers' emoluments which is now proceeding. It is impossible for me to name a date for the conclusion of so complex a matter at a time of pressure like the present.

    MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War with regard to the Government works now being erected at Cippenham, Slough, what is the total expenditure up to date and the total expenditure contemplated; for what pur-

    1737
    pose the buildings are being erected; and whether the scheme is to be proceeded with or abandoned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will make a statement on this subject next Thursday.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (WHEELER-SERGEANTS).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether men in the Royal Garrison Artillery holding the temporary rank of wheeler-sergeant during the War will be confirmed in their rank, or whether they will be reverted to a lower rank when peace is signed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Temporary rank is given for the duration of the War. All temporary rank will be given up at the termination of the War, and, unless there are vacancies in the establishment of the after-war Army, holders of temporary rank will revert to their substantive rank, but they will be eligible for substantive promotion to fill vacancies as they occur.

    REGULAR ARMY (SERVICE ABROAD).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers in the Regular Army who have served abroad a number of years before the War, and were transferred to France, are to be sent abroad again; and, if so, whether he is aware that many of these men have been serving abroad for over twelve years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to both parts of my right hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. As a general rule, however, men with less than two years un-expired Colour service will not be sent to India or Mesopotamia, but will be posted to a unit serving at home. All men before proceeding abroad will be brought to England and will be given twenty-eight days' furlough on full pay.

    LONDON DEFENCE TRENCHES (REINSTATEMENT).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the filling in of the trenches made for the defence of London, which was ordered in November, 1918, is still very far from completion, and that
    1738
    agricultural work is consequently much hampered; whether the restrictions preventing occupiers from carrying out the work themselves will be withdrawn; and if they may be allowed to proceed with this work under the supervision of their county war agricultural committees, who will decide on the compensation which the occupiers are entitled to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It was originally contemplated that the work of filling in the London defence trenches might be carried out by military or prisoner of war labour, but this method has not been found practicable owing to the non-availability of personnel and to difficulties as regards housing, billeting and subsistence. Instructions have therefore been issued under which a sum, not exceeding 75 per cent. of the amount which in the opinion of the War Department expert adviser represents the actual cost of reinstatement may be paid to the persons concerned to enable reinstatement to be put in hand at once, subject to prior War Office authority being obtained where the total estimated cost of reinstatement exceeds £500. There is therefore no objection to the work being carried out by the owners immediately the War Department expert has estimated the actual cost. The question as to who will decide the total amount of compensation finally payable depends on the circumstances under which the land was taken. If it was taken under agreement the amount will be determined under the conditions provided in such agreement. If it was taken under Defence of the Realm powers the final determination rests with the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, but special arrangements are being considered with a view to local expedition of the settlement of claims of this character, having regard to the importance on agricultural grounds of the need of early reinstatement. It is not proposed lo utilise the agency of the War Agricultural Committees to decide the amounts of compensation due to owners in this connection.

    CAPITAL ISSUES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to state the terms and effects of the new regulation with regard to capital issues?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret, Sir, that owing to my presence having been required in Paris during the last ten days, there has been unavoidable delay in dealing with this matter, but I will make a statement as early as possible.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will it be possible to allow the House of Commons an opportunity of seeing the Order before it is made absolute?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am hoping to be able to communicate with the Members who show most interest in the matter and discuss it with them before the final settlement of the terms of the draft. I have been unable to do that because my presence has been required elsewhere.

  INCOME TAX.

    NAVAL PENSIONS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that naval pensions are taxed for Income Tax purposes as unearned; and if he will consider this matter with a view of treating such pensions as earned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. Naval pensions are chargeable to Income Tax at the ordinary earned income rates appropriate to the total incomes of the pensioner.
    Sir A. FELL: Suppose Income Tax has been paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If any Income Tax has been collected without authority of course we will rectify the error if it is brought to our notice.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House whether a hitch has occurred in the presentation to Germany of the draft terms of peace, owing to a divergence of opinion on the subject of the League of Nations; and whether, in view of the general desire that the preliminary terms of peace should be signed at the earliest possible moment, he can give the House an assurance that
    1740
    the terms agreed to with the assent of all the representatives at the Conference prior to Mr. Wilson's return shall be communicated at once to the enemy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is not possible for the Government to answer questions as to discussions between the Peace Delegates which have always been treated as confidential. This question is in itself an illustration of the difficulty, as it might be assumed that the first part of it is correct. If I leave it unanswered it might be assumed that the first part of the question is correct. To the best of my belief, there is no foundation for it. I have answered this question, but I wish it to be understood that I shall not be expected to answer similar questions in future.

  GUARDS' DIVISION.

    PROCESSION THROUGH LONDON.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War to state what are the official arrangements in connection with the forthcoming entry of the Household Troops into London on Saturday next?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Arrangements are being made for all the Guards' Battalions who served in France to make a formal entry into London on Saturday next. They will march past His Majesty at Buckingham Palace and will proceed in procession past the Mansion House, where the Lord Mayor and the civil authorities of the City will be assembled. Demobilised men of the Guards who fought in France will march with their battalions, and wounded men who are unable to march will be conveyed in suitable vehicles. It is hoped to include in the procession representatives of the other arms of the Service—Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers and Royal Army Medical Corps, etc., who fought with and formed part of the Guards' Division in France, and also the Divisional and Brigade Staffs. An official programme will be issued shortly, and copies will be made available in the Library.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed at some future date to give a similar opportunity for other regiments who have fought in this War to march through London?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope that it may be possible as time goes on to provide for similar entries into the large cities of this country of troops connected with those districts who have taken part in the War, but it will take some organisation and arrangement on account of the method of demobilisation and transport, and I have no programme ready at the moment.
    Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity for overseas troops to take part in a procession prior to their return?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider that, but not for next Saturday.
    Captain O'GRADY: Will similar arrangements be made in respect to the Navy?
    Colonel THORNE: And the Flying Squadrons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to answer that offhand. I understand that special arrangements for the Guards is only natural because they have always been associated with London.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did the right hon. Gentleman understand the Minister for War to say he was about to make arrangements for similar processions in other parts of the country for the troops, and will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether it is proposed to make similar arrangements for the Navy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put his question down.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Alfred Ernest Newbould, esquire, for the Borough of Leyton (West Division).
  SELECTION.

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Birchall; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Robert Woods (in respect of the Ministry of Health Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered,
  "That the Proceedings on the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
    STATEMENT BY SIR ERIC GEDDES.

      UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Sir ERIC GEDDES: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      I propose to deal with this Bill, first, as to the problem which confronts the Government; secondly, as to the Government's conception of the scope of the Ministry of Ways and Communications; thirdly, to give certain detailed information as to the financial position of the various transportation services to-day; and, finally, as briefly as I can, to explain the intentions of the Government in regard to the Bill. The problem which we have to face has, I think, brought before us, as we have never seen it before, the importance of transportation to a highly organised State such as ours. We have realised, perhaps, in the last year or two that without a go-ahead system, a vitalising system, of transportation, the health and housing of the people, agricultural development, settlement on the land, and the industrial development of the country, cannot possibly be achieved. This House, as a whole, is committed to those reforms. We are going to make such demands upon the transportation system of the country as I venture to think have never been made before, and it is right that we should at this stage consider the conditions, both financial and physical, of the machine upon which we are going to make these demands.
      Except in the one bright instance of the municipal tramways, the transportation systems of this country to-day are not prosperous. I will go into details later, but, very briefly, this is the position—there are 279 tramways undertakings in the country, of which 96 per cent. are elcc-
      1762
      trifled. That is an important point, as I shall show later in my speech. It shows that these undertakings are almost entirely modern. Taken all over, these undertakings are earning 7 per cent. on their capital. They are excluded from the Bill. Let us take railways. Before the War the return on railway capital expenditure was 4.3 per cent. It is a loss of from 3 to 4 per cent. on to-day's figures. Light railways before the War made a profit of 2 per cent.; to-day they are working at a loss. Canals, excepting the great Manchester Ship Canal, before the War earned 1½ per cent.; to-day they are working at a loss, and they are heavily subsidised. Roads have practically no income. They cost the country £20,000,000 a year. Harbours and docks are divided into two great divisions, railway-owned clocks and non-railway-owned docks. In water area—and that is the best basis I can get for making a relative comparison—they are 50 per cent. and 50 per cent., while in capital the balance is in favour of the non-railway-owned docks. In water area, as I have said, they are about 50 per cent, each, and they are earning 3 per cent. to-day. But they are earning that not on the same basis as the railways, because, as the non-railway-owned docks were not controlled in the sense that the railways were controlled, they raised their rates under authority given to them under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      4.0 P.M.
      That is the position of our transportation services to-day. I do not think that I am exaggerating or using extravagant words if I say that, with the exception of the municipal trams, which hereafter I will leave out of reference altogether, the transportation systems of the country upon which, if for no other reason than to fulfil our pledges, we have to make great demands, are financially in a semi-paralysed state. In addition, they are in this position, that, either because they were not very prosperous before the War or because they saw the shadow of nationalisation overhanging them, their development was retarded. Their capital expenditure under normal conditions was not undertaken. They were holding back because they did not know what was going to happen. During the War, for a variety of reasons—partly because they were under a species of control varying with the different undertakings, partly because they could not get the men and partly because they could not get the

      1763
      capital—for five years that retardation of development in betterment has been going on, and therefore to-day, apart from their actual financial position, they are physically ill-equipped to meet the great strains and the great demand upon them. During the five years of war unavoidably, I think, under the conditions which existed—there has been a dead hand over them, and for years before, as I shall hope to show later, a parasitical growth has been enveloping these great undertakings.
      That is the position you have to face. To-day railways are being worked at a loss of something over £250,000 a day—£100,000,000 a year. That is an estimated figure. You have to assume a certain traffic, you have to assume a realisation of certain additional costs, but the best estimate I can get is somewhere about £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 in increased cost, and for two years, as the House knows, the Government is pledged to continue the guarantee which has been in existence since the beginning of the War—pledged to give that guarantee of the net receipts of 1913 to the railway companies. Apart from the railways, the other forms of transportation have either been subsidised or have been given very large additional powers of charging, so that in one form or another, as we stand to-day, all means of transportation have had to come to the State for help. The roads and canals got Grants. The roads, as I have said, are not a revenue-earning concern. Are these means of transportation to be continued to be run at the cost of the taxpayer or are we to try to get them back on a self-supporting basis, the users paying for the services they receive? So far as I know, there can only be one answer. They ought to be got back on to a paying basis.
      If we are going to do that, we must evolve order out of what to-day is really chaos. This House and the country asks from time to time—insists from time to time—on a policy in various matters. They ask, "What is your Colonial policy; what is your foreign policy?" I have never seen it really asked, "What is your transportation policy? What is our transportation policy and who is responsible for that policy? The answer is that there is no policy and that no one is responsible. In saying what I have said
      1764
      about evolving order out of chaos and about the absence of policy, I am not imputing blame or censure; I am not venturing to do so. I do not think it would be just to any of the great undertakers of these transportation agencies. But the system of transportation is the creation of the community. It has been built up for the last eighty or ninety years and it is our creation. We adopted, and I think probably rightly adopted, private enterprise and local interest as the means by which we were to develop our transportation system. When a portion of it became weak it was put on the back of the strong. That has been the system throughout. The transportation policy has been developed under legislation which, when you look at it to-day carefully, is illogical and, I think many of those who know most about it would say, almost incomprehensible.
      The Government, in facing that problem, has come to the conclusion that some measure of unified control of all systems of transportation is necessary—that there must be some body who can be asked what the transportation policy of the country is and whose responsibility it is to have a policy. There is none to-day, and it is only the State, the Government, that can centrally take that position. With our transportation agencies in the condition in which they are, it appears almost inevitable that to a greater or less extent we must forego the luxuries of competition; we must forego private interest and local interest in the interest of the State. In the past private interest made for development, but to-day I think I may say that it makes for colossal waste. This is not peculiar to our country. If you look at the other great countries that have been engaged in this War, what is the position of their transportation? France has been struggling with her transportation throughout the War and is doing so to-day. The transportation of the Central Empires has broken down. Italy is in difficulties, and has been, with hers. The United States do not know what to do with their transportation system. Canada is, more or less, in the same position. Australia is in difficulties, and we are. But we are in greater difficulties because we are more highly developed, more concentrated, older in transportation. There is one country in which their transportation system is healthy, only one, and that is

      1765
      South Africa. In South Africa it is a comparatively modern growth. They have not got the great disadvantages that we have. It is a remarkable fact that in South Africa the Minister of Railways has just the same power over docks that he has over railway lines.
      I have seen this Bill described as a Railway Bill. I have seen a most attractive picture of a railway octopus putting out its tentacles. If that was really the state of affairs, I would say there was no greater condemnation of this measure. If this is a Railway Bill it is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. It is not a Railway Bill; it is a transportation Bill. To show how little this country conceived the driving, vitalising spirit of transportation before the War, I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back and to think what transportation meant. It had a flavour of a penal settlement abroad. We did not use the word. When I went to France to see Sir Douglas Haig about serving under him, he told me what he wanted me to do, and we tried to find a word to express it, and we agreed that "transportation" was the word. It was an American word, but we adopted it, and I believe that since then the word has gradually lost the American twang. We all use it now, although before the War it was never used in that sense.
      In considering this problem, I looked at it very much in the light of the miniature problem we had to face in France There the means of transportation were in a semi-paralysed state. They were choked, and could not meet the great demands that were made upon them. We had to consider it in just the same way as we shall have to consider this. We had to make a policy. There was no policy. Everything was separate there; the roads were separate from the railways and the canals were separate, the docks were separate, everything was separate, and there was no policy, and there was waste. Sir Douglas Haig, with a vision which I hope the House may emulate, agreed that he must have one authority responsible for this American word, that there must be a policy behind it, and that he must have one man to go to when things went wrong. At that time the motor interest in France objected to the Transportation Department having the roads. They said, "It will kill the roads." I ask hon. Members who have been in France since the beginning of 1916 if the French roads were killed? You may say,
      1766
      "But you had ample money there; you could spend whatever you liked." You may say, "You could do everything for railways and for roads, because finance did not matter." I do not agree that finance did not matter, but I am not going to base it on that. I had something that was far more difficult than finance, which I had to cheese-pare in every way, and that was the men. Where could I get the men to squander on roads if the railways were short? It is true that money is of much more primary interest when we are at peace than when we are at war. All war is wasteful. We had to economise in men there, and a thousand men off the roads or railways were of vital importance at the time. The roads did not suffer. I do not think it is denied that the policy that Sir Douglas Haig adopted in France of having one authority to which he could look and one authority who could co-ordinate—that blessed word; but sometimes you cannot get away from it—the various systems of transport was a success. It is that policy which is behind this Bill. I agree that that was not so complex as this will be. Here you have a great many interests; you have strong local interests. But in miniature we had all the interests out there. They were just the same. Now in this country it is natural that any railway wishing to get the longest haul and having any power in influencing traffic, when they have the power would get the traffic to the farthest point from which the goods were to be delivered, and then they would get the long haul. It is the long haul that pays, and not the short haul. I can speak from my own knowledge of transportation agencies of the country, and I am not blaming any of them. It is perfectly right under the system under which they were created, but they have never looked to getting the shortest haul, and therefore reasonably the cheapest haul on goods. They have never got the shortest haul.
      I know of cases—I will not say I have had nothing to do with them myself—where goods for Northern markets were deliberately influenced to a Southern port in order to get the haul over the railway, and goods for Southern markets were deliberately influenced to a Northern port—things that were identical in quality and everything else. That kind of thing is going on all over the country. That is a waste of movement. Who pays for that? [HON. MEMBERS: "The consumers."] The

      1767
      community pays, and it is no blame to the agencies concerned. They try to do the best for themselves. That is their business. The community pays, the consumer pays, and the transport workers pay, because they do not get paid enough. It is in that way the money goes. [An Hon. Member: "Remember that this week."] Again, we have got to remember that the shareholders are paying and they are entitled to consideration too, and last of all the taxpayer is paying today £100,000,000 a year. He is entitled to consideration. Throughout the country you have got waste movement, unnecessary movement, and if you are going to pay the great bill that is against transportation to-day you have got to stop that. You can then get the goods through to their destination without any undue burden upon the consumer, and the transportation system of the country will be healthy, which it cannot be to-day.
      Another thing To-day the transportation agencies of the country are in different hands. They have developed on different lines. Hon. Members will know well the story of the dual fitting of brakes. Why do we dual fit brakes? Because there is no unified control that says one brake is the best. That sort of thing has gone on throughout the equipment of the companies everywhere, and it is not right. There is no need for it. But you cannot avoid it without unified control. Then again take the question of terminals. At present the terminal points of the country, of the great import and export trades, are in the hands of dock authorities, and the various other terminal owners. It is not to their interest—and they are not very prosperous; they have not been for years—to spend money on improving their terminal accommodation when the advantage is going to go to the conveying company. It is not to their advantage. They are not prosperous and they are not philanthropists and they do not do it, and in consequence such measures as an increase in the size of wagons, which is one of the very big measures of economy that we can go into, are not carried out. Railway companies cannot take that step very largely because of the inability of the terminal points to take the traffic. In every case we will find that either separate interests stand in the way or that it is not to the interest of the spending man to do it, because the
      1768
      man who does not spend the money is going to reap the benefit, and that is common sense. Why should he?
      So too with the financial position and with the position as regards operation. The Government has been forced to the conclusion that in addition to eliminating competition and restricting, at any rate to some extent, the freedom of private enterprise and private management, the transportation agencies will be comparatively barren and sterile in economy and development until this unified control is brought in. For my part, I think, with the situation as it is, that it would be nothing short of criminal to let the old system of competition between light railways and roads, between railways and canals, and between different docks go on. You must make one block of capital do the work now, not two. You cannot afford it. Of course this will come as a shock to some idealists who believe in individual effort. We all have our dreams and many of us have our dream islands which we think of in the morning before we get up. I have no doubt that the dream island of the trader is full of courteous canvassers offering cheap fares, light rates, and fast special trains. But when he has had his cold bath in the morning that goes. This is a cold bath which the country has got to take. The transportation agencies of the country to-day are barren and paralysed and we have got to get them right. Therefore I feel sure that if the House decides that the era of competition is gone it must logically put every means of transportation under the one control and you must not leave out anything, otherwise you will have competition immediately, and you have got to trust some body or someone.
      Sir E. CARSON: Does this include shipping.
      Sir E. GEDDES: No; I am not including shipping. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will come!," and "Why not?"]
      Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Since you control docks, will you not control shipping?
      Sir E. GEDDES: It is not proposed to include shipping. The country must trust someone or somebody to get co-ordination, and to get the fullest possible utilisation of everything the country possesses. The railway interest is a community interest. Another thing is that we cannot wait. We

      1769
      are not rich now. We are poor. We are losing a large sum every day. Agriculture has got to be developed. Apart from the pledges it is in the interest of the community, and if we are going to do any good at all in this country we have got to look after housing. It cannot wait. The thing is urgent. There is one other big factor in this—that is the position of labour. Collective trade union movements and their constitutional action is the alternative to anarchy. Sporadic strikes will, I am sure, be frowned upon by responsible leaders of trade unionism, as their best wishers would desire, but if you expect discipline among the trade unions—and you must expect it and I am sure we are going to get it—you must in some form or other give the Government a say in the conditions under which labour works, under which essential services—because these are essential: they are not a private interest; they are a community interest—are conducted. Therefore we have got to look at it from that point of view also. It is no use piling burdens on the railway shareholder. He is not a malefactor. He deserves fair treatment, but he cannot pay any more. He cannot pay what his bill is to-day. We have got to help him. The State must come in and make economies possible. The actual conditions under which the transportation systems of the country to-day are worked, and their inter-relationship, make it almost impossible to bring in any material economy.
      I would like to run as briefly as I can through various branches of our transportation system. Possession was taken of the railways under an Act of 1871. Possession is rather an alarming term, but it does not really mean as much as it sounds. At that time the railways were earning 4⅓ per cent. on the capital expended. I know that my right hon. Friend opposite takes an interest in it. It is not on the capital standing in the books; it is not on the capital subscribed; it is on the capital expended. I think on the whole that you will find that that is larger than the capital issued. That is due to the fact that there are large funds, such as superannuation funds, which were expended and do not appear as capital issue, but on the capital expended they were returning 4⅓per cent. During the War they were worked under an executive committee composed of the general managers of the principal lines. I have seen it suggested that the executive committee might
      1770
      go on. Anyone who suggests that railways could go on for another two or three years in the position in which they are to-day, working under the executive committee of general managers really does not understand the proposition at all. It is quite impossible. They cannot go on.
      The executive committee have done a work of which they are justly proud, and for which the country should be grateful, but they were an emergency committee. They did not really run the railways. They had no power over any capital expenditure, and no power to do anything but keep the thing moving. It is quite impossible to go on with that system. Development which is necessary has been dead, and economies on a large scale are really impossible as long as railways have separate interests to consider. That control which was bad during the War is trebly bad now. It is almost impossible to expect development under it. Up to the time of the Armistice the Government traffic practically made up the deficit, but since the Armistice the deficit on railways has been steadily increasing. That makes the £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 a year which are short. Is nationalisation a cure for that? I do not know. There are those who look upon nationalisation as an end in itself, as something desirable. I am not one of those. I look upon nationalisation as a possible means to an end, a means to an end which you may have to adopt, with its disadvantages, if the advantages which it secures outweigh them. It is essential in transport that you should ensure continuity of the service, and you cannot have unreasonable stoppages. You must ensure an adequate and efficient service, and if you cannot get that by means of private management, then nationalise. But one of the great disadvantages which we have suffered under, in my opinion, is that we have never really taken the men into the confidence of the undertaking. Now that was difficult as long as you had conflicting interests and as long as you had Stock Exchanges, but I think possibly they could have been taken more into confidence. I do not understand exactly what is meant by labour having a share in the management, but I am perfectly sure of this. if we are going to get really the co-operation of the men they must be given full access to the detailed statistics of operations, and then they will see what you are trying to do, and then they will see the disadvantages under which you are working, and

      1771
      then you will get their help, because they will see, as I am sure they will see to-day, the way in which they must co-operate if we are going to go on and to pay the wages bill.
      A Select Committee of this House considered this important matter also, and they came to the conclusion that the railways could not go back to their old position, but they were not able to say what the cure was, and I think that on the information before them they could have come to no other conclusion. But what if we adopt the simple process of putting up rates, let us say, and bringing about economies. The taxpayer has got to be relieved of this very large sum of more than £250,000 per day. It is said, "Put up the rates." It would mean a 70 to 80 per cent. increase in the goods rates, and that is unthinkable. What does that mean on the cost of food and living? What would it do with industry? What would it do with agriculture? You cannot face that. What would it do to our foreign trade? You have got to find some other remedy. You cannot put it all on to the rates. The economies which can be effected, even with a certain amount of unity of control but not complete unity of capital, have been estimated by a very able and experienced independent railway expert and by a very able accountant at about £20.000,000 per year, and it is going to take years even to reach that. You have got to find something more drastic. You cannot put it all on the rates. It is unthinkable that the taxpayer should pay it. You cannot look to economies that would meet it in the ordinary way; but there is a way, I think, in which it can be progressively met—that means drastic treatment and courageous treatment as a whole. We must eliminate wasteful haulage, unnecessary haulage, about the country. We must introduce economics which are only possible when a comprehensive scheme of settlement can be carried out, and carried out compulsorily, if necessary, when we can standardise throughout. Standardisation saves, as many hon. Members here know, not only in manufacturing, but in stores, in repairs, and in every way, and perhaps the greatest saving of all is the introduction of electricity into our haulage, not electricity such as is used in the multiple-unit system on the tubes around London, but electricity used with heavy electric locomotives. They have been experimented with, and with great success, but we must
      1772
      not commit the folly of our predecessors and allow the development of every system on its own principle, of every system according to the whims and notions of those who introduce it
      The trader, if he does not want to have 70 or 80 per cent. increase in the rates, has got to help and to get his wagons away more quickly and to learn that storage on wheels is too expensive for the country to afford. He has got to store in a cheaper way, and then, with improved terminals, larger wagons, and empty haulage eliminated, we can make great economies. The empty haulage of this country before the War was colossal. The railways were independent; they each had their own wagons, and those wagons had only a very limited possibility of being back-loaded. There was empty haulage everywhere with a great deal of increased shunting. That has been stopped with enormous benefits, but the railway-owned wagons of the country are only half of the whole, the rest are privately owned, There are700,000 privately owned wagons in this-country, and those wagons go about the country all over the place, empty because of the conditions under which they work, and they have got to be shunted and sorted out on the return journey. They cannot be used for back-loading, and oven with agreement it is very difficult to do it. They are of a poor type and are not designed for economy in transportation but to suit the particular private needs of the user. In every way they are hampering us. The percentage of saving in empty haulage and in reduced shunting will be very great indeed. I am told that there is no doubt that it will exceed 20 per cent., and if this Bill passes, one of the first acts which the Government will take will be to acquire on fair terms the private wagons of the country, with a few exceptions in the case of special wagons for acids and liquids and that kind of thing which are special to a trade.
      It may interest the House to know what has caused this great growth of private wagons. It was because the legislation under which the railways worked imposed such a low charge for the provision of all wagons for the low grade traffic that they could only provide the wagon at a loss, and they had to choose between providing those wagons at a loss and undertaking the additional wasteful shunting and empty haulage. In the old days when the railways were more like steel turnpike roads

      1773
      than a really scientific transport undertaking, as they are to-day, that did not seem so important. The size of the wagon did not appeal to them. Even the locomotives in many cases were privately owned. The waste due to the fact that half the goods and mineral rolling stock of this country cannot be adequately used and that we cannot ensure an economic type has got to be stopped too. If we do not take these measures, and measures such as these, there is no alternative to the conclusion, in my opinion, that our arteries of communication not only cannot develop but will wither and cannot stand the strain put upon them.
      Coming to light railways—they are a comparatively small thing. There are only 836 miles of them. They only earn 2 per cent. Many were authorised, but were not built because they could not be built and be financially successful. Their expenses have gone up, and I think there is no doubt that to-day they must be working at a considerable loss. Their expenses have not gone up as high as on the main lines, but they have gone up in material and labour very materially. Those railways have been put down with no policy; they are dotted all over the place, and really sometimes one wonders why they are there. They have had nobody to advise, and thus all of us who have been interested in and studied railways all our lives know that they simply go there and eventually become ripe plums to drop into the mouths of the big lines.
      Mr. THOMAS: Hear, hear.
      Sir E. GEDDES: It is so.
      Mr. THOMAS: I know it.
      Sir E. GEDDES: They cannot exist by themselves, and already I am receiving applications from all sides for advice. They know that I have got a certain number, a small staff, of technical experts, who are helping me, and I am asked for advice on all sides about these undertakings. It has been suggested that the great sixty-centimetre Decauville organisation in France might be brought over here and with advantage spread like a network over the countryside. I was very largely responsible for the extension of Decauville railways in France. They did well. They filled their purpose. I will not say why we adopted that gauge, but
      1774
      it was adopted. Those railways were made in places where the tenure might be temporary. We were hoping it was going to be temporary, as eventually it was, and we moved on. But the maintenance and cost of a Decauville track is so heavy that to put it down in this country for agricultural use would simply be throwing away money. I do not say there are no places where it could be used and used effectively, but it is no panacea for all evils in the agricultural districts. I think there is a possibility of developing the light railway as it has been developed in the rich districts of Northern France and Belgium. I think there is a possibility of developing light electric railways for inter-urban traffic. Decauville railways strewn all over the country, and run by farmers, is a dream. It is a thing that will never exist successfully.
      I think that we must look to the development of motor traction for our agricultural areas. You have there roads of a capital value—I do not know what, and I do not know that anyone knows, but they cost some £20,000,000 per year. Can anyone say that we are getting any value, any return, from that £20,000,000? I do not say you should spend it and look exactly at what return you are going to get out of it, but are we making the best use of property on which £20,000,000 per year is spent? I doubt it very much, and we cannot afford two blocks of capital where one will do. Roads have a greater possibility in opening up these districts than any light railway I have ever met. In this country, for one thing, we do not get the great level stretches we do in France. None of these light railways, I must say, are well equipped. With road conveyances the maintenance will probably be very little higher for dealing with seasonal traffic, whereas if you put a railway down you have got to keep it going all the year. Road services are flexible, and you can move them about, but you cannot move your railway about. When I see the ingenuity with which the motor interest is opposing this Bill, and when I see the picture of the octopus, I wonder what their conception is of a Ministry of Transportation! We had it in France. We had the Rolls-Royce driver in France, who wanted a beautiful smooth road, and we had the Army Service Corps, who said they would be put out of business altogether, but it did not do it. The roads proved there

      1775
      that they were all right, and with the enormous road system in this country I ask the House, when you are going to have a Ministry of Transportation, would it not be criminal to leave the roads out?
      Coming to canals, and again excluding the Manchester Ship Canal, there are 3,600 miles of non-railway-owned canals j in the country, 1,500 miles of that is controlled—and 1,100 miles of railway-owned canals, or 4.700 miles altogether. The return on the canal capital is 1.4 per cent.
      Mr. THOMAS: Does the latter include canals not wholly owned by railways but subsidised by railways?
      Sir E. GEDDES: I have only got the figures as between owned and not owned. Non-railway-owned canals were subsidised, in 1918, by the State to the extent of £670,000. The railway-owned canals, of course, come in under the general guarantee. That £670,000 which was paid in 1918 is more than the total net income on the canals in 1905, and the carrying companies are receiving great help too. There are those who say, "Make canals like roads and leave them free for those who come and go on them and convey on them." The report which was put before the Select Committee of this House, I think, of an eminent engineer was to the effect that if it was proposed to resuscitate the "Birmingham cross" of canals alone, which is 904 miles, its capital value to-day is £6,000,000, and you would have to spend £38,000,000 on it to get it into order. It may be that is desirable and in the interests of the community. I do not wish to prejudge the consideration of it, but I am not sure that we have got £38,000,000 to-day to spend unless we cannot do without it.
      Now I come to docks. Again there are the two categories, railway-owned and private-owned docks, and as I said they are half-and-half. The non-railway-owned docks, with the exception of Manchester and Goole, are largely owned by public authorities. Their return, as I have said, was 3 per cent. By increasing charges in some cases as much as 300 per cent. they have practically retained that 3 per cent. return on their capital, but in the main these docks have been constructed with an ulterior motive. It was not really only as an undertaking to be profitable that the great municipalities and trusts got money for these docks, but
      1776
      with an ulterior motive, which was to develop the shipping of the port—a very worthy and desirable motive—to develop the town, or, in the case of railways who owned harbours, to develop their own system. Those docks naturally—they are not very wealthy—look at things from their own point of view. They do not look at things from the point of view of general transportation, and on the expiry of the Defence of the Realm Act they have to come to the Government, and they have already deposited Bills for largely increased charging powers, up to 66 per cent. and 100 per cent. increase. That is the position to-day—these docks have been built and worked under fixed conditions with the Government—and the State is entitled to say that the time when they come for increased powers of charging is a suitable time to review the position. They come saying, "We find we cannot go on with the present charging power you have given us." Is it unreasonable that the State should say," Well, we wish to look at transportation as a whole and see if we have really got it on a right basis?" I think it is reasonable. I suppose the battle which has raged ever since there were docks and railways as to whether the locality should own them or the railways, will go on for all time. But of this I am perfectly clear, that for the reasons I have given, if you do not put the docks, not under the railway control—I am not suggesting and I am not urging it—but if you do not put the docks under the Transportation Ministry, you cannot ensure these great economies without which some of the calamities I have endeavoured to forecast are inevitable.
      I have pointed out the advantage of having sufficient control over the terminal facilities to ensure that they are made suitable to enable you to effect the great economies in conveyance, but it is not only in terminal facilities, it is in the working. Take an instance which is an actual one, of a dock company which owned a bridge across a lock. The railway working it said, "We can economise a great deal if you will make that bridge sufficiently heavy and strong to carry a modern yard locomotive," and the dock company said, "There is nothing for us in this. The bridge is strong enough for carts." And they would not do it. They had not the money to spare. It is almost laughable. Another instance, a true one, and it is not the only one of the kind,

      1777
      which illustrates exactly the kind of difficulties which do crop up, although it is a minor point. It is a question of lighting up a shed or a berth, so that the checking should be expeditiously done by the railway staff. They were continually having blocks, but there was no power to get that dock company to light it, and for fifteen years that thing has gone on. You can multiply those instances, great and small. You can multiply them in appliances, in double exchange accommodation, in the capacity of the warehouses, in the appliances they put in them, but if you do not give the transportation authority of the country sufficient power to say in the interests of a part of it, "This measure has to be undertaken, and undertaken it must be on reasonable terms," you may really despair of getting these changes. Even if you were to adopt the alternative of giving the docks now the increased charging powers that they are asking, it is not human to suppose that those powers would be sufficiently high to enable them to get into the very flourishing position in which they would be ready to spend money on anything which would not yield them a return, so that you have to consider the thing now, and it is to consider it that the docks are included under Clause 3 of the Bill. The word "possession" was, I think, taken from the Act of 1871, when possibly they said things more abruptly than they do nowadays. It is not supposed for a moment, surely, that the docks are going to be treated unlike the railways were treated under exactly the same words. No possession has been taken of the railways. It is merely a term which has been used in the Act of 1871, and perpetuated, which shows that the particular undertaking is controlled to that extent. There is no suggestion of wiping out the dock boards. These dock boards are composed of men of great position and great experience, but they have a local interest. It has been the blue ribbon of the commercial community in which they live, and in many cases they have gone on to these boards with great pride, and with some experience, but it has always been the local and not at bottom the national interest that has put them there. The control is local. The town comes first. The master carter is interested in the docks as the fruits of his labour. It is there he makes his living, and he thinks of it from that point of view, and it is only natural he should. But these termi-
      1778
      nals must be considered from the point of view of the transportation system as a whole, and I would frankly despair, after careful thought, great study, and some little experience, if these great terminals were left out of the scheme.
      Last of all, I come to electricity. At first, I agree, it appears a little illogical to put electricity into the purview of such a Ministry as this. But I would ask the House to endeavour to follow me in the conception of transportation which I have been endeavouring to put before them. Transportation his not merely carrying something from A to B. Transportation is the greatest power that we have for bringing prosperity to the community and for developing the district served by it. Is it thought for a moment that a transportation authority would disregard the industrial development of the district through which its lines go? While they were competitive it really was not worth while their making very special efforts to attract trade, because the other men got it as much as they did, and they went on competing. But in the districts where there has only been one big railway system, a great deal has been done to develop industry, to attract new industries, and to push the industries of the district. Railways have actually sent literature and canvassers abroad, purely and solely in the interests of the district. They have gone in for education on agricultural matters. They have sent round agricultural trains with trained lecturers; they have endeavoured to promote dairy farming and poultry farming. Everything that makes for the prosperity of the district itself it is in the interests of the transportation agency to push, to take up, to help and to foster; and to suggest that a transportation agency with electricity, of all things, would desire to penalise the manufacturer can only be put forward by anyone who does not understand really what we are after. Everyone knows that the greater the load, the more diverse the load, on a power station the cheaper is the power, and the cheaper the power the greater the advantage to the railway that is electrified. It is estimated conservatively that when we get through the electrification of the main lines, which should be done and done promptly—and it will be undertaken if this Bill becomes law—fully 20 per cent. of the electricity of the country can be used for traction.
      Sir E. CARSON: What would it cost?
      5.0 P.M.
      Sir E. GEDDES: There is no estimate of the actual cost, but from our experience of actual experiments it is a very remunerative proposition. But it is not only in reducing the price of the current that we get an advantage. The greatest advantage of electricity is in getting greater density of traffic over the line, so that there is a still further advantage in developing the district that you electrify, and if you consider that the lines of railway are the most direct, the safest, and the easiest of access for the high-tension cables, that it is in every way in the interests of the railway and the transportation agency and the Transportation Ministry to get the electricity pushed down the lines and spread out into the industrial areas, it is really a fallacy to suppose that it would be against the interests of the railways to develop the industrial use of electricity, and far less against the interest of the Transportation Ministry as a whole. The difference between the co-operative use and co-operative production of electricity is enormous, and there is no district in this country where electricity is better organised to-day than the North-East Coast. There the Electric Power Company has worked hand-in-hand with the North-Eastern Railway. Hon. Members know it is called the "monopolist" railway of the district. There we have a joint organisation—I was instrumental in setting it up—for attracting industry to the district and developing industry in the district. We jointly went in for placing the power stations near the coal mines and developing the economic use of waste heat. You may say that was against the interest of the railway, but it was not, because it developed the prosperity of the district, and it is in that spirit, and that spirit only, that we must look at this question.
      I would like to give an indication of the intentions of the Government under this Bill. The Bill contemplates two periods. There is a temporary period of two years. Two years was really fixed for us by a letter of Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade in the late Government, to the railway companies, and he intimated to them that the Cabinet approved the continuance of the guarantee for two years after the War. Two years seemed a reasonable time, and not an excessive time in which to consider in detail the
      1780
      whole of this very complicated problem. The temporary powers will all lapse at the end of two years, and so I would ask hon. Members to take really careful note of that fact, because there is a misunderstanding as to some of the powers. They are discussed as being permanent. The Bill extends the control to other agencies, and I have endeavoured to show the House why, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, that is necessary. A Select Committee of this House said that they considered it impossible without further investigation to come to an opinion upon the future of the transportation agencies in the country. With that, as I have said, I entirely agree. You can only arrive at a considered' opinion after you have carefully and technically examined the possibilities of each class of economy. That cannot be done by merely examining witnesses. You have got to see exactly how you can economise by standardising equipment, and in many other ways I have mentioned to the House. The Ministry during those two years must not be in the position that the Board of Trade has been during the past five years, apart altogether from the difficulties of labour. It must have the power to initiate, and, if necessary, to carry through these reforms. But, until the railways have been told one cardinal fact—until they have been told authoritatively and definitely, either that they are to go back as independent concerns, or that their interests are going to be fused, and they will never go back as independent concerns—until they have been told that, we cannot get even the commencement of the economics. In every case I have mentioned already, with the best will in the world, you come up against the fact that the individual interests will not let you go on, and that is the best proof possible of the point which I have been endeavouring to make, that unified control is essential in transportation. During the two years we must endeavour to lift the "dead hand" which is on development. We must endeavour to help it, and help it along heartily, while we are considering the question. At the end of two years, the powers under Clause 3 lapse, and we shall have to come back to the House. It was proposed to take any permanent action by Order in Council. That Order in Council would be discussed in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was thought that it would afford reason-

      1781
      able facilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But, in view of the fact that there is undoubtedly a strong feeling in the House against that procedure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—the Government will now amend Clause 4, eliminating the procedure by Order in Council.
      An HON. MEMBER: The private traders are shouting.
      Sir E. GEDDES: On the other hand, dealing particularly with the provisions of Clause 4, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (e) and (f), as regards (e) the Government will definitely seek power in the Bill to acquire, by purchase or hire, and to maintain, work or lease privately-owned railway wagons on terms, failing agreement, to be settled by the Railway and Canal Commission under the provision of Clause 3, Sub-section (5) of the Bill as to temporary arbitration powers. The Government will also seek under the Bill powers to prohibit the use of privately-owned wagons in future, except under licence. It is also proposed to transfer the powers in Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (f), which were permanent powers, and make them temporary powers under Clause 3, and to provide that, in addition, during the two years, the Minister shall have the right, subject to Treasury control, to construct such works as may be necessary. That is really essential if we are to have legal powers to carry out the scheme—it may be railway development, or something of that kind, which we could not reasonably expect that existing railway companies or other transport agencies would undertake.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will that include shipping?
      Sir ERIC GEDDES: No; it does not.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What becomes of them at the end of two years?
      Sir E. GEDDES: The wagons and the undertakings will become the property of the Government.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: You will not have power beyond two years under paragraph (f) What will happen at the end of two years?
      Sir E. GEDDES: They will belong to the Government, and the Government will have to seek powers at the end of two years to deal with the whole question of transportation. As regards the general
      1782
      conception of the final organisation, I am sure the House will realise that it is very difficult to give full details at this stage, but I may say that, as regards Ireland, it, is proposed there, on account of the social, and geographical conditions which obtain, that we should set up in Ireland, as part of the Government organisation, a branch, of the Ministry which would deal with all; Irish questions there.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Would it be under the Irish Parliament?
      Sir E. GEDDES: It will be a branch of the Ministry here. All local matters of purely local interest will be dealt with there. If matters of great importance have to be discussed, it will be the intention of the Minister, or the senior high technical officers, to go over to Dublin to discuss them.
      An HON. MEMBER: Is it the same with regard to Scotland?
      Sir E. GEDDES: No.
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the Irish agreement, which took over after the English agreement, so far as railways are concerned, be brought into uniform level so far as the two years are concerned? That is to say, although you are setting up a. temporary office in Ireland under your jurisdiction, are we to understand that, so far as the railways are concerned, they stand by the whole agreement?
      Sir E. GEDDES: Yes; but they all come under the same Ministry.
      Mr. THOMAS: For the two years?
      Sir E. GEDDES: It applies everywhere. Then, as regards railways during the two years, we shall continue some such organisation as existed during the War. I hope it will be possible to modify it to some extent, in order to allow the senior railway officials, who have spent their time in London, to get back to attend to the management of their lines; but it is not proposed to alter that at the present time. It is, of course, early days to say how you will organise the railways in the future until you decide the exact form on which they will be worked, but if, as I think is inevitable, there is bound to be a certain amount of central control and unity of control in London, it will probably be found that the best way will be to set up a Chief Commissioner, with possibly other Commissioners here, and divide the country into zones—non-competitive zones—

      1783
      having District Commissioners, partly elected from the district, partly appointed by the Government, and partly drawn from Labour.
      Mr. THOMAS: I want to be quite clear about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There are only 650,000 men affected! I want to ask if you are disbanding the Railway Executive? Do you mean the Commissioners that you are talking about to take over and exercise the functions of the present Railway Executive?
      Sir E. GEDDES: The present Railway Executive, or, as I have endeavoured to explain, some body more or less like it, so long as the companies remain in their present position, will have to continue, and in the future, when we reach the more permanent state of railways and of the transportation of the country generally, I think some body of Commissioners will be necessary. I do not think it would be a possible proposition to manage the railways or the transportation direct from the Ministry with executive powers. As regards clock and harbours, there I think it would be a fatal mistake in any way to give up the invaluable services which those great port authorities have been performing, but, for the reasons I have given, I think it is essential that some kind of central control, looking at transportation as a whole, should have a right to say to them, "This improvement is essential in the interests of the community as a whole. It may not be of local interest, but it is essential in the interests of the community."
      While I would not suggest that the docks, in any sense, should come under the railways, I do think—and I feel very strongly upon it—that in the great ports the port authorities as they exist, and in the smaller ports possibly the commissioners in charge, should have some central body here in London who would view the port problem and the transportation problem as a whole. The railway docks, if they remain railway docks, would necessarily come into that scheme, and that is, I think, rather a big thing. The canals. I think, similarly would have to be dealt with by a Commission. I think they would be better removed from the railway interest. Whether they could be dealt with entirely centrally or not must depend upon the extent to which the State could find the money for their development. As
      1784
      to the roads, I would propose—in fact, I have arranged it if this Bill becomes law—that the roads shall be a separate Department of the Ministry. The position of local authorities is in no way altered. They will deal direct with the Roads Department in exactly the same way as they dealt with the chairman of the Road Board in the past. I am glad to say that that great road maker to whom the Army in France owes so much and who served under me there, Brigadier-General Maybury, not only is in favour of this arrangement from the point of view of the roads, but has consented to serve as head of the Department. He will, under the organisation, have direct access to the Minister.
      It is upon these lines, and with this conception, that the Government propose, to plan and to build. It is admitted that the Bill is far-reaching, that it gives great powers, but the situation, as I have endeavoured to show it, is serious, very serious. I do not think it is desperate if it is tackled properly. I do think it is desperate if we pick at it. It is in the opinion of the Government on these lines, with this scope, and only with this scope, with the powers that are given in the Bill, that we can meet the situation. In inviting the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill I venture to hope that in considering the grave situation, hon. Members will rise above the jealousy of road and railways, above the jealousy of the local vested interest, for, believe me, it is not only in the land that there is vested interest, and that they will subject local pride to the interests of the Commonwealth.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
      I have listened with very great interest and sympathy to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and especially to the latter part, which, if it had been rearranged somewhat would perhaps have obviated the production of a losing Bill. Be that as it may, I would sum up the feelings of those hon. Members for whom I speak here to-day, by saying that our motto is, "Hands off the docks and harbours." Let me just in passing note the gift which the right hon. Gentleman in the kindness of his heart has bestowed upon Ireland. I am sure that Irishmen will be delighted to hear that in addition to forty-eight departments which we already

      1785
      have in. Ireland, managed from London, and managed not by those responsible to Irish opinion, my right hon. Friend has presented us with one more, so that Ireland is now brought up to forty-nine irresponsible English departments instead of forty-eight. So much for that part of the Bill. I wonder who my right hon. Friend consulted when he came to deal with the docks and harbours part of this Bill? Did he consult in any of the ports the public bodies there? Did he consult any of the great Civil servants? He cannot have done so, because he knows as well as I do that the Committee which was dealing with this question at the time declined to recommend the taking over of the docks and harbours. What is more, if he had consulted the Board of Trade, he would have found that one of the ablest members of that body distinctly declared that the taking over of the ports and docks would be a grave mistake. I will give my right hon. Friend the words of that gentleman. The witness was Mr. Garnham Roper, C.B., an Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade and head of the Department which deals with docks and harbours. He stated the policy of the Board as follows:
      "But your policy in the Harbour's Department has not been to manage harbours directly, but when you cannot avoid it you do so?
      That is so. We do not think it right that we should do it; that is our policy.
      That is the American policy of masterly inactivity?
      No, it is rather the policy that things can better be done by those on the spot."
      That is my case.
      An HON. MEMBER: What is the date of that?
      Mr. O'CONNOR: Last year or the year before. It is quite a recent Report. I think we have the right to complain that the proposed taking over of the docks and harbours from the present authorities has come upon us as a surprise. No inquiry was made. No public inquiry was made. No inquiry was made from any of these authorities who possibly first heard of this extraordinary proposal to-day—for that is practically what it comes to—and in spite of the Amendment that my right hon. Friend has just indicated, not one single question has been asked as to whether they are or are not in favour of this change. I do not think that is very fair treatment. I would call attention to the fact that this proposal is one of the most novel proposals that ever come before the House of Commons. All through the War
      1786
      when it was necessary to have the docks and ports properly superintended, neither the Committee which had the power to do it, not the Government which had the power, not the Shipping Controller who had power to deal with the matter, ever thought of interfering with the administration of the docks and harbours by the local bodies themselves. I am entitled to-say from that—nobody I think would deny it—that the dock and harbour authorities, when the great emergency of the War came upon them, rose to the level of the situation. My right hon. Friend by this time must be aware of the vast body of opinion which he has brought out in hostility to this portion of his Bill. If he wants any information about that he can get it from the right hon. Gentleman, behind him, because Glasgow is as strongly against this Bill as any port in the country. In fact, I do not know any dock or harbour in the United Kingdom, with the exception of one or two that are almost in a derelict condition, which is not up in revolt against this Bill. Liverpool, Glasgow, Neweastle-on-Tyne, all Teeside is against it. We have the extraordinary spectacle of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork united for once in opposition to a Bill proposed by this Parliament. I think that will indicate how strong and widespread is the opposition.
      I will give my right hon. Friend another instance of the amount of opposition. There is a Shipping Committee in this House. Now the shippers are our customers and our clients, and therefore our critics. If anyone has any fault to find with the existing dock and harbour authorities they would be the first to raise the point. The Shipping Committee in this House has passed a strong resolution denouncing this Bill and demanding the retention of control by the dock and harbour authorities. I will read the resolution from the Shipping Committee:
      "This Committee wishes to emphasise that the great body of shipping opinion throughout the country strongly objects to the management, control, and development of docks and harbour undertakings passing into the possession of the State, and thus substituting a policy of centralisation for that under which the docks and harbours of this country hitherto have shown the most splendid enterprise and development."
      I challenge the right hon. Gentleman, I challenge anybody in this House, to deny that. I heard a most thrilling speech—although the subject might have been supposed to be dry or prosaic—on docks and harbours by my friend Sir Hugh Bell,

      1787
      who is one of the great captains of industry in this country. In that address he described how in the memory of living man you could ford the Tyne, that the Tees was a poor little purling river, that the river Mersey had a bar, which regulated and embarrassed the traffic of the country. All these great rivers, he said, have been now brought to a position that they can accommodate the largest ships of the world. They have been brought to that position within the last twenty-five to fifty years. I say that is a triumphant vindication of what private enterprise, backed by local opinion and local finance, can do. What is the difference in essence between the position of the right hon. Gentleman and our position? It is local control by local responsible authorities as against central control toy a bureaucracy, by the Government. This Bill really is one which bears upon it the marks of the old bureaucracy and—the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying so—the young Parliamentarian. The Bill gives the Ministry the right to take possession, as indicated, of undertakings and their staffs, and to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of money and under what control? Under the control of an Order in Council which must lie upon the Table of this House for forty days. I suppose within the last thirty-five or forty years I have seen literally thousands of Orders in Council laid upon that Table. I never saw a Debate on an Order in Council unless it referred either to theology or to Ireland. These subjects always attract a crowded House. On all other occasions when an Order in Council has been put upon the Table I have seen the unfortunate and despairing Member trying to keep a House and usually failing, and the Government Whips taking very good care he did not get a quorum. If he did the Government Whips put the credit and existence of the Government against his objections. My right hon. Friend should have gone to some older Parliamentarian to give him advice on this subject, for this part of the Bill has gone by the board. Everybody knows it was ridiculous to propose and impossible to carry out such a provision. I am in favour of local and responsible control. What are these bodies which it is now proposed to dethrone? They are the leading merchants and shippers of the port elected by public election, I agree perhaps under a somewhat narrow and restricted
      1788
      franchise, and I stated my opinion on that subject a few weeks ago. At the same time, these men do represent the business intelligence of the cities to which they belong.
      Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman did not say that on the Bill the other night; in fact he said exactly the opposite.
      Mr. O'CONNOR: No, no; I did not deny that the best commercial intelligence of Belfast was represented on the Belfast Board. What I contended was that a quarter of the population was not represented on the board, but, so far as the board was concerned, if I did not say it, then I ought to have said that it was one of the best harbour boards in the country, and I am now trying to protect its existence. However, Irishmen often quarrel among themselves and they are frequently brought to reconciliation by gentlemen from the other side of the water coming to interfere, and it was so on that occasion. On these boards the best intelligence is represented and they are subject to popular control and so is their expenditure.
      From where does the money come which these men spend upon dock and harbours? I do not know whether it is news or not for the right hon. Gentleman that down in Liverpool the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is a favourite investment of what you might call the lower middle class. The shares in this board are not big blocks of £20,000 or £250,000, but they are held by people who invest about £30, £40 or £50. My hon. Friends who will speak on behalf of the Clyde and Glasgow later on tell me that the vast majority of holdings in the Clyde Trust are in the hands of small people who hold £20, £30, £40 or £50. Everybody knows that whatever may be the defects of the people in Glasgow they do know how to invest their money. Therefore, you have the money of the community, and if you have it contributed by the community and spent by their representatives under the eye of the community, you have the very best method. I put it to any man who has studied the difference between centralisation and decentralisation, if any central authority in the world had ten super-men at Whitehall their control would not be as effective and vigilant as the control of the local taxpayer and the local men. I do not, however, wish to be drawn into general discussion of the difference between Government work and

      1789
      the work of private enterprise; it is very tempting, but it is rather dangerous, especially with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby sitting on the Front Bench, when I know that he is in favour of nationalisation, as well as other hon. Members. What I do say, however, is that if you are going to get rid of the local authority and substitute a centralised authority you must have a very strong case, and here you have no such case. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows the book of Lord Jellicoe. I have read a good many extracts from it. I do not know how far Lord Jellicoe is justified in his statements, but I am sure it is a good book, and in it he says:
      "Thus for months the Grand Fleet sailed on the edge of disaster. The officers and men of the Grand Fleet went on doing under war conditions what they had been doing for years under peace conditions; they went on organising and training for war with insufficient material. They had not enough officers, nor men, nor ships; they had not enough appliances, nor the right kind of appliances, nor sufficient docks, nor a defended harbour, nor an equipped naval base."
      If there happened to be any public department in the nation about which we were self-confident it was the Admiralty, and yet this is the way, according to one of the greatest sailors of our history, the Admiralty had prepared for the emergency of the War, and in regard to which Lord Jellicoe says the Fleet was in danger of destruction. Is that an argument for centralisation or for the transfer of the control of docks and harbours from local authorities to clerks at Whitehall? Why, Sir, during all that time, and years before, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had been bringing before this House, time after time, fresh schemes involving the expenditure of millions of money. It is not more than twenty-five or thirty years ago that a ship of 5,000 tons was the biggest ship that the harbour of Liverpool could accommodate conveniently, but by the foresight of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Boards by coming to this House for powers, and the gift of foresight, they are now in the position that a ship of 50,000 tons can find accommodation in the Harbour and Port of Liverpool. Therefore you have this striking contrast of our experience at Liverpool with what was regarded as our greatest public and national department.
      In face of all this want of foresight, my right hon. Friend now proposes, if not to
      1790
      destroy, to paralyse, the local authorities. I know my right hon. Friend mentioned some concessions, but I think he used a very curious expression, which, I think, is the very antithesis of an accurate description. He talked of Clause 3 removing "the dead hand." From my point of view, Clause 3 will put on and not remove the dead hand. For two years my right hon. Friend, like a timid lover, still wondering whether he can propose to the young lady or not, holds the port and dock authorities in expectant bondage, and during all that time these dock and port authorities may be contemplating a great scheme They say: "What business have we in London, for we have great schemes to propose, and here we are, hanging about the Lobbies of the House of Commons and intending Ministers, instead of attending to our work."
      What is to happen during these two years? Developments wilt be arrested or made practically impossible, and that is what my right hon. Friend calls removing the dead hand from the docks of Ireland. This Bill will not do it. As an old Parliamentarian, addressing a young man, I venture to give him a little advice. Let him postpone this Bill for three weeks. Let him take it back, and then he may be able to make it a practical instead of an impractical measure. I want him to leave those people alone who have conducted the great business of this country in a way that is one of the finest chapters of our commercial history. The railways will give him quite work enough for the next three on four years, without having the ambarrassment of dealing with docks and harbours at the same time.
      Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I rise to second the Amendment. I do so with a grave sense of my responsibility. I am aware that any hon. Member, a supporter of the Coalition, who elects to take direct action against the Government on trivial or frivolous grounds deserves, and rightly deserves, censure, but I am taking exception on no trivial or frivolous grounds and the objections which have been taken throughout the country and by a large number of hon. Members in this House are far from trivial or frivolous I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have endeavoured as far as possible to summarise what he said. It seems to me that his case is very much, as follows: "It is necessary in order to develop agriculture and in

      1791
      order to develop housing that we should have control of all the services of the country. He went on to say that in pre-war days all these great services made very miserable financial showing, and to show that if for no other reason than the pledges which were recently given to the country we should make this demand upon the great transport services. He seemed to say that transportation is in a very bad way in France, Italy, and America; indeed, the transport services of the whole world, except perhaps in South Africa, and that exception I inferred was due to the fact that there the railways and terminal facilities, harbours and docks, were under the control of one Minister. He told us of their experiences in connection with the war services and of the work done after consultation with Sir Douglas Haig. He pointed to the great improvement effected and said it was due to the unification of control of the services of the Continent during the war period.
      Up to this point the thing which struck me with most interest was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not said one word to lead us to believe that if we had had all these services under one control, any improvement would have been shown where all these services are bad in France, Italy, and this country. He said that the country must trust someone or somebody, and that we could not wait. We are all perhaps inclined to agree that is true. He referred to the Select Committee, and went on to give us estimated savings. He then touched upon electricity, and finally he mentioned that he would probably set up commissioners under the Minister for all these various undertakings. It seems to me that the whole speech revealed very great political pressure which should not exist in a Coalition Government, very great political pressure for absolute nationalisation. If that is so, why do not the Government come out into the open and bring forward a fair and square and honest measure of nationalisation so that we can treat it on its merits? There is one other matter which I should mention, and that is the offer to delete Clause 4, except Subsection (1), paragraphs (e) and (f). The deletion of that Clause removes a great deal of the objection and opposition felt throughout the House to this Bill, but I would point out that in Subsection (1), paragraphs (e) and (f), there is still very considerable power left in the hands of the Minister to establish, main-
      1792
      tain and work the transport services by land or water. I understand that a section or clause to that effect is to be still retained in the Bill.
      It now perhaps devolves upon me to give some reasons why I oppose the Bill. What are the provisions of the Bill? The appointment of a Minister and the creation of a new Ministry. The transfer to the Minister of the powers and duties of the existing Ministries and Government Departments, except the Admiralty, with minor reservations by Orders in Council. The Minister during two years to take over if he chooses, but only if he chooses, any of the public services or undertakings mentioned in the Bill, except electricity undertakings, and, presumably, to hand them back at the end of two years if he has no further use for them. The Minister's power of purchase has now been deleted from Clause 4. I presume that the last Clause in the Bill is also deleted, the Clause giving the right by Order in Council to undo anything that has been done. He pointed to the wonderful war organisation, presumably in order to show that this centralisation and unified organisation would be a success. I do not think that is a very sound or good argument or reason, because we all know that war has to be carried on absolutely regardless of cost. It is comparatively easy to make an organisation work quite smoothly if you can do it with unlimited means at your disposal, but it is a totally different thing to organise your ordinary trade, industry, or commerce. War has to be carried on regardless of cost, whereas trade, industry, and commerce must be carried on with the utmost regard to-economy. Am I opposed to extra transport facilities for housing or agriculture? I say most certainly not. But to what extent do these play a part in the Bill? What is really the proportion of extra transport facilities which would be required to deal with the housing and agricultural problems? Surely the transport facilities required for that purpose are but a drop in the bucket compared with the scope of this measure. It seems to me not a fair reason for a Bill of such magnitude to say that it is required in order to provide transport facilities for the purposes of housing or agriculture. As a matter of fact, if all these great services come under one Minister, it will delay obtaining proper transport facilities for housing and agriculture, because the Minister dealing with all these vast pro-

      1793
      blems will certainly have too much to do to begin with to look at the minor problems of small branch lines and roads for the purposes of agriculture and housing.
      Mr. O'GRADY: They cannot be worse than they are at present.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Evidences of objections pour in from all parts of the country, and I think these objections are well sustained. But we can get support for our objections which is very much more sound than the telegrams and letters which pour in. They are only evidences of the intense feeling outside, because people do not go to the post office and send telegrams merely for amusement. There must be some substantial irritation behind. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Select Committee. He passed over it very gingerly, and I think rightly so for his own case. The Report of the Select Committee on Transport is only three months old, and presumably they were in a position to give some sound advice and to arrive at some sound conclusion on the matter. We find that in paragraph (10) they say:
      "The changes which have been introduced, and the high efficiency which has been witnessed in the working of the traffic by the railways during the War, have been due far more to a patriotic determination on the part of all concerned to do their utmost to assist the country in a time of national emergency, regardless of corporate or personal interests, than to the direct imposition by the Government of its will upon the railway companies."
      Then in paragraph (16) they say:
      "There are also other circumstances which will make it difficult from the point of view of the shareholders to return to the pre-war situation."
      In paragraph (18) we read:
      "It may possibly be advantageous that the activities of the railways in respect of other branches of transport should be increased, but the Committee has not proceeded sufficiently far with its inquiries to permit it to make any recommendation on this point."
      6.0 P.M.
      That is as far as they got with the railway section of the Report, after hearing witnesses for many months and after prolonged investigation. Then we come to Canals. We read:
      "Your Committee has not been able to come to any conclusion in regard to the most advantageous organisation for dealing with the canals except that further amalgamation would be advantageous."
      I am sorry to weary the House with these extracts. I am putting them as
      1794
      briefly as I can. I come next to paragraph (28) under the heading "Road Transport," and there I read:
      "Your Committee regrets that it has been unable to pursue this important matter further. While it does not consider that road transport generally is susceptible of being organised to an extent comparable to that which may be reached in connection with transport by railways and canals, it believes that there is much useful work to be done. In particular it recommends that endeavours should be made by the Government when peace is restored to reap for the community some of the fruits of the educational work of the Road Transport Committee by promoting voluntary co-operation between owners and users of road transport. It realises, however, that measures which are suitable to present circumstances may not be equally applicable to peace conditions, and that other considerations may justify from a trader's or agriculturist's point of view from the Committee's point of view may be an uneconomical use of road transport."
      Then I come to paragraph (29) dealing with harbours and docks, and I should like to draw particular attention to these words:
      "For instance, no one would be likely to propose that the management of all the harbours of the country should be handed over to one organisation, though it may be open to discussion whether the railways should be encouraged to extend their ownership of ports in cases where it can be shown to be in the national interest that they should do so."
      I think that is absolutely and directly in conflict with and contrary to the proposals contained in the Bill as far as harbours and docks are concerned. I should like to quote one line from paragraph (32) to the effect that in regard to coastal shipping the Committee's inquiries have not proceeded sufficiently far to enable it to make any recommendations. The last paragraph to which I wish to refer is the one in which the Committee say that it
      "regrets that, owing to the close of the Session, it has been unable to complete the work entrusted to it, and is of opinion that Parliamentary inquiry, by a Select Committee, into the questions of inland transport should be resumed at the earliest possible date in the next Session of Parliament."
      I think I am right in saying that we should pay attention to the Report of this Select Committee and put its findings against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he has given, at least, equal weight to the findings of the Select Committee. If we do, I think we shall find that absolutely no case is made out for this Bill being carried through at the present moment.
      There is one other short reference I wish to make—to the Report of Lord Haldane's Machinery of Government Committee. In chapter (5), paragraph 18, we read—

      1795
      "If the shareholders in the railway and canal company should be expropriated and the railways and canals thus become under whatever form of administration and State enterprise, they would, upon the principle that we have adopted, become the sphere of a separate Ministry of Railways or of Transport."
      And then in a later paragraph (27) we find these words—
      "A Minister and a Department directly charged both, with the administration of the State enter-prise and with the regulation of private enterprise in the same or any cognate services will inevitably be suspected of bias towards one or the other in a way injurious, as we suggest, to both of them."
      The first of these paragraphs which I read out presupposes that the Ministry is only to be set up in the event of nationalisation, and that brings me back to the earlier part of my reasoning, in which I stated that if the speech of the right hon. Gentleman meant anything, it meant a, plain out-and-out proposal for nationalisation. If it does mean that, let us have it plainly stated, without any smuggling it behind the Ministry of Ways and Communications. It is extraordinarily difficult to understand the Government's attitude after going over these Reports. I am open to be convinced that this measure is for the welfare of the people as a whole, but I find it difficult to understand it, if we are to attach the least importance to the Reports to which I have referred. In Section 3 of this Bill, if I read it aright, the Minister, if he chooses, can take possession of any one of the great many national services which are referred to in that Section. What does that mean? Does it mean that we shall make progress? Right hon. or hon. Members who are in any way connected with any of these great services will agree with me at once that they would never dream of going forward with any proposal for building up new lines, or raising capital for extensions, with this hanging over their heads, knowing as they would that at any moment the Minister might send an intimation that he is going to take over their concern. It means, in my view, absolute paralysis, the moment this Bill becomes law until such time as the Minister has got thorough and complete control and is as familiar with all the public services as the contractors or State managers of these services. I do not think it will make for speedily serving agriculture or for assisting in the solution of the housing problem. Would any responsible business
      1796
      man, would any hon. Member of this House for one moment suggest that any business could be built up with an organisation such as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman? I think not. And surely if businesses could not be built up under such an organisation, it is extremely improbable that any would be maintained by such an organisation.
      We are told that the Government has received a mandate. We hear a good deal about that mandate. Their mandate was to quickly re-settle the country after the disturbance of war. That is the only problem really before the country, and it is the only one really before the Government. Will this Bill help us to re-settle the country? I think not. Perhaps it would serve us better in five years' time. But in the meantime the problem is to fill our workshops, to get trade, to get a hustle on, and to get work done. This Bill will do none of these things. It is a very interesting problem. I have been associated with similar enterprises, and am intensely interested in the solution of all these problems, but we must now put this aside and devote our attention to developing trade, rather than to crippling industry. We must not make people shy of going ahead with business, as they will be if they have the cloud of nationalisation hanging over them. With the cloud of nationalisation hanging over this country businesses will fail, the workpeople will go out of employment, the workshops will go empty. It may be fruitful for us to discuss the reorganisation of the transport business of the country, but surely we are able to carry on for the next twelve months without this Bill. Let us go ahead and fill our workshops, let us see if we cannot remodel the transport services of the country afterwards. I think it is regrettable that the mandate given to the Government has been so seriously misunderstood, and that the Government should have thought it had a mandate to establish this particular Ministry.
      I am glad to note the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn Clause 4, and thus removed a great many of our objections. But his action in so doing does not remove from my mind, or from the minds of many hon. Members in this House, the knowledge of the fact that this great-Coalition Government at least contemplated—and if the Bill meant anything it did mean that—thrusting a bureaucracy on this country. It makes me gravely suspicious of the Coalition Government

      1797
      to think that if we had not raised a storm of protest we should have had this Bill on the Statute Book in the form in which it was presented to the House, and that we should have had a bureaucracy thrust upon us whether we liked it or not. The greatest evil has been struck out. We shall leave our children the same freedom to arrange their affairs as we in our day have had freedom to arrange ours. I am glad that for the moment, at any rate, the Clause has been struck out, for if it had been left in the Bill it would have resulted in nothing but a state of chaos. There is just one other point I wish to touch upon, and that is the underlying feeling in my mind. When I first read the Bill and closely studied it—and I am accustomed to studying public services and operations of all kinds—there was only one thing which became fixed in my mind, and that was that as it stood it was not a matter of ways and communications, it was rather a question whether we should retain or whether we should lose our freedom. I cannot help thinking of words which I read many years ago, when Lord Brougham somewhere referred to the planting of painted sticks in the ground, what he had seen in other countries, called trees of liberty. Let us see to it that we do not plant painted sticks in the ground in the place of some of our old, hardy, constitutional trees.
      Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the House generally will congratulate the hon. Member who last spoke upon the fair manner with which he presented his case even if they cannot quite congratulate him upon his conclusions. He at least looks, upon this Bill as the end of all things. When it is passed into law business and industry will cease to exist. I hope to at least be able to show from practical experience at least in connection with some of the undertakings that he ought to have no misgivings under that particular head. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in moving the rejection of this Bill dealt with two main principles, and he said, "I challenge the House to show me any central authority that could work as well or as effectively as some of our harbour and other authorities. That was shortly the case he put. I would answer him by citing the present railway position. In 1914, in August, when War was declared the Government were faced with this situation.
      1798
      They had an expeditionary force of 100,000 men. Every minute was of value to the life of the country, and they said, "If we want to do justice to the country, if we want to expedite the whole railway problem, we must immediately say that no longer can we allow the old system to continue." The result was that by a stroke of the pen they took charge of the railways. Everybody knows the numbers that were taken over in a time shorter than was originally intended, and the numbers that followed them who were transferred to France. That is the best evidence in favour of a central control as compared with local control. My hon. Friend's next point, curiously enough, was a quotation from Lord Jellicoe's book. He gave that quotation with a view to proving that, because Lord Jellicoe said that hi 1914 the docks of this country were inefficient for naval defence, in substance that was the best proof that we cannot support this Bill and hand the docks over to one central authority. That is the case put by my hon. Friend. Surely there is no stronger justification for this Bill? If, as Lord Jellicoe says, in 1914 our Navy was in jeopardy because of the absence of dock accommodation, one is entitled to say that that was due exclusively to the fact that there were too many people dealing with the docks and not one authority which could be held responsible. I would submit that that is the logical answer to my hon. Friend on that particular point.
      I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very clear and definite statement he made in presenting his case to-day. There can be no doubt that no Bill introduced into this House has met with so much opposition—organised opposition—as this Bill has. Every hon. Member's postbag has been flooded with resolutions from all kinds of people. My right hon. Friend did much to clear the air this afternoon in regard to the Bill, if he will allow me to say so, he at least proved what we have been urging from this side of the Table for a long time, that unification is absolutely essential. I propose to examine it from various points of view. First, with regard to railways. At the present time there are fifty-two railway companies in this country, with fifty-two general managers, and fifty-two boards of directors. It is true to say that, so far as each of those railways is concerned, there is practically no standardisation of wagons, engines, material, or anything else. So loose is the system that it

      1799
      is common to have a trainload of steel sent from Newcastle to Plymouth, over 600 miles for the use of Plymouth Dockyard, and the whole of those wagons will be returned empty to Newcastle under the old system, because under competitive private enterprise they are not allowed to put anything in the wagons. The House may be alarmed to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that for years there was a tremendous struggle as to the necessity for pooling wagons. You cannot pool the wagons until two things are done. First, you must abolish absolutely all privately-owned wagons. It is useless to talk about the pooling of wagons until that is done. Secondly, you cannot pool wagons to advantage unless you have a standard wagon, and for this very simple reason: Remember there are hundreds of thousands of them, wagons that open from two ends. One company may exchange with another, but their siding accommodation will render those particular wagons utterly useless so far as exchange is concerned. In connection with that, perhaps the House may be interested to know that so far as the present very incomplete system of pooling is concerned—it is incomplete for the two reasons I have given, namely, no standardisation and the privately-owned wagons—that the Government's own estimate of saving in 1916 was that 700,000,000 train miles were saved. I would ask this House, when we are talking about the difficulty of the collieries, to remember that there is hardly a day in the year in South Wales but that some pit is not stopped because of the shortage of wagons. [An Hon. Member: "And steel works too!"] Steel works are in the same case. You can never effectively deal with this aspect of the question until there is complete standardisation and the elimination of all privately owned wagons. You cannot do it under the present competitive system.
      Let me give one other illustration. A little more than ten years ago a Bill was presented to this House for the amalgamation of the Great Eastern, the Great Northern, and the Great Central Railways. It was a unification Bill for those three companies. The House rejected the Bill, with the result that the powers sought were refused. These three companies said, "Let us see what we can do on our own." They sent for a great
      1800
      actuary and said to him, "Here is the coat of our cartage alone in London—horses, wagons, offices, everything. Let us know exactly what each company pays annually." The actuary went into the figures and he said that the Great Central paid so much, the Great Northern so much, and the Great Eastern so much. Those three companies agreed at once to put that amount, which was based on the last year's expenditure on cartage alone, into one common pool, and then tried to eliminate the waste and have a cartage system covering the three companies. In the first year, although they paid in the same amount that it had cost them in the previous year, they drew £60,000 out of the pool, instead of it costing them more. That was for cartage alone, and that was the experience of these three companies. Last year Sir William Plender, at the request of a Committee of which I was a member, was asked to go carefully into this matter, and the conclusion he came to in regard to this question alone was that it was possible to save at least £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year. The House might reasonably say, "Yes, but why cannot this be done by private ownership?" It is utterly and absolutely impossible to do it, because—first, of the geographical difficulty; secondly, because railways themselves cut one across the other; and thirdly, what is more important, no one authority can deal with it, unless that authority is the State and no one else.
      It would be only fair to the House and the country if I said a word about the assumption that if the railways are nationalised there is going to be some huge reduction both in passenger fares and freight charges. So far as I know the situation I say quite frankly that I do not think that is possible at the moment. One of two things is necessary. You must either have an increase or the-railways must be subsidised by the State. The short problem is, that the net revenues of the railways in 1913, which was the high-water mark since the time of their inception, amounted to£45,000,000, exclusive of docks and hotels, or £50,000,000 including those. To-day the wage bill alone is some £57,000,000 more than it was in 1914. So far as the railway men are concerned, they are not content to allow themselves to be sweated merely to provide privileges for the benefit of the travelling public. While

      1801
      all other industries transfer the burden from time to time, it is only fair to remember that the railways are not allowed to do it. The Statutes passed by Parliament have prevented them from doing it in the past.
      There appears to be agreement that, so far as railways are concerned, nationalisation or unification at the moment is absolutely essential. The objection appears to be with regard to what are called the "other interests." The House is really concerned to see whether, if a case is made out for railway unification, it is really necessary to associate these other undertakings with it. That is the object of the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I will deal first with the docks. As my right hon. Friend says, in the first place, it is the deliberate intention, whether it be in this country or abroad, of railway agents to encourage traffic to the longest distances. That, of course, means that while there may be so-called competition between the railway companies themselves to see if they can get the traffic from the longest distance, yet it is a waste so far as labour and material are concerned, and somebody else, whether it be the short-distance traffic or the passengers, have to pay for it in the end. That is not nearly so important as this. If your docks are separated from this Bill, you have either to hand over 50 per cent. of the docks of this country or, alternatively, have them competing one against the other. That is exactly the situation at this moment. If you eliminate what are called private docks, you leave 50 per cent. of the dock accommodation in the Bill. I ask the House to imagine the situation of having, on the one hand, docks owned by the State competing with private docks and, at the same time, preventing any Minister from utilising the docks as he ought to utilise them—because you cannot separate the question of dock traffic merely because of goods. The real saving in dealing with dock traffic is not so much the transportation of the docks as it is the short mileage that the Minister can deal with by his dock accommodation being under one control. Therefore, it is impossible to separate one from the other. In addition to the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave, there are canals which for a number of years have been privately subsidised so that they should not compete with the railways. Probably there are differences of opinion with regard to the possibilities of our waterways. Some experts argue
      1802
      that you could not utilise the canals without a huge expenditure to protect the banks, because anything like strong traffic would render subsidence inevitable. But there are certainly some canals which could be utilised, and where they can be utilised that mode of transport is the best for that kind of traffic where speed is not essential. But it is impossible for the Minister to do justice to the traffic unless he is empowered to deal with canals in the same way as he is empowered to deal with railways. It is the same when you come to roads. Supposing roads were entirely eliminated from thus Bill. I understand the Government now owns from 60,000 to 80,000 motor vehicles of 3 to 5 tons. There are two problems with regard to road traffic. Supposing the railways are owned and run by the State, could you conceive of anything worse than the short-distance road traffic being developed with these motor vehicles owned by the Government themselves? On the other hand, agriculture to-day is starved. There is no proper system so far as agricultural production is concerned of feeding the railways. The only company which has done anything towards encouraging or developing it is the Great Eastern which made an experiment some three or four years ago. But you cannot separate this question of roads from that of the railways. At the same time regard must be had to the interests of local authorities, but neither local authorities nor private interests must override the general well-being of the State as a whole. I am glad my right hon. Friend has considered it necessary to abolish the Order in Council, because while everyone on this bench is in favour of the State ownership of railways and canals, we are not in favour of the power being given to any Department or any Minister. We are in favour of the principle, but we want to see exactly what it means, and this House should have a final voice in determining it.
      In the Bill I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider two points. The first is that the Superannuation Clause does not sufficiently safeguard the interests of the men. Provision is made that all existing superannuation funds and rights and privileges shall be guaranteed if the concerns are purchased, but that does not protect cases where an allowance is made, and it is not a condition of service. There are many companies which give their old servants a retiring allowance of some small

      1803
      amount. It is not provided in their contract, but it is a custom, and it has gone on for years. That must be protected under this Bill, Because Parliament, if it is taking over these concerns, has no right to say, "No, we are only dealing with the legal form of contract and take no consideration to any obligations that you and the company may have entered into." The second point is that I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the option of the 1844 Act. It appears to me that what the Bill says is that although in the Act there is an option taken to deal with the railway, it has never been exercised. The right hon. Gentleman comes along with another Bill and says, "I am prepared to ignore that option entirely and to seek a fresh option to deal with them just as I like." I hope that will be made clear. So far as electricity is concerned. I am somewhat doubtful as to whether one authority is the best to deal with it, because I attach more importance to electricity for commercial purposes than for transportation. I am not so sure as the right hon. Gentleman that you could develop any long distance traffic or any goods traffic with electrical power. I very much doubt it. Therefore he will agree, I think, that the greatest value of huge generating stations must be for commercial purposes for the supplying of manufactures and to give cheap electricity to dwelling-houses. That being so, I think two points must be safeguarded. The first is that generating stations must be put in as close proximity to the coal as it is possible to get them. But regard must also be had to the interests of the municipalities, because if a municipality has borrowed on the guarantee of the rates and set up an electrical undertaking you have no right to supersede it even in the interests of the State without giving adequate compensation to the ratepayers. So far as our party is concerned we welcome the general principles of the Bill. We believe it to be a step in the right direction. We believe the right hon. Gentleman's speech has proved the case that we have been arguing for a long time. I am sorry that illness prevents the President of the Board of Trade from being present. I have known criticisms levelled at him, because of the present railway situation, and I am at least entitled to say, as one who has argued the other aide of the case and been
      1804
      responsible for negotiations from the men's side, that there is no one who has met us more fairly and more honestly and with a genuine desire to do the right thing. It is at least due from me to pay public testimony, especially as he is unfortunately ill. We give a blessing to the Bill. We reserve our right in Committee to move certain Amendments, but we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the admirable way in which he has stated the case, on the magnitude of the Bill, and, above all, I hope he may be as pushing in the remaining stages of the Bill and after he has got it as he has been in presenting it here to-day.
      Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: I am one of a number of Members who have come to this Parliament not for the purpose of making a profession of politics or with any desire for offices of profit, but in answer to the call for business men: I bring an experience in transport of more than fifty years upon the railways, the docks, and the oversea transport of this and other countries. My experience has not been unproductive. It has helped to produce one of the largest ports in the world—the third or fourth port in this Kingdom—and that port has produced an industrial area upon which already are thriving more than a hundred works, all produced in the last few years, each with its railway facilities and every facility requisite for its trade. Incidentally comes with that a railway company which already is conveying more than 1 per cent. of the whole general merchandise of the country. All that work has been accomplished without obtaining one single penny from the Government by private enterprise, and when I hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to private enterprise as colossal waste, let me give him that short example. Those undertakings by private enterprise, while they want to go on, are stopped at present, or cannot proceed as we want them to, because this idea of nationalisation is held over our heads, and now this extraordinary Bill has been brought into the House. We who are concerned with transportation in this country have not been waiting until now to set ourselves-right for after-war work. So far back as the end of 1917, at the suggestion of my friends, I approached the then Minister of reconstruction (Dr. Addison). At that time we were beginning reconstruction work by getting ourselves together, and

      1805
      anyone who knows what has happened in the past knows how difficult it is to get two cities like Manchester and Liverpool to act upon the same lines. We were engaged upon that matter, and we succeeded, and we thought it opportune to get some announcement from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether we could not help towards reconstruction work and transportation instead of waiting until the end of the War. This is what I said at a meeting of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce presided over by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool after consultation with Dr. Addison:
      "The Minister of Reconstruction, Dr. Addison, who recently addressed us in Manchester, has told me that he intends to form a transport committee upon which gentlemen having practical working experience in the different branches of transport will be asked to serve."
      That statement was received with great applause, but no Government Transport Committee has been formed, because of railway influence. Railway influence through the Board of Trade stopped that, and I say that definitely. The Traders' Traffic representatives have, notwithstanding, met and have considered the whole question of transportation after the War. My friends and I speak here on behalf of a greater volume of trade and commerce than the Government. We represent the Federation of British Industries with a capital of £4,000,000,000, all invested in industries, three times the capital of all the railways; the Mansion House Association, which is known to look after the interests of the traders of the country; the Traders' Traffic Committee, and similar associations; but we have been unable to place our views before the Prime Minister or before the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill (Sir E. Geddes). Our views represent the complete case for the Traders, and they are available when asked for. We have no intention of injuring the railway shareholders in any sense.
      What has happened in regard to railway domination over transport is an old story, but it is just as well to refer to it. From 1845, during the period of railway magnates which ended with the late Sir Edward Watkin, who made the Great Central Railway, it was ambition which caused competition in accommodation from which we are suffering: ambition without any great benefit to the shareholders as such. We suffer from the
      1806
      highest general merchandise rates in the world. Since that time it has been the ambition of the general managers always controlling the Board of Trade, and their representative—and I say it deliberately—is now here in the right hon. Gentleman. Just before the War, when the inland canals had been paralysed by railway interests, when road competition had been stunted by railway interests, when railway docks were worked regardless of costs, the railway companies were attempting to obtain control of coasting steamers, including the Irish trade, and it was only the War which stopped them.
      At every turn every individual improvement by my associates and myself has been fought by the railway interests. Though I may seem to be speaking egotistically, let me say that I am only making the statement in the public interest, that I stand here as one who has created more railway traffic in general merchandise than any other man in this country. With what result? The railway traffic thus created has been carried on without the cost of terminal accommodation, and the conveyance and everything appurtaining to it at our end of the journey costs less than 6d. a ton, as compared with corresponding service at stations within three or four miles where the cost is nearly 5s. per ton. This small railway is paying 5 per cent. free of Income Tax on this cost of less than 6d. a ton. Government Departments have been unable to hold their own against the railways—particularly during the War the Ministry of Munitions were unable to get the railways to run American 50-ton cars on the English lines, even in train loads. What is happening now at the time that this Bill is before Parliament? Let me give an illustration of how the railway companies absolutely control the Board of Trade. Wishing to carry out a similar work to what is being done in Manchester, which I have briefly described, my friends in Nottingham obtained a Light Railway Order about fifteen months ago—that is, last January twelve months—for carrying that out, with a junction to the Great Northern Railway. There was no objection to the junction in any shape or form. The whole point was that if a junction were made the new light railway would take away so much of the traffic from the Great Northern Railway—that the Great Northern Railway would lose its revenue. That was the only point, and although the proposal had passed the Light Railway Commissioners it is held up to-day by the

      1807
      Board of Trade, by the very Department which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take over to his Ministry.
      During the War railway companies have been absolutely careless of economy. The Government finding the revenue, the companies have been competing one with another much more extravagantly than in peace time. They continue services which necessitate huge losses. They have been worrying the traders in every direction in order to obtain a better settlement from the Government when the settlement takes place. Take the case of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, one of the leading railways in the North of England. Two-thirds of their traffic is short-distance traffic, between twenty and twenty-five miles. A good deal more thanhalf of it is Carried under twenty miles. Let me show the sort of thing that is happening there. That traffic is being carried to-day at a rate of something like 7s. 6d. or 8s. a ton, including two cartages, two station accommodations, and the conveyance by railway. Before the War it was carried at a loss. Now the cartages are costing twice as much as the whole railway rate. The whole of that traffic could be taken off the line to-morrow. There is no Bill required for that. The President of the Board of Trade, who has charge of the railways, could take the whole of that short-distance traffic off the lines and help to relieve the loss of £100,000,000 which is flaunted before the House. In fact, that loss would be to a great extent done away with if the railways less confined themselves to their one monopoly service of conveyance upon the railway. Before an unbiassed Committee I think I could make out a prima facie case that the railway companies are themselves behind this Bill. The right hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) is lending his great power in assisting this railway attempt to dominate the carrying trade of the country. Of course, he is not doing it with any vicious intent—I do not say that for a moment—but he is so imbued with railway policy that, subconsciously, he can do nothing else.
      7.0 P.M.
      The right hon. Gentleman comes here and talks of £100,000,000 loss which the Government is suffering by the working of the railways to-day. What are the facts? The wages were £47,000,000. They have gone up—I am using a greater figure than that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas)—to a possible
      1808
      £112,000,000, including the cost of the eight hours' day. That is an increase of £65,000,000. Out of that £65,000,000 only £8,000,000 or £8,500,000 is applicable to the conveyance of general merchandise. The whole figure of £112,000,000 includes no end of wages and services which have nothing whatever to do with the conveyance of traffic by railway at all. No one who has any knowledge of the circumstances will dispute the fact that half of the £112,000,000 has nothing whatever to do with the conveyance of traffic. The £8,500,000 could readily be absorbed without any increase in the rates as now collected by the railway companies. This is rather technical, and I will try to explain it. The rates collected by the railway companies include a great number of services and accommodation which has nothing whatever to do with their sole monopoly, which is that of conveyance. For years the traders have urged, but they have never been able to obtain their desire, that there should be a separate rate charged for conveyance. If the railway companies would take on the present basis of the increased wages, what the wages cost and what the other services and accommodation cost for the service of conveyance and charge that, giving themselves a reasonable profit, the £8,500,000 would be absorbed directly, and a great deal more. There is no necessity for the railway companies to do any of the other services. Those are all services which can be left to competition by private enterprise. They cannot be competed for to-day while the conveyance rate is a part of a whole. I am sorry to have taken up so much time on that point. Let me give an illustration again, going back to the railway of which I am the chairman, where our wages for doing the whole of the work—it is over 2,000,000 tons of traffic, and I am speaking of wages alone now—are less than 3d. per ton, instead of the railway companies' wages of nearly 3s. per ton in the stations immediately adjacent.
      I believe there is no necessity at all at the moment for this Bill. It is the duty of the Government to consider the traffic requirements of the country before presenting a Bill. There is plenty of work for the right hon. Gentleman without a portfolio. He is a splendid business asset and if his wonderful powers can be brought to bear in the true interests of

      1809
      the country, and if the railway bias can be thrust aside, the country ought to make the very most of his services. Let him formulate the Government policy, and meanwhile stop the railway companies from unprofitable work and save the country's money. Let the railway companies charge dock rates, as other docks do, and come to Parliament, as the other docks have been forced to do, for increased powers if necessary. Do not let the railway companies do any carting or any other terminal services below cost. If they do it at all, which they are not bound to do, let them do it, now the Government is guaranteeing the turnover, at cost or above cost. They should separately charge a reasonable conveyance rate, and then the loss of £100,000,000 will be rapidly reduced. We have heard on one side a question as to the necessity of increasing the rates, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman said that to recoup the increased cost of working the railways rates would have to go up 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. The rates in this country—I am speaking of general merchandise—are 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. higher than those in competing countries in traffic carried under the like circumstances. You talk in this House of placing a greater disability on this country by increasing these already high rates by 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. It is absolutely unnecessary to increase the conveyance rates in this country above those of any of the other competing countries. It costs no more to convey traffic on our railways in this country than in other parts of the world. The right hon. Gentleman knows, he was the general manager, he has the figures, and can give to the House if he likes the cost to his railway of conveying traffic from one point to another in this country. But do we have the figures? We are the only country in the world which is kept without these figures. The Governments of every other country supply the cost of conveyance and ton mileage, and all those details. These figures are kept by the railway companies and can be produced if they are called for. They must be in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and I say, emphatically, taking the cost of conveyance by itself, that it is no greater in this country than in any other similar country competing with it for the trade of the world. All that is necessary is to disentegrate the rates. Then as to labour. The labour that I work with knows perfectly well that I am always
      1810
      trying to get it scheduled upon the highest permissible range, and what we want is—and what I have been surprised not to have heard asked for yet, not only in transportation, but in other ways—what we want to know from the Government is what transportation can afford to pay. Ascertain what it can afford to pay, and let labour have it right up to the hilt. It can have no more if the country is to continue successfully; it must not have less.
      As to the inland canals of the country, they are ready for nationalisation. By nationalisation, I mean that they should be put in such a state by the Government that traffic can pass over them to advantage. I do not mean for them to be worked by the State at all. Now, where is the objection to the nationalisation of our canals? I happened to say at a recent conference with the right hon. Gentleman, "There is not any opposition." I saw that he hesitated, and I said, "Do you mean the railways; would the railways object?" He said, "Yes; they would." Now, the railways are the only opponents of the nationalisation of our inland canals to-day. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of the House, and particularly as it was presented, but a very great feature of it has, of course, been taken out by the dropping of Clause 4. Let me read a resolution passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and ask whether, having gone half-way, the Government cannot see their way to go the whole length of the desire expressed in that resolution:
      "That the Bill for the establishment of the Ministry of Ways and Communications should be so amended as to provide that the various sections of transport should each be administered by a board, with a Chairman in each case, who should be responsible to Parliament, and that all those boards should be co-ordinated in the Ministry of Ways and Communications."
      The Bill provides for taking over the Railway Commissioners. There is no precedent for that in the world. In this country the Railway Commissioners are a judicial body who control the railways and at the same time the trade. If you take our Colonies—Australia, Canada—where the railways are wholly or partly owned by the Government or otherwise, there is a body which exercises all the functions of our Railway Commissioners, quite outside the ownership of the railways. If this Bill passes in its present state, let us see what is going to happen. We happen to have—I mean the Traders' Rail-

      1811
      way Company, over which I preside—an action against a railway company before the Railway Commissioners now. What will be the result of that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to take the Commissioners over? We are also just on the point of bringing a more or less friendly action before the Railway Commission. What is going to happen? Are we to wait for two years before we can get to the Railway Commissioners, because the right hon. Gentleman has taken them over and put them under his arm? These are the Commissioners who have to decide, being under the right hon. Gentleman; what are we going to do with these facilities which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to continue by Sub-section (f) of Clause 4? Even if the railways are nationalised, and transportation is nationalised, they must not be left to Government control. There must be a judicial body, coming in somewhere, as in the United States, and in every other country in the world. The Federation of British Industries have prepared a Bill which is being considered by the right hon. Gentleman, with a provision such as that to which I have just referred, and agrees, he says, with its provisions to a very great extent. I am speaking of the Federation's Bill for the control of railways and canals. He could very likely work it in with his future ideas, but why not take it now, and Bend it upstairs to be considered with the present Bill, if this Bill does go upstairs? The Bill itself was ready before the House met. It has not been introduced here only because we have not yet had an opportunity of doing so. The measure is ready, and printed, and I ask that it should be considered. The resolution of the Federation of British Industries, which I wish to read to the House, is a follows:
      "That pending a declaration by the Government of its policy in connection with the improvement and control of the transport facilities of the country, the Federation of British Industries, representing manufacturing undertakings of a gross capital value of £4,000,000,000, emphatically disapproves of the Bill for a Ministry of Ways and Communications, as introduced into Parliament, and considers the powers at present possessed by the Government under the arrangement made with Mr. Runciman, are sufficient until new and comprehensive legislation can be introduced."
      In thanking the House for the indulgence extended to me, I have endeavoured to remember—to quote what the Prime Minister said—that the greatest eloquence is in getting things through.
      Lieutenant-Colonel M. J. WILSON: I believe it is the kindly custom of this. House to show indulgence to a Member when he first rises to address it, and I would ask for a full meed of that indulgence to-night in saying a few words. May I first of all join in the chorus of congratulation to the Government which has been raised in their practically with drawing Clause 4, because I confess I was one of those who looked on that Clause with very strong dissent, even if I do not put it stronger than that. Apart from that Clause, I welcome this Bill most seriously and thoroughly; if, for no other reason, because it enables me to try and fulfil, by backing it to the best of my ability, a great many of the election, pledges which I made a short time ago. I was one of those, like many hon. Members, who came back after the election pledged to the hilt to reconstruction. This Bill is the keynote of reconstruction, and should provide the driving power which will make all those measures mentioned in our reconstruction pledges possible in the course of the next few years—the questions of housing, the health of the country, our trade and our agriculture all depend on proper transport being provided in the course of the next few years. The difficulties which have to be contended with at the present time in country districts are beyond telling. It was a great relief to hear the right hon. Gentleman say such stress on the question of agriculture, and it was pleasing to an agriculturist like myself to hear that something was going to be done for that long-neglected industry. I was further encouraged when I heard the right hon. Member for Derby remark that agriculture had been starved, and I feel that now there is a chance for it.
      The whole question of the future of agriculture does depend on what is provided for us in the course of the next few years. We realise to the full what our difficulties are, that it is our task to provide food from the country district for the town, that we have to provide it at a price at which it will pay and at the same time have to provide proper wages and proper living conditions for the men who produce the food. The time is coming, if it has not already come, when the demand will be made that prices shall be reduced for the benefit of the manufacturing districts. Then the question which will face the agriculturist is how can he provide better

      1813
      wages and living conditions for his men and at the same time produce the food that is required. The solution of the problem is twofold, because agriculturists will then come to the Government and say that it is essential that they should be supported, or subsidised if you like, in order that they may grow corn and what is required in this country, and the amount of that subsidy will depend on the ways and communications which are provided between the grower and the markets of this country. If we can have ready markets, quick and easy transport to those markets, if we can have a system, such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, of motor transport along our roads, we can do a great deal. But if we are to be left in the state, in which we are at present, of living actually in a wilderness, we shall have to go back to the old conditions of agriculture before the War. I have been rather horrified at the number of telegrams, letters and other communications flung at my head during the last three or four days, and perhaps because I was interested, as a rural Member, I tried to find out what was the reason of the opposition to this Bill, and I got various answers. One of my Constituents telegraphed to me to oppose the Bill so far as roads were concerned. I happen to know him, and I telegraphed back, "Why do you oppose it?" His reply which was telegraphed this afternoon was "Because I was told."
      There were other reasons put forward which perhaps have a little more in them. The chief reason put before me is that we have already a Road Board in existence, and that it is unnecessary to have anything else. Everyone who has lived in country districts realises what it is to have different authorities dealing with roads and road traffic. One great thing which is holding up development throughout the country at present is the fact that you have these thousands of authorities, all dealing with roads at the same time in the various districts, because whenever you have a scheme of development initiated you are always faced with the fact that it affects more than one district. Probably it affects a county council and a rural district council. There are two authorities, both ready to do everything in their power, ready to welcome the scheme in every possible way, but they lack the one thing necessary—that is, the driving power which will enable them to get over the local and
      1814
      other difficulties in carrying through the scheme. What I feel about having a second authority is this, that as we have had difficulties by having a lot of authorities in the past, so we shall have difficulties now if you are going to have a Ministry of Ways and Communications and a Road Board working independently of each other. Of course, there will be this advantage, that there will be a railway man at the head of each. I believe that the President of the Road Board is another distinguished railway man, and probably that would be sufficient compensation in the eyes of some people. But if we do have these two authorities, both dealing with the same scheme, then we shall have two spending Departments, both looking jealously at the work which may be put upon them by the other Department, and both in consequence employing experts and officials to check and watch the other, so that both will become passive resisters instead of becoming a driving power to get on with the work.
      The next reason given for opposition was that the management of roads and that of railways are incompatible. Everyone who has lived in the country will agree that for every mile of road which could in any circumstances be in competition with railways, there are twenty miles that could not be in competition, but are ordinary roads which would be feeders for the railway system. Then, when it is said that roads can be in opposition, with railways, I would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he regards it as wasteful competition, because if we are asked to go into the question of roads against railways we get back at once to the wasteful form of competition which existed1 between railways before the War, when you had two systems running between the same pair of towns, and the one thing that you want to avoid at the present time is waste in regard to a transport system. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the question of roads I would ask him to remember what he said about the cost. The cost at the present time is borne to a very large extent by the county rates. He proposes, and I hope that we shall all see it carried through, to develop enormously motor transport upon these roads. I would ask him to have some form of elastic arrangement with the county council in order that as the wear and tear of the roads increases he will be able to

      1815
      increase the Grants of the county councils for keeping up the roads. I speak feelingly as a member of the county council. County councils have had work put upon them, and were told that if they did that work they should have a certain Grant. Years have gone on, the work has increased enormously, the expense has increased enormously, while the Grant by the Government has remained as it was in the beginning. It is impossible to divide the questions of roads, canals, and railways. I cannot imagine any scheme, whether it is mineral development or afforestation, or the development of a big agricultural area, in which railways, canals and roads can possibly be put apart. I hope that the Minister in charge of this Bill is going to be, as I think he is, having seen him once or twice, exceedingly firm, and that he will remain firm and will not give way one iota in regard to divided authority.
      Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, and I would like to congratulate him upon it. I have only risen for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I desire to say how glad I was to hear his decision with regard to Clause 4, as otherwise I should have felt bound to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken with regard to roads. I do object to them being under the same Ministry as railways, but having listened very carefully to the statement of my right hon. Friend I do not consider that I would be justified in voting against this Bill owing to his not having given way on this matter of roads. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that several of the municipalities, including that which I have the honour to represent, Marylebone, have borrowed money for the purpose of starting municipal electrical enterprises. I sincerely hope that some indication will be given on behalf of the Government as to the manner in which the Interests of the borough council and the ratepayers are going to be safeguarded. Under the Bill the right hon. Gentleman takes the powers which now exist in the Board of Trade with regard to Provisional Orders and other matters under electric lighting Acts, and also the powers of the
      1816
      Local Government Board with regard to loans. As he knows, there was a Committee of the Board of Trade set up some time ago which recommended the establishment of electricity commissioners and an electricity board. I understand that that would have necessitated the introduction of another Bill. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill of this description or not? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement, so as to allay somewhat the natural anxiety which now exists on these questions.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: My attitude as regards this Bill has been very considerably altered by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it. I was decidedly critical as it originally stood. I thought it was introducing a very dangerous precedent to allow a Minister by Order in Council to recommend His Majesty to make such vast and far-reaching changes as were proposed, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has promptly seen his way to withdraw that proposal and also several others as to which I thought it was very undesirable to take powers. I rather rise tonight because I am connected—there is no secret about it—with one of the more important railways, and I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that whatever may be the future of railways, the staff and the shareholders can have no personal grievance if they are fairly compensated for any step that may be taken. I trust the compensation will be fair. There was just a doubt about it in one of the Clauses which bas been withdrawn, but provided that were the case I have no personal feeling that there would be any grievance on our part if railways were even to be nationalised. But I want to approach the question from quite a different point of view. After all it is a question of what is most to the national interest. Is it really best for the nation that nationalisation should take place as was apparently contemplated in the Bill as it originally stood, or is it a misfortune for the nation if such a change took place? The proposal for nationalisation is one which is being constantly put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and many of his supporters, who seem to think that in all problems concerning the State nationalisation is the panacea for all evils. I should like, therefore, in this

      1817
      particular case to consider for a moment what would happen in the case of railways. Many of us who have sat here for many years have had opportunities of noticing that some Ministers are more squeezeable than others, and in some cases they undoubtedly have their eye much more on the popular vote than on real business administration. Imagine those influences to which a Minister of that character might be subjected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is General Secretary to the National Union of Railwaymen. He has made on occasions very praiseworthy speeches during the recent crises pointing out that there must be a bottom to all these demands and that there must be some basis and some limit beyond which you cannot go, otherwise the whole State will be bankrupt. He has spoken on occasions very bravely on those lines, but he has a rival in Mr. Bromley who is General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. When the right hon. Gentleman has made one of those speeches it is sometimes noticeable that Mr. Bromley comes forward with a further demand, say, for instance, a 5s. bonus in addition to what the right hon. Gentleman has been asking for, and that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the position of either having to come into line with Mr. Bromley or, as I imagine he would say himself if he were here, that he would lose his influence with his Union. And who is the victim of all that? That occurs over and over again. It happened several times in the last three or four years. Who is the victim of all that? Why, the community, trade and the travelling public.
      Therefore I would strongly urge the House that what we should really aim at is what the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill has said, namely, that we ought to make railways self-supporting and that we ought to protect services of public utility against constant and repeated demands which can only end in making them bankrupt unless they have State subsidies, which from an economic point of view are not desirable. At all events I would urge the House that in such matters as these it will be far wiser to leave politics out of railways. So that is my text in pressing on the House that railway nationalisation is not desirable for the nation. Sometimes I notice that
      1818
      agriculturists who perhaps have not given very much thought to this side of the question support nationalisation on the ground that it is going to cheapen freights. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman for Derby who said that nationalisation would not cheapen freights as long as high wages continue and are likely to continue. On the contrary I am inclined to think that the change of nationalisation is more likely to increase wages, and in that case do not let agriculturists or anybody else suppose that they will get cheaper freights by making this change. Let me make it, on the other hand, perfectly clear that I do not object to a moderate and even considerable control by the Government of railways. I think regulation is needed, and I daresay more regulation than we have at present. I can assure the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. M. Stevens), who spoke just now, that railways are not behind this Bill, and, indeed, their attitude would be rather critical to it, but I quite-welcome a considerable amount of Government control, because I think it will be for the benefit of the public and it will certainly, under present conditions, avoid wasteful competition. It will lead very likely to the unification of railway groups and all that is to the public benefit. But it is fair to remember that wasteful competition is not all the fault of the railways. Those who look back on the history of this matter for a good many years will be aware that Parliament itself was constantly encouraging competition to an almost unlimited extent. In former years, if a new railway was proposed, even though it was going to compete with an old one, Parliamentary Committees would pass the Bill on the ground that this was helpful competition which would produce better service for the public, following the Manchester School of thought that all competition was desirable. To that extent, therefore, Parliament itself is responsible for the competition. No doubt the economy required by war has altered the conditions, and I am entirely at one with the general view of the present day that more economy is needed, and that if Government control of railways can bring it about it is very good to institute that Government control.
      But let me take the subject from a somewhat different point of view and one from which I have had opportunities of studying it. I mean to say, what is the experience of nationalisation in Europe and

      1819
      other places? I have on occasions attended meetings of the International Railway Congress at Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere, and I have had opportunities of discussing this matter with foreign railway experts, who have given me very interesting information on the subject. Previous to the War I ought to say, in the first place, about 50 per cent. of the European railways were State railways. With the exception, generally speaking, of Germany, in most of the cases the service deteriorated, the cost of operating grew enormously, and politics were triumphant. Take, for instance, the Western Railway of France. I find on looking up the figures that the net revenue of that railway in the worst year of its private management was £2,750,000. It was taken over by the State in 1908, and in the fourth year of Government management the revenue was reduced to £1,070,000, because the Government largely added to the number of employés on taking the railway over, and that cost was in no way justified by corresponding efficiency. Discipline was very largely disregarded, and matters got to such a pass that, if I am not mistaken, M. Briand, who was then Prime Minister, had to invoke the military law of conscription in order to enforce on the employés more discipline and to bring matters to a crisis. In Belgium, State railways used to be run at a loss, and when the private railways were taken over there was similarly a large increase in the number of railway employés. In Italy, as I was informed by a well-known Italian official, when the chief railways were nationalised in 1905 the number of employés was augmented in three years from 97,000 to 137,000, and the systems did not earn ¼ per cent. of interest on the investments. Nationalisation in Italy was accompanied by extensive strikes, and in one case the appointment by the Government of a highly-reputed expert was directly afterwards cancelled, apparently on the ground that he was objected to by the men as too strict a disciplinarian. Just before the War the Italian Government returned to the old system so far as to grant a concession to a private company, which was to take over a portion of the existing State railway, to build the extension with money assistance from the State and then work on its own account both sections as one undertaking under private management. That does not seem
      1820
      to point to any very great satisfaction with the experiment of nationalisation in Italy. In Canada it has been charged at election time that the Government increased the number of employés on the Inter-Colonial railway, which is a State railway, with a, view to influencing the results. Anyhow, the deficit in 1909, which is the last year for which I have the figures, was over £850,000. I could quote similar cases from Austria, Russia, New Zealand, and elsewhere.
      I said the exception was Germany. There are two causes which I think are worth mentioning to the House in that connection. One is that in Germany there was far more discipline, and in Germany also when State railways were introduced a reduction of rates was promised, though they were actually increased for fiscal reasons. But the very reasons which have made State railways so far successful in Germany are precisely those which, if they existed in this country, would often prove a menace to our free institutions. Perhaps it is also worth while just considering the reasons which have led to nationalisation in various countries; and the motives which have brought it about are all entirely dissociated from present day arguments in this country. For instance, in Germany Prince Bismarck's object in buying up the railways was unification of the Empire under the Zollverein after 1871. In France and Italy the step was due to original subsidies to the railways, and consequent complications otherwise insoluble. In Belgium and Switzerland nationalisation was dictated by fear of foreign capital. In Australia, the States could not get the money for building railways except on the credit of the Commonwealth, and in Japan there were thirty-six companies which had to be united, and fifteen of these owned less than twenty-four miles apiece. So that all the reasons in these different countries were wholly different from anything we have been discussing to-night, and the experience, generally speaking, has been against nationalisation as expensive, as leading to jobbery, and as not serving the public as well as private enterprise. I have confidence in the private management of railways, subject, of course, as I have said, to proper and full Government control and supervision, because private initiative and resourcefulness in business have proved more efficient than State rigidity and officialdom. I also think that financial re-

      1821
      sponsibility is more keenly felt and acted upon under private management. It seems to me, under these circumstances, that we ought to think once, twice, thrice, before agreeing to a general policy of nationalisation. It launches us into a vast system of State transport, apart from State control, which as it seems at the present moment is merely a sop to aggressive agitation, and contrary to much valuable experience.
      Major HAYWARD: My attitude towards this Bill was a little uncertain when I came to the House this afternoon, and my first difficulty arose from the fact that the most careful perusal of the Bill itself could not throw any light upon what the policy of the Government really was, because what the Bill did was really to establish a Minister who would be a dictator upon all matters relating to transport, and who would have in various matters not only all the powers of Parliament itself, but upon some points even the powers of the judiciary. And I believe as a matter of fact he will still have the powers of the judiciary upon some points. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon did give some outline of what it is that he proposes to do, and I may say, upon those general objects, that I myself am very anxious to see them carried out, and I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill in the hope that they will be carried out. I am very glad that Clause 4 has been withdrawn, and I am glad for this reason, that I object altogether to the system which has been adopted by this Government several times lately of delegating to the executive functions, duties, and powers which ought to be retained by the legislature itself. I was very glad to see that many hon. Members opposite have at last opened their eyes to this tendency in recent legislation. I got a circular a day or two ago, which probably every Member in the House has got, signed by two hon. Members opposite, and it so admirably expresses my point of view upon this that with the leave of the House I will read an extract from it. After referring to the difficulty of incorporating any definite proposals in the Bill, it goes on:
      "It is doubtless owing to this difficulty that an attempt is made in Clause 4 to give the Minister immediately after the passing of the Bill unlimited powers by Order in Council, which is, in effect, establishing bureaucracy. It is submitted, that this is unprecedented and most dangerous and that the Clause should be
      1822
      deleted, which would result in the Government being obliged, when their policy is being formulated, to submit a detailed Bill to Parliament setting out their proposals."
      While Clause 4, which is the most objectionable Clause in that direction, has been withdrawn, if hon. Members will carefully scrutinise other Clauses of the Bill they will discover that the Bill still is deficient and objectionable on this same ground. And I would point out to those hon. Members who signed this document—and I believe they are supported by about eighty other hon. Members of this House—that the same sort of thing is going on in other Bills. The number of this Bill is No. 11, and if they will take the whole series of Bills, Nos. 10, 11, and 12, they will find precisely the same thing happening, the executive usurping the powers and functions of the legislature. No. 10 Bill is the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill. It is merely a proposal to hand over to the Government a matter of £120,000,000 to play with, without the sanction of the House of Commons and without the House of Commons knowing how the money is to be used or having any control over it. This Bill is No. 11, and No. 12 Bill is the Military Service Bill. I have no doubt, when hon. Members opposite who now take this view upon this Bill voted for the Conscription Act of last week, they were under the impression that they were as a matter of fact voting for retaining conscription until April 30th next. They were doing nothing of the kind. All they were voting for was to hand over to the military authorities that power to impose conscription. The Bill did not do it at all, but merely delegated to the military authorities that matter of supremest importance, which should never have gone out of the control of Members of this House. So far as I can understand the proposals of this Bill, which, as I say, I am generally going to support in the hope that its deficiencies will be amended in Committee, there are one or two what I consider to be very grave defects. May I refer firstly to Clause 3, which provides for the retention of the railways already taken over for a period of another two years, empowers the Minister to take over railways and other undertakings not already taken over, and then gives to the Minister almost unlimited powers with regard to these undertakings. It is when I come to deal with the terms upon which these undertakings are to be taken over and retained that I view the Clause with a considerable amount of apprehen-

      1823
      sion and alarm. What are the terms? I will take first the undertakings which are not yet taken over, and might I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that with regard to those—I am speaking now of the undertakings referred to in Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b) there is no provision whatever as to the terms upon which these new undertakings are to be taken over. What are the terms? Is the omission of the terms a mistake and an error? I should like to know, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman when he replies will give us some information on that point.
      8.0 P.M.
      With regard to the terms upon which the railways already taken over are to be retained, they are to be retained upon the same terms as heretofore, and the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, told us what those terms were, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to them again tonight. They are, I understand, to be that the net receipts for 1913 are to be guaranteed for a further period of two years. That might be a fair proposal or it might not. As a matter of fact, I believe the Government are more or less bound to it by a pledge already given, but at the same time, however the transaction might have looked when the pledge was given, looking at it at present it certainly seems to be a most improvident arrangement so far as the State is concerned. It means that for the past five years repairs, extensions, improvements, have been more or less a dead letter, as the right hon. Gentleman told us. There is a vast accumulation to be made up, and I have no doubt that the greater part of that accumulation will have to be made up out of revenue, so that that is a charge which in the first place is going to fall upon the taxpayer Secondly, it is going to be quite impossible to get any reduction in railway fares during these two years, because it is quite clear that if there were such reduction that is another charge which would fall on the State. It is also clear that within the next two years every industry will have to give permanent concessions of one kind and another to its employés, and whatever concessions are made under this arrangement, whether with regard to wages, hours, or conditions of employment, they would all fall upon the taxpayer. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, also, if he would tell us whether
      1824
      these are the whole of the terms, so far as they exist at present? Is there any liability whatever for depreciation of any kind at present—I mean depreciation of the undertakings in the hands of the State during the past five years? Whether that is so or not at present, I should like to call the attention of the House to the provisions in Sub-section (4) of this Clause. This Subsection provides—
      "Where by reason of the exercise of the power under this Section the value of any undertaking has been depreciated or enhanced, the owners of the undertaking shall, so far as any loss is not provided for by the payments mentioned in paragraph (a), he entitled to be recouped or liable to pay the amount by which that value has been so depreciated or enhanced."
      So that there is a new provision providing that at the end of two years the State is to be liable for depreciation in these undertakings—a depreciation which has been suffered through the exercise of the powers of the Minister. If the House will look at these powers, they will see that they are very wide and unlimited, and under this Clause providing for depreciation, practically any claim could be made, and there is practically no limit whatever to the claim for depreciation which could be set up. If damage is caused by the exercise of some of these powers, they are obviously the proper subject for depreciation. But all of them are not, and I submit that where a charge would have to fall on an undertaking, apart altogether from this Bill, and apart altogether from Government control, then that is a charge which should not be the subject of depreciation, as it would be under this Bill. Let me point out one or two matters. Forinstance, take the powers as to salaries, wages, remuneration, and conditions of employment, so that not only in these questions have you got it that the State is responsible for two years, but any depreciation in value which arises from an increase in wages, or a reduction of hours, is the subject of depreciation, and would be the subject of depreciation.
      After all, how can you assess depreciation in an undertaking like this? You can only assess it as it affects the net returns. Anything which is going to diminish the net returns must be the subject of depreciation, and therefore you have got this: If you make a concession in hours or in wages, at the end of your term you are going to capitalise this, and the owners will be entitled to that capitalised

      1825
      as part of their depreciation. The same applies not only to wages, but also, for instance, to any improvements made in the interest of public safety. Any improvements made in the interest of public safety at present have to be carried out by the railways at the cost of the industry. But, under this Clause, they would be the subject of depreciation at the end of the term, and they would be capitalised, and the State would be responsible for the capitalised value. I do not quite see why the railways should be placed in this particularly favourable position. I do not want them treated more unfairly than any other industry, but I do not want them to be treated any better, and I do no want the dice to be loaded against the taxpayers every time. Concessions will have to be made in other industries, wherever you look. Only last week the Government made a concession to tenants, but it is the owners of a particular class of houses affected who have to bear that concession. Concessions will have to be made in the case of coal, and the coal industry will have to bear them. Then, I say, the same concessions made to railways should be borne by the railways, and not by the taxpayers.
      In a sentence, also, might I refer to one other matter, and it is the last? I notice that in two or three Clauses of this Bill, wherever it is proposed to acquire land for the purposes of any undertaking, the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act is retained. I do hope that for the future in all public undertakings, wherever it is proposed to acquire land for public purposes, we are going to get rid of the Lands Clauses Act, with its archaic, cumbersome, and expensive machinery. As every owner of land knows, when he does sell his land by the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act, he is going to get, probably, twice as much for it as it is worth. From the fact that the Government have retained the Lands Clauses Act for the purposes of this Bill, I must say it fills me with some amount of apprehension upon this and the question of nationalisation when it does arise. I hope when the right hon. Gentleman replies for the Government—if he does reply—he will deal with this question of depreciation, and the question of the Lands Clauses Act, and will show they are going to deal with this matter in an enlightened manner and in a manner fair to the railway shareholders and fair also to the taxpayers as well, so that we shall not only be able to support this Bill on
      1826
      Second Reading, but shall be able to support it on Third Reading, which I, for one, shall find it extremely difficult to do unless these, what I consider, very great objections are removed.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I should think it must have been many years since a Bill of first-class importance, introduced to this House as this has been, has met with such a very great change in the atmosphere of the feeling of Parliament within the first hour or two of its discussion. Before this afternoon the feeling of opposition to part of the Bill was unanimous, and the feelings of doubt and difficulty with regard to a great deal of the Bill were very widely spread. I think that the House has heard with great interest, and with great relief, the speech of my right hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading, and I should like to join in the universal chorus of appreciation and gratitude which has been conveyed to him by every Member who has spoken with regard to the dropping of Clause 4. The fact is that government by Order in Council is in war time excusable—or may be—but in peace time it is not to be endured. I, for my own part, am rather glad that the Government put it in the first draft of this Bill, in order to elicit early in the life of this Parliament such an unmistakable proof of the way in which Members of this House regard such methods in time of peace. With that gone, the whole attitude of the Bill is changed, and the attitude of the House is changed towards the Bill, and I would like to join other Members who have spoken in expressing one's warm appreciation of the spirit which animated my right hon. Friend's speech, and for the exceedingly persuasive, and, to my mind, conclusive way in which he showed the inportance of a general purview being taken by some Minister or Ministers of the whole problem of transportation in the country. This Government and this House will be, and ought to be, judged by the country according to how far it carries out the promises made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, accordingly as to how far they can lay the foundation for a better England that that before the War. It is undoubtedly true that one aspect of the problem is, and must be, concerned with due correlation of all forms of transportation in the future. For that reason I for one will vote—if it is necessary to go to a vote to-morrow night—for the Second Reading.

      1827
      But, like all great projects which in themselves are right, and which have the true aim, the real difficulty is in translating them into action, and while this Bill, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend who spoke last and by other speakers, has great tracks of vagueness in it, at the same time, and partly because of that fact, it raises matters which will require the most careful analysis and examination in Committee, and votes for the Second Reading, and even cordial support of the Bill on its Second Reading, foretell much less than such votes generally do what is likely to be its fate in the end. The fortunes of this Bill must depend very largely on what happens in Committee. To-night I do not propose to take up the time of the House save on one point, and that is the question with regard to roads. It is quite true, and is widely emphasised by the Minister, that traffic along roads and traffic along railways, and such traffic as still carries on a precarious existence upon canals, are all related to each other, and the whole ought to be looked at. But, for all that, traffic and transport on roads are in an utterly different category, or rather a completely distinct subdivision, from transport on canals and on railways. Be railways and canals nationalised, or left in private ownership, they are essentially trading concerns. If they are nationalised, the country will be concerned to see that they are self-supporting. If they are left in private hands under control, the test of their success will largely be whether they are self-supporting. In the case of railways, in the case of canals, in the case of docks, revenue is properly looked for, and it is the amount of that revenue which is the leading feature of these undertakings.
      It is entirely different with roads. My right hon. Friend had to say roads cost the country £20,000,000 a year, but there was no ascertainable result in terms of £s. d. Again, roads, unlike these oilier means of communication, are open to everybody and must be open to everybody. Their importance in many respects depends, not on the amount of traffic upon them, but upon the necessity of that traffic for individuals. A small road giving the only access to a remote village, to centres needful to be visited, is as important as a road along which go thousands of people and hundreds of every kind of vehicles. Therefore, the problem of right adminis-
      1828
      tration is quite a distinct one. I welcomed what my right hon. Friend said, that the Government were prepared to make a separate Department for road administration under this Ministry. That is in accordance with the resolution unanimously passed three days ago by the Parliamentary and Highways Committee of the County Councils' Association. That resolution was as follows:
      "That this committee, while not at present expressing any opinion on the general policy of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill, cannot regard the measure as satisfactory unless there is established a separate Department of the Ministry to deal with all questions of road administration."
      As I said, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said as regards his intention to establish a separate Department, but I hope that he, or the Home Secretary, will to-night, or at some early date, make quite clear to the House what is meant by that. In the first place, that ought to be put into the Bill. I submit, in order that we may know that we may have absolute security, and that we may be able to ascertain what it means, in the next place, while my right hon. Friend said that Department was to have at its head Brigadier-General Maybury, a distinguished engineer in whom everybody would have confidence, that is not enough to deal with problems of road infilling and road maintenance.
      Road administration includes much besides road making and road maintenance on the engineering side. It deals with questions of policy as between the Government and the local authorities, and as between one type of road and another, which do not depend merely upon gradients or materials, but upon wider and more varied considerations. Therefore, what we respectfully urge upon the Government—and I am urging it now in a spirit of real friendliness to the Hill and to the Government—is to make that separate Department a reality. In other words, to have—under the Minister of Ways and Communications, if preferred—something at least as highly organised as the Road Board; and we ask that in that Department there should be one representative, at any rate, of the great county boroughs and cities of the country, and one representative of the county council authorities, in order that in this Department there may be persons who are thoroughly well acquainted with the problem from the local side—for surely these problems of administration, which have a central aspect and

      1829
      a local aspect, are best solved when in the Government Department itself you have gentlemen with a special knowledge of both aspects. I would urge this upon the Government as essential if a proper segregation of road management is to be embodied in the Bill. The Minister of Ways and Communications will have the purview of this as of the Railway Department or the Canal Department. Subject to that general purview and control the separate organisation of this Department is, I submit, vital, if the whole matter is to succeed.
      There is one other item I would mention, and that is that money voted by Parliament for the upkeep and improvement of roads should be earmarked for that purpose. Money voted for the roads should not be diverted to make up a deficit on the railways. On the other hand, profits made by the railways, if they are ever made, should not be asked for for the benefit of the roads. We who are now speaking, as I venture to speak to the House, on behalf of the road authorities, are quite prepared to make terms with the Government. We have found for many years past that successive Governments have treated us on the whole quite fairly. We do, however, want to keep the financial system of the roads entirely separate from the finance of the railways and the canals. Unless that is done misunderstanding will be almost universal, and misunderstanding in this case, as in so many cases, will breed suspicion and hostility, even when there is no real ground for their existence. That is the point I desire to urge upon the Government, and it was for that purpose I rose. I do not propose to be tempted—although I feel the temptation—into an examination of other parts of this Bill. In a sentence, may I be allowed to add a word or two on quite a different matter. This Bill proposes, among other things, to prepare the way for the abolition of the Railway Commission. Of course if this Bill be, as it seems to be, the vestibule to railway nationalisation, no doubt State railways in their relation to the problem of State charges, in that which they have to do with the trader and the consumer, are in a somewhat different position from railways which are private enterprises though under State control.
      The experience of other countries goes to show that you mast in some form or other have a judicial or semi-judicial authority to decide disputes of that
      1830
      kind. It is highly desirable that in the question of the amount of the rates of the railway or canal as between the trader and the undertaking should be decided not by a Government Department, but by some commissioners or other who are really acting judicially, otherwise, indeed, the door is opened wide for that kind of lobbying which, years ago, we were told was the monopoly of America, and which we do not wish to see introduced hero. I would urge this upon the Government, because it will be of some importance, if and when the railways and canals are nationalised, that there should be no opportunity for undue influence or for any person seeking to gain by devious methods that which he should gain, or fail to gain, by the decision of an independent tribunal. These points seem to me to be almost more than mere Committee points; they seem to me to go a long way towards principles. I represent them to the Government and to the House. Subject to these, I shall vote for the Second Reading. I hope that as this Bill is developed and articulated in Committee that it will meet the many objections now felt, and will be a real step forward on that path of Reconstruction which every Member of this House desires to follow.
      Lieutenant-Colonel BUCHANAN: I desire to deal with the question of roads which is included in the purview of this Bill. I speak as a member of one of the county councils of Scotland, where we have an enormous amount of traffic passing through, not only of light motor cars, but of heavy motor vans, and we are very proud of the way in which we keep up the roads. It has been facetiously said that nothing good comes out of Scotland, but I think the roads of the country are most admirably kept up. We, the members of the local authorities, do look with a little misgiving on the question of these roads being placed under the Ministry. We feel that there, is some chance of what the Americans call side-tracking the roads, more especially the side-roads, which are really a matter of local interest and local knowledge. Our main arteries are quite well looked after. If we go across the Channel I do not think what we find there leads us to have any great hope that the road management of this country will be any better than it has been in the past. I remember, in the very early days of motoring, that the roads in France were wholly admirable. Directly, however,

      1831
      there was certain motor traffic going along these roads they became in a most lamentable condition, and absolutely different roads to those we found in this country when we landed at Folkestone or Southampton and proceeded northwards. We feel, though we have had the assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill, that the roads must not be forgotten, for, if I may do so, I would remind the House that Parliaments change and Ministers change, and we would like to feel the depth of the assurance given that our roads, on which we pride ourselves, will not be made subservient to the railways, canals, docks, and so forth. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken.
      Mr. GILBERT: I was returned to this House pledged to transport reform, and I think I am entitled to say that I am in favour of it because I happen to have had the opportunity of being a member of the Select Committee of Transport which has been referred to in this Debate. The Report and recommendations of that Committee have been alluded to, and they were made at the end of last session. I would like to say that the work of that Committee was done in a very few weeks under high pressure, and not months as was stated by one hon. Member. Consequently this explains the incompleteness of the Report of that Committee, and in consequence of the prorogation the Committee were unable to hear further evidence on other phases of the transport question, and that explains why they were only able to make certain recommendations last year. Quotations have been made from the Report of that Committee. But I think the House should know the precise recommendations which were made. They recommended:

      "(1) That the organisation of the transport agencies of the country—and particularly of the railways—cannot be allowed to return to its pre-war position.

      (2) That the temporary arrangements for the control of railways and canals during the War would not be satisfactory as a permanent settlement.

      (3) That unification of the railway system is desirable under suitable safeguards, whether the ownership be in public or private hands."

      My only comment as regards railways is, after hearing the witnesses before that Select Committee, that I am strongly in favour of unification, and I regret very much that the Government have not thought fit in this Bill to put forward a
      1832
      proper scheme of nationalisation at once. Anybody who has read the evidence given before that Committee and studied rail way transport must come to the conclusion that the only remedy for our railway difficulty is nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman who brought in this Bill said that we were losing £100,000,000 a year on the railways, and I would like to ask, in giving that opinion to the House and the country, whether that figure contains any amount being allowed for the soldier and war traffic which is being carried by the railways at the present time. The evidence given before the Selection Committee showed that since the commencement of the War, in 1914, with less railway construction and less men to work the railways, we have carried far more ordinary traffic than in pre-war times, and, in addition, we have carried the whole of the war traffic, both men and material. So far as I understand it, the railway companies and the railway accounts were not credited with any amount for the carrying of that war traffic. I think we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman before he makes that statement, whether anything has been credited to the railway accounts for the carrying of the war and soldier traffic.
      A good deal of the Debate this afternoon in opposition to the Bill has been taken on the line of objection to the new Ministry controlling the roads. I may say that I do not agree with that opposition to this Bill. I am a member of the London County Council, and I know something of their negotiations with the present Road Board as regards getting money for road widening in the County of London, and I believe other hon. Members who are members of other county councils have had the same experience. The dealings of the London County Council with the Road Board were most unsatisfactory, because that Board adopted the plan of trying to make county councils or other road authorities spend money on a system of doles which I think was a wrong principle. The past chairman of the Road Board had certain particular schemes in regard to roads which the Board thought was the best way of altering the roads of the country, and the way they tried to get them constructed was that they went to the particular local authorities concerned, and said to them, "If you spend so much we will give you so much more," and they particularised those new schemes for particular districts

      1833
      of the country, and, having allotted the money at their disposal, it was impossible to get any other money for what the local authorities thought were more urgently needed. I do not think the local authorities in the country are at all satisfied with the way the Road Board allotted the money for the reconstruction of roads even in pre-war time. If the roads are taken over I am hopeful of the result of having one central authority to look at the question upon broad and statesmanlike lines.
      I was pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was willing to alter Clause 4. I think that will probably do away with a great deal of the opposition which has been started against this measure. I do not think by altering Clause 4 the right hon. Gentleman is going to get rid of all the opposition, I am a member of the London Port Authority. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who moved the rejection said a good many things with which the London Port Authority are certainly in sympathy. Our objection to the measure itself was not so much to Clause 4 as the Government proposal to take over the port authority. Our object is more to Clause 3, which allows the Minister in charge of the Bill to come in two years and interfere with existing harbour or port undertakings in which I think is the most extraordinary way I have ever seen in a Parliamentary Bill. If hon. Members will look at Clause 3, Sub-section (1), they will see the following provision in paragraph (b):
      "The Minister may take possession in the name or on behalf of His Majesty of the whole or any part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock or pier undertaking."
      Sub-section (c) provides that
      "The directors, officers, and servants of any undertaking of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof and any directions of the Minister—

      (1) as to the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges to be charged;

      (2) as to the salaries, wages and remunerations and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with any undertaking of which possession has been taken; and

      (3) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking."

      Paragraph (d) provides:
      "For enabling any directions given by the Minister as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister
      1834
      may, by order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land and to construct any works, and the Order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts."
      Sub-section (2) of the same Clause reads:
      "(2) There shall be transferred to the Minister any officer or servant of an undertaking of which possession is retained or taken under this Act whose services the Minister may require, either permanently, with the consent of the officer or servant, or temporarily, with the consent of the undertakers."
      As a member of a public authority, it does seem to me that they are extremely wide powers to give to a Minister for two years. He said that he did not propose to do away with the port authorities, and that he was very anxious to keep them as they represented the business men of the district, but I put it to him that by passing Clause 3, as it is drawn, he is going to stagnate every public undertaking in the country for the next two years. Public authorities who are likely to be taken over by the new Ministry would far rather know their fate at once; they would be quite willing to be taken over at once and know that their career was finished. Under the Bill as drawn, the Ministry can do all these things for two years, and at the end of two years they may decide after all not to take the undertaking over, but to hand it back to the body then in existence. I hope, and I shall press in Committee, for the Amendment of that Clause. I think other harbour authorities, who feel very strongly on this Bill, will also take exception to that particular Clause. The London Port problem is very much complicated by the question of public wharves which, as I read the Bill, it is not proposed to take over at all. The Minister takes no powers to deal with these wharves. When the Port of London Authority was set up ten years ago, special Clauses and conditions were put into the Bill in order that the wharfingers should have the right of appeal to the Board of Trade in case the Authority did anything particularly unfair. Therefore, I think the Minister in charge of the Bill ought to look specially at the Port of London Authority and see if something cannot be done to maintain the existing Authority.
      I am afraid from the information that I have, and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, that it is his view that after the War he can do a good many things which were done under

      1835
      Orders in Council during the War. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will remember that we had questions and Debates in this House as to what was done by the Shipping Controller and as to the way in which shipping was ordered about from one port to another. I hope that I am not misinterpreting the tight hon. Gentleman's speech, but hen mentioned one case where goods were sent to one port and then had to go by rail over a very long mileage. May I remind him that London, and I believe other ports in the country, have markets for particular goods. It may mean in many cases that goods have to go a long railway journey, but I do not think that he is going to benefit the trade of the country by transferring goods to a nearer port. May I give the House a brief illustration? The wool market of this country is situated in London and has been for some years. Judging from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems that the new Ministry may try to send wool to a port which is nearer to Yorkshire where a large quantity of the home-manufactured wool is used. If that is the idea of the Ministry, I think they are going to make a very great mistake. London is also the central market for tea. During the War a, good deal of tea was sent to Liverpool, but since the restrictions have been removed it is finding its way back to London. I hope, therefore, that the Minister does not propose to deal with special articles and to try and send them to ports nearer the manufacturing districts.
      London is in a peculiar position. We have retained our markets for a good many of these goods. We were in very keen competition with Continental markets, such as Antwerp and Hamburg, and some of the trade has left London and gone to those Continental markets. We have spent a lot of money in providing new port facilities and in building a new dock and making a great many improvements in order to try and recover a good deal of that trade after the War. If we are going to be interfered with by a central Government Department, which is going to order goods about and take them away from their own particular market, then I am afraid that not only the trade of London, but the trade of the whole country will suffer to a large extent. There is another London authority with which I am concerned, and that is the Thames Conservancy. A good many public authorities
      1836
      have not had time to consider this Bill and to come to any decision as to how it affects them. The Thames Conservancy, which deals with the upper part of the Thames, and also with the water supply of Greater London, with a population of millions of people, could be taken over under the words "inland navigation" in Clause 3, The Thames Conservancy Parliamentary Committee met to-day and passed a very strong resolution of protest against their power being interfered with by the Minister under this Bill. That part of the Thames is used for barge traffic and the water supply of London, and from that point of view we deserve and shall press for very special treatment.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of electricity. It is another question which greatly affects London. We have a great many small municipal electricity undertakings in London and Greater London. I am hopeful, though I did not gather it from his speech, that he will deal with electricity in the same way that he is going to deal with roads. I hope that he will make it an entirely separate Department. It is quite important enough and distinct enough, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that electricity is not only needed for railways, tubes, or over-head railways, but we do want cheap power for manufacturing purposes. Cheaper electricity is one of the things, the lack of which constituted one of the great disadvantages in London and district during the War, when it could have been used for very many purposes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill will consider electricity as important enough to be dealt with in a separate Department in the same way as it is proposed to deal with roads. I was returned to this House in order to promote transport reform. I am going to vote for the Second Beading of this Bill on the understanding that in Committee I shall be free to vote for Amendments on the lines I have laid down with regard to docks and harbours and the electricity proposal. I hope the Bill will go through. I believe it is very urgent, in the interests of the country, and I am quite certain if hon. Members who have opposed it will only read some of the important evidence given by members of the Railway Executive before the Select Committee on Transport, they will realise the necessity for railway reform. I trust too that the Minister in charge will make up his mind

      1837
      very soon what he is going to do with regard to the railways. Personally, I am very sorry he is proposing to hang that matter up for two years.
      Sir HERBERT NIELD: I am not going to follow my hon. Friend through his long criticisms on various parts of the Bill, on which he is so peculiarly able to inform the House, having regard to his numerous avocations and public appointments in connection with the county of London. I think he will find his fears groundless in regard to the exercise of the powers under Clause 3, Sub-clause (b), those powers having already been exploited to their fullest extent by the Government under the Defence of the Realm Act. I do not think he need fear any extension of them. I am particularly anxious to make a case for the canals. When I entered the House in 1906, one of the first things the then Prime Minister (Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman) did was to make a strong point of the necessity for holding an inquiry into the Canals of Great Britain. A Royal Commission was appointed, it sat for a very considerable time, it took an abundance of evidence, and duly reported to this House. From that day to this nothing has been done, and the canals have been allowed to go out of use. I remember a Bill being introduced to which I offered opposition at the time, and it was introduced in spite of the conclusion, of the Royal Commission, the object being to fill up the canal which ran from Swindon across country to Abingdon, and which I should think had been an extremely useful waterway in the district through which it passed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will take care that the canals have a fair chance, and that there shall be absolute impartiality in dealing with them as against railways. He knows far better than I do, for he may perhaps have been responsible for the gradual extinction of some of them—he knows the sad history of the way in which the canals of this country have come under the influence of railway directors, and have been gradually extinguished by the wilful divergence of traffic. I think all will agree that the canals of this country are capable of carrying much of the merchandise of the country for which quick transit is not necessary, and the Royal Commission, indeed, found there was a great opportunity for the canals if properly managed, properly overhauled, and properly equipped.
      1838
      If this Bill can ensure equality of treatment for them, both with regard to rates and the maintenance of the waterways against the railways, then I welcome it sincerely. I hope that for fixing the rates there will be an independent judiciary appointed to settle all questions which may arise between the various methods and undertakings for carrying goods. I was strongly opposed to this Bill until I heard of the withdrawal of Clause 4. I still feel grave doubts about consenting to any measure which would increase the bureaucracy of this country. We have had enough of bureaucracy, and many of us have not unwillingly pledged ourselves to get rid of it as soon as we can. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is as far as he finds it possible to utilise the services of existing undertakings for the purpose of carrying them on during the probationary two years, or even subsequently, if he finds it necessary to take them over. I say, with great respect to the Gentlemen who usually occupy seats below the Gallery, I have an abhorrence of an ordinary Civil servant, as we know him to-day. I do not mind business men who know things pertaining to their particular trade coming in and managing those trades. But I have a vivid recollection of a flour-disintegrating machine which was urgently wanted, which through the action of a certain Civil servant was lying at a station for eight weeks under ban, and was finally sent back, although the miller by whom it was urgently needed lived just opposite to the railway station. I hope sincerely the right hon. Gentleman will take care that whoever is entrusted with the management of these concerns during the probational period shall be a man with a business training. We want to put an end to the old-fashioned system which was characteristic of Government Departments in pre-war days. This Bill causes one some misgivings lest we get an increase of bureaucratic power, which is a thing we want to speedily get rid of now the War is over, the Armistice has been concluded, and peace is in sight. Finally, I would commend to my right hon. Friend the need for absolute impartiality as regards the canals. I would particularly mention the case of the Lea Conservancy Board. We have our river in perfect order, and we are prepared to offer the right hon. Gentleman ample facilities for carriage. We want him to see that in the maintenance and management of that river

      1839
      and its tributaries there is an opportunity of doing good work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will help us as far as he is able to secure the traffic which we desire.
      Mr. ALFRED SHORT: I listened with considerable pleasure and interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading. When he dilated upon the immense disabilities under which we suffered from our inadequate transport system, he recalled to my mind the fact that some twenty-two years ago, while I was still at school, I heard a Socialist orator standing upon an orange box dilate upon the advantages that would accrue from the co-ordination of our transport system on the lines of the nationalisation of railways and the municipalisation of the tramways. The right hon. Gentleman possesses an excellent grip of the economics of this subject. He is conversant with all the arguments, and should the whirligig of politics throw him out of office, or should he find that politics are unpalatable, I would suggest that he would be able to find useful work in the Labour movement, although I cannot by any means guarantee him a competence. This Bill is of a most practical character. If we view it with due regard to the public interest and the interests of our country, we are compelled to come to the conclusion that it is not only desirable, but essential that some drastic step should be taken to secure a finer and more efficient transport system. I notice that, while the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech lead us right up to the path of nationalisation, he seemed to feel a doubt as to the desirability of nationalisation being adopted. But he proved that it would be possible, as a result of Government control and action, to secure greater efficiency and a more effective service which would be not only to the advantage of the country, but also probably to the advantage of those who to-day control these great transport services.
      The Labour party regard this Bill as a step in the right direction. We believe in the great principles underlying it. We can conceive the necessity for great modifications in some of its aspects, but we support it chiefly because we believe that it is a step leading ultimately to nationalisation. There are peculiar opinions afloat regarding this measure
      1840
      and the attitude of the Government thereon. In the "Evening Standard" of 13th March, 1919, there appeared the following statement, upon which I should like the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and which I should like him to keep in mind. He did touch upon the intentions of the Government, but I should like him to make the intentions of the Government more definite and clear with regard to this matter, because the Labour party, while they support this Bill, are supporting it because they feel it is a move in the direction of nationalisation. Otherwise we should not be able to support it. The quotation is as follows:
      "If unified command increases the efficiency and reduces the working expenses of the railways as much as in Sir Eric Geddes' hands it ought to, then two years hence it may be possible to return their properties to companies in a solvent and greatly improved condition."
      9.0 P.M.
      We on these benches hope that that is not the policy of the Government. We desire these great services to be improved; we desire that greater measure of efficiency, and we can conceive of the necessity of such efficiency being accomplished, but we do not propose that the resources of the State should be used for the purpose of lifting those who to-day control the railways out of their muddle and placing them in a position of solvency as a result of our efforts and of the taxation of our people. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some clear statement upon the policy of the Government in that connection. In the course of the Debate an hon. Member opposite suggested that this measure would in no way increase industry or add to the production of the country, and that it would be far better for the Government to spend its efforts in other directions. In the interests of production and of increased production it is essential that the transport facilities of our country should be comprehensively co-ordinated. It is necessary that we should learn something from the War. The lessons of the War should encourage us to take suitable action to ensure that the equipment of civilisation is used to better advantage in the future than it has been in the past. If invention is encouraged, if the standardisation of plant and rolling stock is improved, if duplication and triplication are totally abolished, if foolish waste and indefensible competition are destroyed, and if we aim at securing a greater measure of organisa-

      1841
      tion and co-ordination in our system of transport than existed before, we shall have added considerably to the industry and the commercial prospects of the country. Unless we do co-ordinate our resources, unless we do find the cheapest and the quickest means of transport for the commerce produced, we cannot hope to face with equanimity the great financial burden that lies in front of us. Unless there is a new outlook, and a new point of view thrown upon the screen of human and industrial activity, we shall not be able to meet that demand for a finer life which the workers and the people of this country are making upon the Government and the State. I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member opposite in reference to canals. I am very anxious to see our waterways developed. I do not think there is any hope of waterways superseding the railways, but a great deal could be done to develop the waterways to the advantage of the State and to the advantage of commerce. Up to the present, railways have owned, and own to-day, somewhere about 1,360 miles, not to use them in the best interests of the country, but to hamper them. There could be no greater condemnation of private enterprise than the facts relating to our canals and waterways. We have an aggregate mileage in England and Wales of 4,053 miles. We have less than 1,000 miles in Scotland and Ireland. They are governed by endless administration. There are endless bodies responsible for their control and organisation, and, despite all the disabilities that they suffer from, despite the handicap of the railway companies, I find that in 1905 they carried 40,000,000 tons of produce, they had a gross revenue of £2,250,000, and they made a net profit of £500,000. If the waterways were freed from the handicaps placed upon them by railway companies, if they were fully and efficiently developed, what could they accomplish? I speak not only in the interests of Labour. Though we speak on behalf of vital principles affecting labour, we are all here in the capacity of public representatives. We are here to do the best for our country, and, if we will place on one side personal bias and business prejudice, I think we cannot but come to the conclusion that, provided it has for its aim ultimate nationalisation, it is a desirable Bill, and one in the interests of our country.
      There are many benefits to be derived from a complete unification of the railway
      1842
      facilities of this country. I do not think it requires all the intelligence of a great railway magnate, to prove that it would be very easy to secure a vast improvement in the passenger train service if we had a complete unified railway system. It would be possible also to expedite the collection and the delivery of merchandise and parcels. That, in itself, would be an advantage and a contribution to our industrial efficiency. There are many other things which would arise as the result of a unified railway system. I could not but be amused at the speech of the hon. Member representing one of the Divisions of Birmingham, who spoke of the disadvantages which would accrue from nationalisation. I looked up the report and the evidence submitted to the Board of Trade Inquiry in 1900, and the railway experts were prominent in that inquiry, and practically all the general managers of our great railway undertakings in one voice proved the necessity and the desirability of greater co-ordination, and certainly of amalgamation. Mr. W. F. Jackson, the General Manager of the North British Railway, suggested that by such an amalgamation of the five railways in Scotland there would be a saving in the cost of direction, management and staff generally as the result of the common use of the working stock and plant, by the discontinuance of duplicate services and stations in the cost of advertising and canvassing at present considered needful for competitive reasons, and in the simplifying of the whole arrangements of the companies, particularly in connection, with joint lines, exchanges of traffic, running powers, etc. These comments of Mr. Jackson are confirmed by every other general manager who submitted evidence at that inquiry. We support this Bill because we believe, in the interests of the industry of our country, in the interests of that commercial supremacy of which we speak so glibly in these days, a change must be made and organisation must take place in so far as these great transport services are concerned. In addition, I welcome the attitude of the Government upon the question of electricity. Electricity produced cheaply and under the best conditions, is a vital need to the industry of the future. I want to see electricity produced as a result of the full and complete use of the natural and other resources of our country, and I cannot conceive of electricity being produced on those lines unless we have

      1843
      one policy throughout the country and that is reflected from the head of some Department, such as is proposed to be set up. Consequently I welcome the inclusion of electricity, and I hope when we get to the Committee stage certain modifications will be made which will have regard to the powers of local authorities as regards roads and tramways—that is already covered in the Bill—and their electricity stations, and as a result of those modifications with those which have been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, if the principles of the Bill are applied in a real democratic spirit with full regard to the needs of our country, it will have a beneficent effect upon the industry and the well being of the country.
      Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his very lucid statement. I admit at once that I was bitterly opposed to the Bill as it was produced—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not construe this as a threat—I should have been compelled to vote against the Second Reading if he had not deleted Clause 4. We are sent here to represent our Constituents, but not to delegate our powers to any Government, no matter how competent it may happen to be. I hope that the system which unfortunately has been growing up, and naturally was bound to grow up in the times through which we have passed, will cease. There is no necessity for the continuance of the practice of dealing with these things by Orders in Council in normal times. I hope we shall have a cessation of that style of legislation. Let us have matters brought clearly before the House of Commons and discussed, and I think it will be of assistance to the Government in the many steps they may have to take. I am not in a position to speak in such eulogistic terms of this measure as the hon. Member who has preceded me. He made it perfectly plain, so far as he was concerned, that the Labour party was supporting this Bill because they believe that it will lead to the nationalisation of the railways. From the evidence that I heard, as a Member of the Select Committee on Transport, I say, unhesitatingly, that it is impossible for us to go back to the old system of running the railways as they were run in pre-war days. The evidence that was brought before us was perfectly clear. There was enormous wastage
      1844
      and, as the right hon. Gentleman stated this afternoon, goods going to the North find their way to the South first. That sort of thing does not do. We are up against a very difficult proposition. The railways are badly in debt and we have to set to work to bring forth some policy for the general benefit of traders and the travelling community.
      To jump at the question and say, "We are going to support this simply and solely because we believe in the policy of nationalisation" is a mistake, and I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members when they have come to that conclusion have done so without weighing the whole facts of the case. We had evidence brought before us of railway officials of the highest possible standing. One hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a Bill for the protection of railways. I have yet to learn, although they have given the matter careful consideration, that any of these gentlemen, recognising as they do the enormous loss there is, are convinced that nationalisation is going to do away with all the evils that exist, or that it will be advantageous. I have been one of those who thought that the system of our railways might be directed into four or five different zones, one, say, for Ireland, one for the North, one for the East and another for the West, only having one supervising body, either in London or some other important place, and not putting on all the railway directors that we have had in the past. We should have to consider whether that was the best for the community as a whole. I think that from the sections to and from which these lines would operate directors, or managers, or commissioners, or whatever you may call them, might be elected or selected from public bodies—the Chambers of Commerce, the county councils, and those who are likely to know what is the greatest advantage to the people in the district which they were looking after. It is only by sub-dividing the work and bringing it to a central organisation that you are going to get the best and greatest benefits for the people who use the railways, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that proposition amongst all the other methods that may be brought before his notice.
      I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say—I think these were his words—that he was not convinced that nationalisation of the railways would be of the greatest benefit. Therefore, I am

      1845
      hopeful that he will be able to evolve some scheme to bring before this House that will not necessitate putting the whole of the railways under the authority of any one Government official. I can see exactly what is likely to happen. Hon. Members in their constituencies will have all sorts of proposals brought before their notice. They will have proposals put before them which they are opposed to. It is just like the case of the advertisement which you see every day. You walk past it time after time and at last it strikes you, and you decide to see what the advertisement is about. You want to see what this wonderful article is that is so freely advertised. It is so with regard to matters which are brought before hon. Members in their constituencies. At first they say that a proposal is useless, but at last they begin to think that there is something in it, and eventually they are converted, because it has been so constantly brought before their minds. These people will be asking them to get a benefit for their own particular constituency to the detriment, as I am sure this wire-pulling will be, of the whole community.
      That is one of the things which makes me frightened of having the railways and other things put under Government control. I am so frightened about the attitude that is likely to be taken up that I am not sure the most capable persons are going to have the greatest authority or are not going to be able to give the best results. For instance, if you keep these undertakings under private control, you can always rest assured that you will use your best endeavours to get the best man for the job. On the other hand, we see so much red tape, and we see so much wastage in Government Departments, that it does not tend to draw me towards the idea of putting these concerns under the control of a Government Department. My right hon. Friend this afternoon spoke of the 7 per cent. that is being earned by the municipal tramways of London, and he told us that of all the transport concerns being run at the present time that was the only one that was doing any good. But I wonder whether my right hon. Friend took his calculation of the municipal tram service in the same way as he would, for instance, if he were going to arrange his balance-sheet and place it before the shareholders. I can see the great care with which that balance-sheet would be
      1846
      produced, and that before there was a surplus or a profit shown care would be taken as a business proposition to see that due allowance was made for depreciation and sufficient money placed to the reserve fund and allowed for renewals. I happen to have been at one period chairman of the tramways of London, and I know full well the care with which those accounts were always kept. But, unfortunately they have fallen upon evil times; there are not the same results. Renewals are wanted and fares have been looked into to see what alterations can be made. I find it was recommended by one hon. Member of this House, whom I do not see here at the present time, that two-thirds of a penny for every mile that was run—and that was considered a business proposition—should be placed to the reserve fund. But that fund gradually got sufficiently large, and instead, I believe, of being used and retained for the purpose for which it was started, it has had to be dropped in consequence of the increased cost which the county council have had to bear. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend will go carefully into the accounts, he will unfortunately find that there has not been due allowance made in respect of the 7 per cent. That is one of the things that are overlooked as soon as undertakings get into the hands of Government Departments, and I hope, at all events, that it will be a long time before our trade and our general system of railways, canals, docks, cross-Channel steamers, electrical concerns, and everything except what is in the air, conies under any one Department of this House of Commons. I am not depreciating in the slightest degree the capabilities of my right hon. Friend, but, however capable a man he may be, I do not suppose he will be Minister of Ways and Communications in perpetuity. Perhaps someone else will be in his place without the same knowledge and capacity in business matters.
      There is one other matter I would like particularly to touch upon, and I hope that whoever is to answer for the Government will give us an assurance on this point, and that is with regard to the wharfingers of London. The wharfingers of London, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are aware, are a very important body. They employ more hands than the Port of London Authority; they have enormous warehouses, with a rateable value, I think I am right in saying, of over £250,000 per

      1847
      annum, and I do not see anything in this Bill that is going to include them. I see that under this Bill the Government propose the right to take over all the various port authorities. In the Port of London Act of 1908 a Clause was inserted which gave the authority the power to take over the wharves. I wonder whether the power given under that Act is also proposed to be taken over by the Government, and I should like my right hon. Friend, in his reply, to let us know exactly what is going to be the position of the wharfingers. Looking at the report of the discussion of the Bill of 1908, I see that the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on this subject, said:
      "The trader rather enjoys having the wharfinger competing with the docks. He secures better terms as well as great facilities with which the goods are handled. The wharfinger has been keeping the dock authorities up to the mark, though this means no reflection whatever on the docks. The wharves have provided a condition of things for which the docks are not always responsible, but the trader would regard with misgiving the elimination from the Port of London of that competition which has kept the docks and the wharves up to the mark so far."
      If that was the opinion of my right hon. Friend in 1908 I should think that at all events it would be his opinion to-day. I know this, that the traders are wondering whether they are going to have the same facilities which have been granted to them heretofore, and whether the competition which they have had between these two authorities is going to continue. They say, for instance, that if they are going to be kept separate and to work separately as they have hitherto, we, the merchants, will be satisfied that we shall be able to obtain reasonable and good terms. But supposing, on the other hand, the Government say "No; we are not going to deal with these people until two years hence, when we have made up our minds," then that would not be a reasonable or satisfactory way to leave these wharfingers, because they would not know how to carry on their business during that period, and they might at its conclusion find themselves exposed to so much competition that they would not be able to meet the liabilities with which they are faced. I hope, therefore, that the same reasonable care and attention that has been given to them, and such as was proposed by the Prime Minister in 1908, will be continued. I want the Government to recognise the fact that London is a great exchange
      1848
      centre, and we have so much lightering here because the port is used for the transhipping to other countries of an enormous quantity of goods. We do not want the severe competition with which we have been met before. With regard to Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremen, Hamburg, and those places, which were given such great facilities previously. We do not want exchange transferred from London to these continental ports. So the wharfingers hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell them exactly what is going to be their position. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to take over the business of the wharves, let him say so now, and let him see that the arrangement which was put into the Bill of the Port of London Authority, as to the regulations under which that Authority were to take over the wharves, shall be observed by the Government. I hope that the points which I have put forward will receive careful consideration, because they are a burning question with the wharfingers, and we do not want to see anything done detrimental to the interests of the Port of London.
      Mr. RENWICK: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and could not help noticing as he proceeded how he had receded from the original terms of the Bill. These original terms provided that he was to be practical dictator. All sorts of duties were to be entrusted to his care. He was to be dictator to all sorts of public authorities. As his speech proceeded that went by the Board, and I was most gratified that that was so. Before criticising the Bill I would like to say how much we in the North of England appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done for our railways. He came to the North-Eastern Railway Company and introduced all sorts of reforms which were of great benefit to the district. He introduced larger wagons than we ever had before, and the North-Eastern Railway Company rely now less upon private wagons and more upon their own wagons than any other great railway company in the country, and if the right hon. Gentleman had confined himself to dealing with railways I think that he would have done something of great benefit to the country. He drew an alarming picture of the state of the railways at the present time, and practically told us that they were ruined, and that they were drawing on the State to the extent of a £100,000,000 a year. That is what is troubling him at present.

      1849
      He does not know where he is going to get the £100,000,000 for the next two years. He is not quite sure in his own mind how he is going to pass it on to the public. He will have to do it somehow. He tells us that it will take 80 or 90 per cent. increase on the rates on goods. How do shippers of goods like that prospect? If they do not pay someone else has got to pay. Passengers cannot pay because they are already paying 50 per cent. more than pre-war rates. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman has a very nice problem to deal with, and I wish him joy of it. I would like, before the Division is taken, to have a little further information as to how he proposes to get that £100,0000,000. The right hon. Gentleman shirked several very important parts of the Bill. The Bill deals not only with railways but with roads and electricity, about which I am not going to trouble the House, and also with harbours, docks, ports, and piers. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he introduced the Bill, did it apply to the Manchester Ship Canal? Now the right hon. Gentleman has carefully left the Manchester Ship Canal out, and I ask him a plain question: Is he going to deal with the Manchester Ship Canal under this Bill or is he not?
      Sir E. GEDDES: Yes; I propose to deal with it.
      Mr. RENWICK: He proposes to take over the Manchester Ship Canal probably within the next two years. If he is not going to take it over he is going to leave it in the position of many of the other harbour authorities—practically between the devil and the deep sea. They do not know where they are during the next two years. This Bill might be entitled a Bill to Increase Unemployment, because I know from what I have been told that all the projected works, improvements and extensions of great harbour authorities will be stopped or turned down until they know how they are going to stand. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind as to how and when he is going to deal with these important questions—whether he is going to take over these undertakings now or in six months or twelve months. If lie is not going to take them over, he should let us know. I had understood that he was going to take over practically all the harbours, and was going to dispense with the port authorities and Commissioners and members of the harbour trusts. To-day
      1850
      he rather climbed down, and led us to believe that he would retain them. Of course he would. Anybody would like to retain them.
      There are two classes of successful business men connected with the commerce and manufactures of this country. The first make their money in manufacture, or business, or shipping, and, after making what they think sufficient, determine to retire. They sell their interests probably to some big financial concern in London. They leave their provincial homes for London, for Torquay or Bournemouth, or the Isle of Wight, and forget to take a return ticket. We see them no more. They take their money with them. But there is another and better body of business men, the men who have made their homes near our great industries, who live among the people, and who love the district in which they made their money. They occasionally go to Torquay or Bournemouth and take a holiday, but they take a return ticket. Those are the people who are the chairman of our harbour trusts and Commissioners, and they are the people we want to retain. But are these men going to be dictated to by my right hon. Friend, however clever he is—and I know he is clever—as to whom they shall engage, what salaries they shall pay, whom they shall discharge? They are going to do no such thing. If the Bill is not altered the best of those men will retire, and this will be not only a local loss, but a national loss.
      We are not in love, with State control. The right hon. Gentleman talked to-day about the dead hand of control hanging over the railways. What is the dead hand of control? Is it not the Government control? The Government control is the dead hand, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that for the last four years the dead hand of control has been throttling not only our railways, but our shipping and other industries. The right hon. Gentleman knows, though I am sure he is is not wilfully deceiving the House, that one of the reasons why the railways are not successful at present is because large quantities of rolling stock, of locomotives, and of the permanent ways have been sent to France and are there still, and it is impossible to carry on the railways efficiently as matters stand at present. We have had plenty of the dead hand of control for the last four years, and we do not like it. It has dragged away from our works our

      1851
      managers and our under-managers continuously upon the railways, travelling night and day for the last few years at the behest of someone sitting in an office in London who practically knows nothing about our business. We want that stopped, and we want to get on with our work. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) knows something about railways, and knows precious little about docks. He knows that Lord Jellicoe complained that there were not sufficient docks to accommodate His Majesty's ships. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill told us that there were 50 per cent. of the docks owned by the railways and 50 per cent. by authorities, but he did not tell us that the 50 per cent. of docks is infinitesimal compared with the size of the ports, and he did not tells us that docks are going out of fashion and that people do not make docks unless they are compelled, and that they deal with the traffic at wharves in the harbours and on the railways. Therefore it is a question of far more importance than 50 per cent. of docks. Our great ports no longer rely upon docks, and nobody knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is not here, as I should like to tell him something. What is it that causes us, more than anything else, to lose confidence in the Government in regard to the matter of our ports? We have upon the Tyne a large area of water called Jarrow Slake, which was suitable for making a naval repairing base and for putting down a floating dock dealing with Dreadnoughts. In 1909–10 I introduced to Mr. M'Kenna, then First Lord of the Admiralty, deputations consisting of the Chairman of the Tyne Commission and the Wear Commission, the Mayor of Newcastle, and the Mayors of the Tyne-side boroughs, and we pointed out to him that on the North-East coast there was not a single dry dock or ship repairing place for dealing with Dreadnoughts, and we urged upon him the desirability of using Jarrow Slake, and we got no satisfaction, except that we wire told he would consider it. We produced the plans, and I even tried to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to it as a matter of urgent public importance. It was not considered urgent in 1909–10, but it became urgent later. We were told that they could not dredge Jarrow Slake. Mark the sequel. Lord
      1852
      Jellicoe has called attention to the lack of docks. In 1916 the "Lion" came into the Tyne in a sinking condition with a battered hulk, and there was no dock in which it could be put. Three or four of the leading shipbuilders, by the aid of coffer dams, temporarily repaired the vessel, and it was then taken away. What was the sequel? The impossibility of dredging Jarrow Slake became a possibility, and in three months what was impossible was achieved. Jarrow Slake was dredged, and the big dry dock that had been built on the Tyne and towed away to Chatham was towed back again to the Tyne, and I had the pleasure and honour of being invited to luncheon on board the ill-fated "Vanguard," one of the Dreadnoughts which was brought there. I saw the "Marlborough" when it came there with its side ripped open.
      Therefore we say that we local men and the harbour boards foresaw the difficulties. The Admiralty people did not. Under those circumstances, can you be surprised if Lord Jellicoe complained that there were not sufficient facilities for His Majesty's ships, and can you be surprised that we mistrust the representatives of His Majesty's Government when they attempt to do the work we think we are better able to do? I may be mollified if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that the Clause is going to be withdrawn, and I would be very pleased to hear him say so, and it may decide how I shall vote on Second Reading. It seems to be thought in the House that Clause 4 is withdrawn. I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was only going to alter it as far as regards Orders in Council, and I shall be pleased to hear his view on the point. I plead to leave these competent gentlemen in their positions on these harbour boards, trusts, and commissions. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. All the great railway companies own ships. The North-Eastern Railway Company, as he very well knows, owns a great many ships, and run them in conjunction with the Ellerman Line and the Wilson Line from Hull. In taking over the railways is he going to take over the ships? It is an important question, because from all the great ports shipowners, not owners who own big ships, run coasting vessels in opposition to the railways. I was chairman for over twenty years of a company that runs steamers, one every other day from Manchester to London and London to Manchester, in

      1853
      opposition to the railway, and who carry goods at less than the railways can carry them. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take over the vessels of the railway companies? If he is, he cannot do that without taking over the private coasting vessels. He is on the horns of a delimma here, and I shall be very glad to hear what his opinion is upon that very important point. My strong advice to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Deal with the railways, but before you deal with the great harbours, which have been developed by the enterprise, by the foresight, by the industry of the local people, who understand the wants of their locality, let him consider once, twice, aye thrice, before he interferes with those.
      10.0 P.M
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): We cannot complain of the tone of moderation and courtesy with which this Bill has been received to-day, and so far as I can see the large proportion of the Opposition which has greeted the Bill is really Committee stage rather than Second Reading opposition. No doubt there are certain hon. Members who oppose the Bill and will vote against it upon Second Heading, but in spite of that the opposition which they have put forward and the reasons which they have adduced for their votes are really Committe stage reasons. Possibly the main opposition has been that in regard to docks and harbours. There has been a certain amount of opposition with, regard to the roads, and equally a certain amount with regard to some of the provisions for the railways, and so on, but those are matters on which hon. Members were really more seeking for assurances and explanations than offering serious criticism, and therefore I think I am right in saying that the real opposition to the Bill has been over the question of the docks and harbours and piers. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) led an attack on behalf of the docks. He has been supported by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and by the hon. Member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire (Mr. Stevens), and they spoke as representing existing dock authorities, representing men who had performed a difficult and arduous task in the past extremely well, all of which I am perfectly ready to admit, but they base the whole position of the dock authorities upon the
      1854
      fact that they consisted of local men with local interests who understand the local position and therefore were much better able to manage the docks than would be any central authority. The very ground of their opposition is the ground upon which this Bill is based. The whole intention of the Bill is that, instead of having a narrow, local, competitive basis upon which your transport is managed, you should have a broad national outlook. That is the very object of the Bill, and when you are dealing with the question of the docks and the ports you must recollect that you are not merely dealing with an industrial, commercial gateway to the particular locality in which the dock happens to be situated, but you are dealing with the industrial commercial gateway to the whole of the country. We were told by the hon. Member for the Eccles Division about troubles they have had in Lancashire, and he said himself that when they wanted something arranged that was for the good of the whole county, anyone who knew the people there, the people of Manchester and Liverpool, would know how difficult it is to get Liverpool and Manchester to think in the same way about anything. If that is true of Manchester and Liverpool, how much more true would it be of Liverpool and Hull, or of Manchester and Bristol, or of both of them together and Glasgow? Well as they have done their work, whole-hearted as their devotion to their work has been, it is just that local outlook which prevents the great national aspect which this Bill seeks to develop. With regard to some of the questions that we are asked, we are asked about the interests of the shipowners. The main object of the Minister of Ways and Communications is that the whole system of transport shall be carried through as effectively, as efficiently, and as expeditiously as is possible, and one of the main points that he will have in view will be so to arrange the transport, the cranes, the marshalling of the wagons, and so on, that the ship will be able to turn as quickly as possible. The interest of the shipowner, the interest of the charterer, and of the person interested in the ship is as much that of the railways as is the railway work itself. The whole thing is co-ordinated. The whole thing, if it is to be effective, must be co-ordinated, and the Minister would be just as intent to see that shipping is properly and well dealt with as he would be to see that roads are

      1855
      developed, tramways and railroads, or any other portion of the transport system.
      With regard to some of the questions that were asked with regard to railways, the hon. Member for the Aston Division (Mr. E. Cecil) devoted a considerable amount of time to a speech in opposition to the nationalisation, of railways, and other Members have done the same, while others, including the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) have spoken in favour of it. We are not to-day deciding the question of whether the railways shall be nationalised or not, and, indeed, when my right hon. Friend withdrew the system of Orders in Council in Clause 4, he thereby made it clear that the question of nationalisation or no nationalisation must subsequently be determined by this House, and therefore to-day we are not discussing it. I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not think me in the least discourteous if I do not deal with their arguments on that point. This is not the time to do it. The time will come if, after experience it is found that the proper method is to nationalise the railways, a Bill is brought in. There is one thing I think I can remind the House of, and that is that whether the railways are nationalised or not, my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that they can never again go back to the system of unfettered competition which existed before the War. That is perfectly clear. I was asked about the terms of payment for those undertakings which are taken over, or rather possession of which is taken, which has rather a different meaning under Clause 3, Sub-section (1) (b). They will come under Sub-clause (4) of Clause 3, which provides that the financial matters shall be adjusted by the Railway and Canal Commission. If these railways are depreciated by the exercise of any of the powers under this Act they will receive compensation. If they are enhanced in value when they are handed back to them, they will have to pay the enhanced value. But if nothing happens to them at all, and if they get them back in the same way as they had them before, having got the same dividends from the working of them as they had be-fore, they will be treated exactly as any railway which is taken over under this Bill. They will be paid for any damage they suffer, and they will be no worse off than they would have been if they had been left alone.
      1856
      Then I was asked if there were any liability to the railways except that which was created by Mr. Runciman's letter. So far as I remember, my recollection is there is no other liability. If there is, it is some very small detail, but my recollection is there is no other. Then, with regard to arbitration under the system of Lands Clauses and payment for depreciation, there I think my hon. Friend, who asked me to answer these questions, but whom I do not see, is needlessly frightened. The whole question of the proper compensation for the compulsory taking of land is engaging the attention of the Cabinet. When the Land Acquisition Bill or the Housing Bill is brought in, the question will be raised, and no doubt when this comes to the Committee stage, if a system of payment of compensation for taking land compulsorily is set up in the Housing Bill or any other Bill, it can easily be adapted to the terms of this Bill. That is a mere matter of machinery which is easily altered, and the machinery of this Bill can easily be brought into line in Committee with the machinery of any other Bill of like respect. I have tried to deal with the whole of the questions that have been put to me.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend one question, about which I am not quite clear? I may be, perhaps, assisting some other Member of the House by asking this question. Clause 4 comes out, I understand, except paragraphs (e) and (f), paragraph (e) being transferred under Clause 3. I understand the position is this: Paragraph (f), which means the whole of the transport services, is to be worked for two years, and the consequence of that will be that all that happens under Clause 2 is that the Minister is going to take to himself, or has the power by Order in Council, all the powers and duties of any existing Government Department with regard to these things. But the whole question of purchase and acquirement of railways, harbours, and docks for the present time goes by the board. Is that the case or is it not?
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Before my right hon. Friend answers, may I ask whether it is the case that Sub-sections (3), (4), (6), and (7) are intended to remain in substance?
      Mr. SHORTT: May I read to the House, before I deal in detail with the question, the notes from which my right hon. Friend made his speech?

      1857
      "The Government will now amend Clause 4, eliminating the procedure by Order in Council. On the other hand, dealing particularly with the provisions of Clause 4, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (e) and (f), the Government will definitely seek powers in the Bill to acquire by purchase or hire, and to maintain, work, or lease privately-owned railway wagons on terms, failing agreement, to be settled by the Railway and Canal Commission under the provision of Cause 3, Sub-section (5);also to prohibit their use except under licence for the future. It is also proposed to transfer the powers in Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (f), which were permanent powers, as temporary powers under Clause 3, and provide, in addition, timing the two years, that the Minister shall have the right, subject to Treasury control, to construct such works as may be necessary."
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I think I have stated it correctly.
      Mr. SHORTT: If that be so, the real position is this: So far as the acquisition of any undertaking by Order in Council—that is gone. It may be, as was the case with paragraphs (e) and (f), that there is something which does not require au Order in Council—some detail as, for example, in Clause 3. It may be found necessary to put that into the two years system, but, speaking broadly, Clause 4 goes in so far us it provides for the taking and purchasing compulsorily or otherwise of any undertaking by Order in Council It has gone to that extent, with the exception of what is transferred to Clause 3, and the result, of course, is that the whole of the powers given under this Bill are purely temporary except wagons, which, of course, are purchased outright. With that exception, the powers now given are temporary. They cease at the end of two years, and if they are to be continued, or if there is to be purchase, we must come back to the House, and the House will decide.
      Mr. RENWICK: Would it not be advisable to re-draft the Bill?
      Mr. SHORTT: No, I do not think that is in the slightest degree necessary. It is quite certain that anyone with half the intelligence I know is possessed by my right hon. Friend would understand the Bill perfectly well without any redrafting.
      Mr. WILSON-FOX: Is it intended that, if the Government wish to establish during the two years on its own account, a system, say, of light railways, which would not of course mean the acquisition of any old undertaking, would it have any power to do so?
      Mr. SHORTT: Yes, they have power to carry out under the Bill any works which, as my right hon. Friend explained, it would not be fair to ask any railway company or any undertaking to carry out; but if necessary to the full policy of the Government—necessary to complete the scheme of the Government—the Government are entitled, then, to carry out any necessary works, whether it is the construction of a light railway or anything of that sort. That is, of course, during the two years. I have dealt with the questions that were put to me. If other questions are asked, someone else will have an opportunity of answering them tomorrow. Electricity has hardly been touched upon to-day at all. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter hi his-speech. He showed clearly that it was essential that the Ministry which controls the transport should control that which is absolutely essential to transport, namely, electricity. There is no doubt electricity is the motive power of the future, and, as my right hon Friend explained, experiments have been made in electrifying, not only the suburban railways, but the long-distance railways. All that will make immense improvement in the railway system, and be conducive to great economy. But there is another reason too. By far the best method of transmission of electric power is by using the railway track for the laying of the wires. The railways—the Minister having control—will be able to have the power carried along the track, and wherever it seems desirable to develop the district by the distribution of power to distribute it from the mains that will be upon their own track. They will then, have control of power, and to be able to use it to make the railways, road, and trains pay. In order to make the whole system a really successful system it will be in the interest of the Ministry to develop the use of electrical power by every means they can.
      Sir S. SCOTT: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question I put as to the position of the borough councils that have their own electrical supply?
      Mr. SHORTT: A Bill is in course of preparation now, on the lines of, I think it is called the Coal Conservation Committee's Report, which will deal with the whole question of the position of the municipalities and the shareholders. It

      1859
      is, as I say, based on the findings of that Commission. I cannot as yet tell the hon. Member what the terms of the Bill will be but it will be introduced as soon as possible. It has been delayed by the indisposition of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
      Sir S. SCOTT: I was desirous of knowing how the borough councils and the ratepayers would be affected?
      Mr. SHORTT: That is under the Bill which is being prepared by the Board of Trade, and I am not at the moment in a position to say what the details of it will be. I think I have now dealt with all the questions put. As I have said, the opposition to the Bill is really Committee, and not Second Reading opposition. There seems to be no doubt that a very largo majority of the Members consider that the principle of the Bill is right. There seems to be no doubt but that the House is convinced that our transportation has been in a chaotic condition, and that if we are to develop industry, if we desire to further housing and better conditions, we must, somehow, produce order out of that chaos. No one seems to doubt for a moment on broad lines the Bill is right. Now and again we have met a speaker who has said, If you drop my particular interest then all the rest of the Bill—so far as it affects other people—is admirable. Everybody has thought everything admirable—some hon. Members have made the small exception as to what happened to affect themselves. I may, without offence—which I certainly do not mean—describe that as a somewhat selfish opposition, and which, of course, can be discounted as such. If you eliminate that, practically there is no opposition at all except what may be dealt with in Committee. Therefore, I think I can with the greatest confidence ask the House to accept the Bill which was introduced with so much ability by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. He explained it in great detail. I will not take up the time of the House in following that description, which was done so admirably that it could not be better done. But I do ask the House, having regard to the fact that we are prepared to meet any fair and reasonable criticism in Committee, and to meet any fair and reasonable Amendment that is suggested, to give the Bill the Second Reading which we
      1860
      now claim for it, in order that we may set up a system of transportation in this country which will be worthy of our great commercial record, and worthy of our, I trust, still greater commercial achievements.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate to-night, but to leave over such remarks as I may make till to-morrow. But I may say one or two words, and ask one or two further questions Upon the subject of the Ministry, I wish at once to say, so far as I am concerned I am in favour of the principle of the Bill. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken said that criticism was on detail. But detail is the whole of this Bill. It is on the immense fact of such things an harbours, docks, railways, and other things that the whole question turns. I want to be quite clear. If anything I can say or any questions I can ask will help subsequent debate, I shall be more than satisfied. I want to restate, for the purpose of clearness, what I understand my right hon. Friend has said. He has made it clear that the Government now propose that Clause 4 goes out with the exception of paragraph (e), which is the question of the privately-owned wagon. That is a clean-cut case which I quite understand by itself, but I understand now that paragraph (f) goes under Clause 3. Hon. Members will now have to carry in mind the two-year proviso. Am I right in assuming that the Minister proposes to take power to, in fact, nationalise the railways, harbours, docks, and roads, and all and every means of transport for two years, if he so chooses, including electric lighting power? He proposes to run these for two years, and at the end of that time to come here and ask Parliament to give power to acquire the whole of these undertakings.
      Mr. SHORTT: Paragraph (f) only deals with the creation of new services which are not in existence at the present time, and which it would not be fair to ask the railway companies to carry out. I have already instanced approaches and things of that sort.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I am glad to have made that clear. [An Hon. Member: "It was clear!"] Well, it has been made clear to me. This then only applies to new services, and that being the case the Bill has comparatively little in it. The real Bill then is Clause 2, where it is proposed to

      1861
      give the Minister all the powers and duties in relation to a whole list of things, including unification, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, piers, and the supply of electricity. I am quite certain that the immense amount of unnecessary competition which my right hon. Friend so admirably described will be done away with. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman understands, from his own previous experience, how immensely valuable competition between one dock and another has been in connection with our foreign trade and the entrepôt trade. I hope that the Government in any action that they take will be very careful to guard against the paralysing influence which a Government Department may have upon the delicate intricacies of this trade with foreign countries, because nobody who has had anything to do with this class of trade can come to any other conclusion than that it is an extremely difficult thing for a Government Department to handle. I venture therefore to sound a warning note as to the dangerous effects on this class of business which Governmental control must necessarily have. It depends very largely, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, on individual initiative and on all the factors of human nature which go to make up our trade with foreign countries. We know what Government Departments have been in the. War. They will be very little different in peace, and interference by a Government Department with this class of business will be a most dangerous experiment. There are a large number of hon. Members who have very big interests and who know how severe competition has been with the great German ports and with Antwerp for the great entrepôt trade, or, indeed, with the United States for the whole range of our foreign trade. There will be no paralysing Government Department to be dealt will there, but able, keen-minded swift-moving business men and corporations. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Tyneside, who spoke with all the knowledge of a business man, knowing what trade is and how it is done, issued a warning of which the House might very well take careful note. As far as I am concerned, if this Bill goes to a Division on the Second Reading, I shall vote for it, but I am certain that the whole House will be very anxious to examine with the most scrupulous care every Clause, and indeed every two or three lines, of this Bill in Committee. I venture to suggest that
      1862
      it is another Bill which ought to be taken in Committee of the Whole House. I made, that remark with regard to another Bill, and I make it with regard to this Bill. [An Hon. Member: "Get it though!"] That is all very well, but we are dealing with a measure which goes to the very root and foundation of our commercial prosperity and future. If you are going to shove it through on those lines, you will strike a blow and drive a hole in the fabric of our commercial structure which it will not be easy to repair. There is no factious opposition but a whole-hearted offer to assist the Government. You cannot have all business men in the House on a Standing Committee, and these things therefore are best dealt with on the floor of the House. We cannot have the whole House on a Committee upstairs, and it is very difficult to make a selection of the best men to deal with this question. Seeing that this is a measure of very great importance, bearing in mind it has met with very strong support and honest criticism from all parts of the House, I think it would be better to deal with it in the whole House rather than in Committee upstairs.
      Major LANE-FOX: I think the House must have listened with some surprise and some amusement to the speech just delivered. We on this side have been freely accused in the country with being much more reactionary and with being in no sense the party of progress; yet the right hon. Gentleman finds it his duty to come down and rebuke the Government and point out that interference by Government Departments is very dangerous and very unsatisfactory. But surely if there is one thing above all others the country is looking forward to for as an earnest of our real intentions to carry out the promised Reconstruction programme, it is this question of transport, and if we were to act on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and send this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, the delay which would occur would justify the country in thinking that the Government did not mean what they said at the Election. I look on this as the beginning of the great Reconstruction programme. There may be many details in it with which we do not agree, but surely they can be dealt with in Committee. Yet a wild agitation has been got up in the country to urge us to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, because certain individuals object to certain proposals which could very well be omitted in Committee. There

      1863
      are many things which can be done in regard to the very wide powers the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to himself. It is quite possible in Committee to cut his claws and leave him, in fact, without any powers. Like other hon. Members, I have been receiving telegrams from people who, I am perfectly certain, have never read the Bill. I got a communication from an old lady this morning who is evidently under the impression that the Government is going under the Bill to continue all the objectionable powers it had under the Defence of the Realm Act, while another correspondent understands that the Government are going to take over the roads, and to restrict the public user of them, and he fears he will not be able to get any petrol. This is a whirlwind agitation of the most artificial kind, carried out by an hon. Member not in the House at the moment, but whom we shall shortly hear make a very vigorous assault on the Bill. He has taken the roads under his fatherly care; he looks upon himself as occupying a specially created post of godfather in regard to roads. The one definite fact we have had from the Government which will help agriculture is this Bill. We know that the one thing from which agriculture has been suffering for so many years has been the difficulty of transport. Whether it be in the interests of agriculture, of housing, or of transport, everybody knows that this is a scheme which will be most welcome to the country districts. Whether it is a question of housing, of being able to get men further away into the country, or of fostering industries, the whole future of agricultural districts is very much bound up with this measure.
      I was surprised to hear so old a controversialist as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) quoting what Lord Jellicoe said in his book about dockyards and the lack of naval bases. If there was a shortage of dockyards and naval bases, it was because certain Governments for years past had not been spending enough money under the Admiralty Estimates, and one of the reasons for that was that certain hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, the Irish Nationalist party and others, had been steadily voting for years against any increase in the Navy Estimates For the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool to come down, and use that
      1864
      argument against this Bill, in view of the fact that he for many years had been voting for a reduction of the Navy Estimates, is an almost shameless exercise of the privileges of a Member of this House. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection pointed with great confidence—it showed, in spite of his most admirable maiden speech, that he was a new Member of this House—to the number of telegrams he had been receiving. If he had been a little longer in this House, he would have known how easily an agitation of that sort was got up.
      Another point in connection with agricultural development is that it is perfectly obvious that the road interests cannot be below those of the railways. With a country like this and the interests we have here, you cannot do all the work by railways, and there must be an enormous-amount of service by road. If the roads are to become more and more a State-service, I would urge the Government to consider the effect on local finance. The rating question has been a very burdensome one in connection with the roads. Everyone knows the effect upon the roads of heavy motor transport, and everyone who has travelled up and down the country knows to what condition the roads have come. I would plead, therefore, that a very liberal interpretation should be put on this matter. The Government should remember that the local authorities feel very keenly on this subject. It will be very hard on the scattered districts if they have to bear the main cost of this national service. I hope that the result of the Bill will be that in future, instead of the different branches of transport being employed in cutting each other's throats—railways destroying canals, and one railway competing against another—all of them will be self-feeding, one -feeding another, and that the railway systems will be developed as it has been developed in France, so that all the systems will conduce to the general prosperity and convenience of the whole of the community.
      Mr. REMER: When I came into the House this evening it was my fixed intention to vote against the Second Reading, because I thought it struck very deeply at the commercial interests of the country. I have been very largely convinced by the two Government speeches to which we have listened, and the parts of those speeches, which have convinced me are those which eliminate Clause 4. But there are one or

      1865
      two points which are creating suspicion in my mind, and upon which I am not at all satisfied even yet. The power which the Bill gives to raise railway rates, not merely once, but as often as the Minister happens to choose, has not been sufficiently referred to. If manufacturers are to carry on their business successfully, it is necessary that they should be able to determine what their prime cost is, and they can only do that if they have stabilised railway rates. A further point which has not been answered by the Home Secretary is whether in the figures which were quoted the free railway warrants which have been granted to soldiers and the free munitions transit rates which have been granted for the carriage of munitions have been taken into account. I have very grave doubts whether we shall ever gain real efficiency from any Government office which is operated from Whitehall and whether all these services which are included in this Bill, the canals, railways, ports, and harbours, can properly be taken in hand from an office which is operated from one solitary building. The neck of the bottle through which all this work is to flow is far too narrow and there is bound to be congestion and trouble. The first consideration is efficiency, and if this Bill makes for efficiency I am in favour of it, but I have very grave doubts whether it really does. The duty of any Minister should be efficiency first, efficiency last, and efficiency all over. But I do not think any of us who have had experience of railway management in the past can come to the conclusion that there has been any efficiency whatever about those people who have had railway management in hand. I could quote scores of examples from my own experience where railways could be made very much more efficient than they are at present. It is no good hiding the fact that the commercial interests do not trust the railway interests, and they have always a suspicion that the railway interests are trying to extract higher charges from the traders of the country. A friend of mine, who is in business, employed a railway clerk for the purpose of checking his railway accounts. He offered the clerk one-third of the amount lie saved in railway charges on his annual account. That clerk is now earning £l,000 s, year. In other words, the railway company were abstracting from the trader £3,000 per annum more than they were legally entitled to.
      1866
      What I am desperately afraid of in this Bill is that some day a Government official will come down to his office in Whitehall—like Government officials have done before in connection with the motor depot at Slough and the shipbuilding yards at Chepstow—and decide that Liverpool and Manchester are not the proper ports for unloading the cotton required for the cotton mills in Lancashire, and that it is absolutely necessary to create a new harbour or a new port, at a minor expense of a few millions, somewhere probably in the outer Hebrides or something like that, where the money will be absolutely wasted, and money will be chucked away absolutely for no purpose useful to the country. It is really marvellous how Ministers find the means to throw away money when you give them the power. I think we have a good deal of reason for our suspicion about this Bill, by the cold water which the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech threw upon the development of the Canals. That, in my opinion, displays the right hon. Gentleman's mind. When we examine, as I have done very carefully, the Report of the Canals Commission which was appointed by Sir Henry Gampbell-Bannerman in 1906, we shall find that they recommended very strongly that certain waterways should be constructed. It is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country that the canals should be developed, extended, and widened, so that they can take bigger craft and be of some real use to the business community of this country. Finally, I should like to ask where is the mandate for nationalisation, to which the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench referred? I understand that the only reference to nationalisation at the General Election was that of the Member for Dundee, who said the mind of the Cabinet was made up. Apparently from the terms of this Bill the mind of the Cabinet is not made up, and we are to have an interregnum for two years in which the Government are to think over the position. My real suspicions about this Bill are these—I think that during the War we have had too much Government control. It would have been better if we had had less of it. I am sure we could do better without so much Government interference. I ask the House to seriously consider where is this Government control to end. If I am not very much mistaken, before we are very much older, we shall require to get permits

      1867
      for everything we hold dear in this life. I would warn the Government that the commercial interests are very much opposed to Government control and are really very much up in arms at the present moment on this subject. I have had several letters from municipal authorities saying that they do not regard this Bill as being in the best interests of the country. I would say to the Government that if they alienate the commercial interests of the country they would alienate from their support those who, after all, are their best supporters.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—Sir R. Newman)—put, and agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

      CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL.
      As amended, considered.
      CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Issue. Sums from the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund.)
      (2) In cases where advances of working capital are made from the Civil Contingencies Fund for the purposes aforesaid, the Treasury shall from time to time lay before Parliament Minutes specifying the purposes for which the working capital has been provided and the amount advanced in each case.
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
      "and if either House of Parliament within twenty days shall resolve that the Minute be not approved it shall cease to have effect."
      On Friday my right hon. Friend the Member for the City moved a similar Amendment, and my hon. Friend said that on the Report stage the question would be taken into favourable consideration.
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Into consideration.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: Well, into consideration. The point with regard to it was this: The Treasury are taking large sweeping powers under the Bill, and they propose from time to time to lay minutes before the House as to their proceedings. My Amendment is simply directed to this point, that the House should have an opportunity of discussing that Minute, and if it is disapproved it should not have effect. That is, of course, a very limited power
      1868
      of criticism. The rejecting, and in some cases expressing disapproval of something already done, would throw, of course, very great responsibility upon the House, and action of that kind could only be taken in extreme cases, but I have not the slightest doubt that if such a power was in existence it would be a very useful check on the Government in the use of its very wide and sweeping powers. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment, or draft some subsequent Amendment such as this so as to keep the control of the House of Commons over some particularly extravagant experiment on the part of the Government in dealing with the vast powers which the Bill proposes.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I have had an opportunity of considering the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. If it had been the case that there were powers to initiate experiments, as he suggests, there would be no one in this House more willing than the Government to adopt the course suggested. But payments which arise under the first part of Clause 1 are not payments made for the starting of new ventures but payments made in the natural course of carrying on services which have been commenced under the Vote of Credit. Under those circumstances it is quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment. The words proposed by the hon. Member propose to make a change which would not be constitutional. That is to allow a power to either House of Parliament to interfere with a Money Bill. That power is reserved to this House, but apart from that, under the words of the Amendment, that power becomes illusory, because what the right hon. Gentleman asks is to make the Minute of no effect. A Minute is merely the record of a transaction that has already taken place, that transaction being payments that have already been made. Therefore, no allegation that a Minute has no effect could affect payments that have already been made. As regards criticism, on which he lays stress, I am in full sympathy with him. There is plenty of room for criticism. When we put in these words that we were willing to lay a Minute, we did something which, so far as I was aware, had not been done before. Whenever by power of a Treasury Minute a payment is made out of the Consolidated Fund, no Minutes have been laid before the House, and in suggesting to lay a Minute of that before

      1869
      the House, I thought I was making a very proper concession and starting a very proper precedent. I would remind my right hon. Friend that so far as criticism, is concerned, he has plenty of opportunity of criticising, because he can not only raise the question of payments for any given object on the Votes of any Department concerned when they come on, but he can also raise them on any occasion when a Consolidated Fund Bill is before the House, and also on any evening of the week on the Adjournment as soon after the presentation of the Minute as he likes. I think that on consideration my right hon. Friend will see that I have gone a substantial way towards meeting the very just desire of the House on a Bill of this nature. I hope that with the explanation I have given he will not wish to press the matter further.
      11.0 P.M.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend, who is usually very ready to meet any reasonable claim, does not seem to desire on this occasion to make a compromise. I am astonished that with his knowledge of Parliamentary procedure he should advance the reasons which he has just advanced with regard to the occasions on which my right hon. Friend and others who wish to criticise those large expenditures of money can raise those points in this House. He says, for example, that there was plenty of opportunity of criticising the Votes of the Departments concerned. The fact is that the House is parting with its right to criticise many of those Votes. For instance, to-morrow at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when the House will be proceeding with the Second Reading Debate which we have just adjourned, a large proportion of the Members of this House will be upstairs engaged on the Committee stage of the Ministry of Health Bill and the Air Force Bill. I am making that point to show that in the ordinary way in criticising business it is not possible for those who wish to keep a keen oversight on the expenditure of money, which in my view is the most essential duty of the House today, to have the opportunities which my hon. Friend seems to think we may have. The other alternative which my hon. Friend proposes is the Adjournment of this House each night. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that in the Adjournment we can only get in half an hour's criticism and in that half-hour there is only an opportunity for a
      1870
      speech by the hon Member who criticises and by the Minister who replies. Under this Bill we are spending millions of money. The Financial Secretary is, I am sure, the last man to suggest that it is possible adequately to discuss those questions on an opportunity like the Adjournment. What is it my right hon. Friend asks to be done? He asks that you should give to the House of Commons, which, after all, is the final appeal so far as the electors are concerned, the power to criticise the expenditure of these vast sums, and, in order to do so, that the Minutes should come before the House. The Financial Secretary says, "We are giving a great boon to the House." What does that amount to? He says, "We are conceding to the House of Commons a privilege when we lay the Minutes upon the Table of the money we have spent." My hon. Friend really cannot support that contention. I can conceive him laughing when he makes as speech of that kind, because, after all, everybody recognises the care and attention and assiduity which he pays to question of finance. It is absurd for him to get up and suggest that a concession is being made to the House by laying on the Table the Minutes which tell us how we have spent the money before there is any opportunity for the House to discuss it. My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable appeal to give the opportunity for debate. I venture to suggest that in not acceding to the Report my hon. Friend is leaving the House in a position which may on future occasions militate against himself and others in the House who wish, and rightly wish, to criticise all these large financial transactions.
      Amendment negatived.
      Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
      The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

      INDEMNITIES FROM GERMANY.
      Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I preface the very few remarks I intend to make by saying that neither I nor those

      1871
      who are interested in this subject raise it in any controversial spirit. The last thing we wish to do is in any way to hamper the Government at this moment or to appear in any sort of form as obstructionists. But it must be remembered that there are some 400, I am not certain there are not more, Members of this House, private Members of the House, who are solemnly pledged to do all they can in their power to exact from Germany the very last farthing that she can be reasonably called on to pay. Sinister rumours have reached this country—I believe that the rumours are authentic, they have come from Paris, and are being widely circulated in the Lobby, and they are being discussed by very many Members with great disquietude and great anxiety, especially by Members who believe that this question of indemnities is one of paramount and supreme importance. It is more than widely whispered that the Government are considering at the present moment imposing on Germany or on our enemies a war indemnity which is totally incommensurate with the enormous debt that this country will be asked to meet. Indeed, the sum that has been quoted to me is a sum which is a drop in the ocean compared with the bill which the taxpayers of this country will be called upon to pay. I hope that that report is a false one, but if it is a false one nothing will be easier than for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to deny it. If, on the contrary, this report is not false, then I do think that we who are interested in this subject, we who have pledged ourselves up to the hilt to endeavour in our own humble way to exact from Germany and from our enemies the very utmost that they can pay, have a right to demand why the Government have suddenly turned a political somersault or, if they like it better, an economic volte face. Why have they done so? The Leader of the House said this afternoon that the Government had not in the least departed from the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister in his election address. I hope they have not. He said they had not departed from what the Prime Minister had in view, because it had never entered their heads to exact from Germany one penny more than they thought she could pay. But it depends what they think Germany can pay. If they think at one time she can pay 18s. in the £, if they think later on she can
      1872
      pay 10s. in the £, and latex on again only 5s. in the £, that difference in opinion demands some explanation. I would like to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman himself, first of all, that the Government have not departed from the Prime Minister's electioneering pledge, and, secondly, that the whole of this war bill will be presented by the delegates at the Peace Conference, that if we can get only a certain amount at the present moment, if the financial advisers of the Government tell them it is possible to get only so many millions at the present moment, that that sum will be regarded only as an amount on account, and that that will not prevent the Government from promising that when Germany is able to pay, either by deferred payment or in any other way, she will be called upon to do so. Surely it is not impossible to hypothecate the assets of Germany, which is potentially a very rich country, for a certain number of years. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House that whatever sum our enemies are called upon to pay to-day it will not close the account.
      Lieutenant Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I should like to support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, in view of the fact that last week I asked a question on this subject and the Leader of the House said he could not add anything to the information he gave on the previous occasion. To-day a question was put, and he answered that the Government had no intention to ask for more than Germany could pay. That has a very different answer from the one he gave last week. I have no doubt the Government do not like hon. Members to question them on this subject, which is of very great importance in the country, and no doubt they do not think it is very loyal on the part of Members who support the Government as a rule; but all through the proceedings of the Peace Conference this country has been kept in the dark in comparison with the United States as regards what is going on in the Peace Conference. Reading the American papers of three weeks old, I find a great deal more information about the Peace Conference than what can be got out of the papers of this country. That is because we are systematically kept in the dark, as hon. Members always are with regard to what is going on in the Peace Conference. We were returned

      1873
      to support this Government, and I want to support the Government in every way possible, but the thing upon which we were returned and pledged up to our eyes to support the Government was the question of indemnity. The whole country feels most deeply on this subject, and there should be no question as to what we are doing in this matter. I therefore welcome this opportunity of asking the Leader of the House to give the House and country some more information as to what has happened. Speaking on the 29th November, the Prime Minister said:
      "What is true between individual litigants is equally true between nations. When Germany defeated France she made France pay. That is a principle which she herself has established. There is absolutely no doubt about the principle we should proceed upon. Germany must pay the costs of the War."
      To-day we have been told that it was never the intention of the Government to ask for-more than Germany could pay. That is, of course, a somewhat evasive answer, but what we who are concerned about indemnities are anxious to find out is whether our full claim is being put in so that when the distribution of the amount that Germany can pay is made up this country shall get its full and proper amount. It has been widely put about that it has already been decided that 50 per cent. of the amount Germany shall pay will be in the nature of reparation and 50 per cent. in the nature of indemnities. As regards reparation, we naturally do not have as large a claim as some of our Allies, such as Belgium and France, and consequently we shall get a great deal less on the ground of reparation than they do. If as regards the other 50 per cent. we are not going to put in our full claim for everything we expect Germany to pay, then we shall get a very small fraction of the amount awarded. In addition, unless we keep Germany under the heel of the Allies for several years to come and make them pay a very large amount, we are going to be faced with the great danger of a recrudescence of the German military spirit and a recommencement of the War within fifteen years. We want some more assurance from the Leader of the House for the benefit of this House, and his loyal supporters—of whom I am one—and the country that we are going to extract every possible pound or mark out of Germany during the next few years, in order to keep her down and prevent her from starting up again and making another
      1874
      war. That is all we desire to discover, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a satisfactory answer.
      Brigadier-General SURTEES: I had not intended thus early in my Parliamentary career thus to presume on the House. Certainly I did not intend to criticise the Government, to whom I owe a general allegiance. I feel, however, that I shall, if I do not speak, be lacking in my duty to the great industrial constituency which has returned me to Parliament on the understanding that I shall press for an indemnity and terms from Germany as far as it is possible to go. I would rest my views on this fact: in condemnation of what appears tome to be the lamentable and extraordinary weakening on the part of the Government with reference especially to indemnities. I have for a long time distrusted the earnestness of the Government in respect to this question of indemnities, I am sure we shall all be very glad if the Leader of the House will give us some definite assurance that a very full bill will be presented, not only in regard to indemnities but also in regard to reparation. When that is done it will be time to consider how far the validity of the objections which will be raised may be taken into account.
      Mr. MACMASTER: I understand this discussion has arisen in consequence of the answer of the Leader of the House—to the effect that the Report received from the Commission, presided over by Mr. Hughes, was of a confidential character, and it was customary with such a Report, not to be under an obligation to disclose it. It seems to me that we are here dealing with a debtor nation or debtor nations, and that as Members of Parliament we are servants of the people; that the members of the Government are merely the Committee of the House entrusted, in the first instance, with the official conduct of the business—and that we have a very great responsibility in regard to their action as well as in regard to our own. Suppose the Government obtained this information by means of a Committee or Commission, whether or not it is called confidential, which information shows what the resources of Germany are to-day. Are not Members of this House, representing the people, entitled to know it? Why should there be any secrecy in regard to it? The whole question is as to the ability of Germany to pay. It does not matter

      1875
      whether the information with regard to her resources are in the possession of the House or of the members of the Government. The important thing is that the nation should have the information. Therefore in my humble view the Report of the Commission, whether called confidential or not, should be given to the House and the nation in order that both may be the better prepared to judge of the action taken at the Conference. Other aspects of the question have been discussed, and from the point of view of time and other considerations I will not enter further into the matter.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not in the least object to having this question raised, and in my mind there is no consideration of any question of want of loyalty or of attacking the Government. I do claim, however, to state to the House again, what I said before, that if hon. Members think it right to raise the same question again and again, I can only give them precisely the same answer, and it is that there is no change whatever in the policy of the Government in regard to this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Lieutenant-Colonel Archer-Shee), among other interesting things, told us that a great deal more was known in America than in this country, and that he had got a great deal of information from the American papers about the Peace Conference which he did not get from the English newspapers. But is he quite sure? He may have read a great deal more in the American newspapers than in the English newspapers, but I am not certain that he is right in describing what he has read as information.
      This is a fact. From the beginning of the Peace Conference all the delegates agreed that there would be no announcement of any discussions by the delegates at the Conference, except the official announcements. It is obvious that the information which the hon. Member has derived, if it is information, is information which ought not to have been given, and I do not think it is right to assume that the Americans are better informed than we are in this matter. My hon. Friend, who spoke last, said the House had a right to receive the Report of this Committee, but I entirely disagree. Cabinets could not be carried on if they were under the obligation of making public every Report which they ask for for their own information and as guidance for themselves. It may, or
      1876
      may not be right, to publish such Reports; but the idea that the Cabinet is to be precluded from getting this information for itself alone, is not one which has never been considered in this House, and it would make Cabinet government impossible.
      As a matter of fact two of the members who were on the first Committee to advise the Government are members of the International Committee which is investigating the Government question as to what amount Germany can pay. Those two members are the same. They have not reported and until they have I am not able to tell the House what is the demand we shall make. To suggest, however, that there is a departure from our proposals is entirely different from any pledge I have made at the election. What we all said and what I feel as strongly as anyone is that we were bound in the interests not only of this country, though I put that first, but also for the very reasons put by my hon. Friend to make sure that Germany would not be in such a position financially as to make it easy for her again to begin the same course. For that reason we are going to extract from Germany everything which Germany can pay. No one has ever had any doubt as to our claim. It is for damage which has been caused by the War, which Germany began deliberately, and as to the justice of that there has never been any difference of opinion. My hon. Friend must really have a very poor opinion of all Governments—and when I say all Governments I allude specially to the fact that the Committee which is investigating our claims is an international one—he must have a very poor opinion of them all if he thinks that they are going to look at the question from the point of view of what you can get out of Germany to-day. As to the amount that it is wise to claim it may be placed upon the basis of what can be paid over a large number of years. At all events, if it is any satisfaction to the Committee, that is the basis on which the International Commission will go. When I said that it had never been the policy of the Government to say that they would make a claim on Germany for the whole cost of the War, I was expressing what I believe has been the pledge of every member of the Government. We all said that we should make Germany pay whatever Germany could pay.
      Mr. BILLING: How long are you going to give her?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I say, a certain number of years and the number of years will be taken into account by this Commission. Hon. Members say whatever the amount is that Germany can pay we wish you to make it sufficient for the whole cost of the War. What does that mean? If you mean that we express our right to the whole cost of the War, then I agree; but I put it to the House that, after all, we have to look at this matter with a certain amount of common sense. I hope now that in a very few weeks we shall submit the preliminary terms of peace to Germany. Is it the view of the House that the right way to do it is to make a demand for indemnities which at the moment we are making it we know Germany cannot pay, and to start negotiations at the very beginning with the knowledge that we are going to bargain with them, and to come and go as to the amount of the indemnity that we are going to take.
      Mr. BILLING: Not negotiation, but dictation. I thought we had won the War.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member for once has really grasped the point. That is exactly what I was trying to say. It is not desire to have negotiations. It is our desire to say, "These are our terms," and hon. Members suggest that with that desire we should begin by making a demand for a money indemnity which we all know is impossible.
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: What is impossible?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend must use a certain amount of common sense in this matter. Has he any idea of the total cost of the War and the damage of the War to all the nations engaged in it?
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Yes; certainly.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Has he made any calculation in his own mind—
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Yes.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: as to whether it is possible under any circumstances for Germany to pay the whole of it?
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: I have made the deepest calculations, and it is perfectly possible if you hypothecate the assets of that potentially rich country for twenty-five years.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope it will go over a longer period than that.
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Very well; make it longer.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be very interested to see the calculation, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will have the kindness to send it to me. It might help us.
      Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: With pleasure; but I do not see the good of this satire.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Our course from the first has been to demand from Germany the largest amount which we believe Germany can pay. Our policy has been and is now not to make a demand which we know Germany in no circumstances can pay.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what period of time—
      It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th February.
      Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.