§ Mr. JOHNSTONI desire to call attention to some recent statements made by the Prime Minister in the country relating to the subject of nationalisation and the effect they have upon our relations with Dominion Governments. Speaking at Newcastle and reported in the "Times" of the 25th January, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the record of nationalisation is nothing but failure and loss everywhere, and speaking later at Dundee he declared that:
any policy of nationalisation, of which there is not a single successful instance in any country, in a country controlled by ballot, operated by bureaucracy would inevitably hamper, if it did not lead to the loss of our Overseas trade.Statements like these are being broadcast in their hundreds of thousands from the Conservative party's General Election war chest. I have copies of them here with their headings "Where Nationalisation has Failed," and "Speakers' Notes." "Speakers' Notes" are most interesting. These documents, with the Prime Minister's speeches, whatever their intention may be can have but one result in our opinion so far as our relations with our Dominions are concerned, and that result will not be a pleasant one. Previous attacks upon Dominion enterprises—and the bulk of these attacks are upon Dominion enterprises—have been publicly resented in Canada and Australia and New Zealand not by those in the Dominions who might be supposed to agree with hon. Members on these benches but by representatives of the Dominions, who, normally, might be supposed to agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example, the last outbreak of this Dominion resentment was in the London "Times" by an ex-Conservative Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Joseph Cook, who writing on the 6th of November, 1926, was most emphatic upon the damage which these attacks were having upon opinion in the 2454 Dominions. Sir Joseph Cook went at considerable length into an examination of the Conservative party's facts and figures, which he disputed, and he added:I cannot help feeling that there is just a little too much of this carping criticism which could all be avoided by a reference to all the factors of the situation. The point is that these very small losses are deliberately incurred as matters of national policy and with the knowledge that what is lost in this way is repaid over and over again by other Government receipts.Not only has Sir Joseph Cook protested, but the late Agent-General of Queensland also protested against complete misrepresentations of the financial position of Queensland made by Conservative speakers and writers in this country. He protested in letters to the London "Times," to which no representative Conservative could reply. It is within my knowledge that the most recent series of attacks, in the documents and speeches to which I have referred, have not been made after consultation with the Dominion representatives in London. There have been no inquiry made about the facts, no attempt at all at accuracy. But, as I happen to know, some of these documents are based upon telegrams supplied by the correspondents abroad of the London "Daily Mail." Here is a Prime Minister of this country who goes about using figures and alleged facts which can ultimately be traced to the columns of the "Daily Mail" and to anonymous correspondents of the "Daily Mail" at that.What can the result be if the Prime Minister goes about crying "stinking fish" at Dominion properties and Dominion efforts? It can only have the result of depreciating their values in the money market; it can only have the result of making it more difficult for the Dominions to borrow money in the London market; it can only have the result of depreciating their securities. I hope to show that these statements and allegations, so far as the Dominions are concerned, are made with a hopeless disregard of facts, are made in flagrant violation of official figures which are available in the Library of this House. Those figures have been obtained by question and answer in this House, and 2455 it is because of the facts that we propose to challenge these statements this morning.
One word more about the Dominion representatives. There are distinguished Conservative or distinguished anti-Socialist Prime Ministers in the Dominions overseas. There are Mr. Ferguson, of Ontario; Mr. Bennet, the leader of the Conservative party in Canada; and Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. Not one of those three gentlemen can be got to endorse a single statement, made with regard to their own countries' affairs, which is being broadcast as gospel truth by the Conservative party in this country—not one of them. I hear an hon. Gentleman interrupt that He does not expect them to do so. That is a frank avowal that he would not expect the Conservative party leaders in the Dominions, who know most about the facts, to endorse these allegations that are being broadcast by the Tory party machine and by the Prime Minister.
Let me now give one or two illustrations. I shall take the Australian railways, which appear to be a great source from which the Prime Minister obtains his election oratory. I am going to confine myself to quotations from Conservative party blue books and official statements. Take the statements of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, the leader of the anti-Socialist party there. He came to London and addressed the London bankers on 16th November, 1926. His address was thought so highly of that it was reprinted, and it is available to any Member of this House. What does Mr. Bruce say?
Australia's railways as Government institutions have enabled development to precede and pave the way for settlement, instead of the slow, wasteful and often socially unfortunate method of allowing settlement to precede development. The railways have proved to be tremendously effective agencies for developing our latent national assets and for opening up avenues for private investment and enterprise, thus making a very great indirect as well as a direct contribution to the national wealth.Nor has the amount of capital expended upon railway development been in any way excessive. Though Australia 2456 has a greater railway mileage than Great Britain, the capital cost of the Australian railways is £293,000,000, while the capital represented by the four great British systems is £1,060,000,000. A further advantage of Government-owned railways is that they rendered possible from the very beginning that co-ordinated control which the recent great amalgamations in Britain showed to be recognised as necessary.Then Mr. Bruce goes on:
Although as a matter of national policy some railways have been built in Australia which it was clearly foreseen could not operate on a commercial basis, the financial position of the railways as a whole is thoroughly satisfactory. Our railways return revenue sufficient to pay all working expenses, to keep the lines in excellent repair and to meet nearly the whole of the interest on their capital cost. In 1924 the earnings of the State railways, after covering all expenses, provided a sum for interest equal to 4¼ per cent. on capital, and a fractional increase in freights and fares would have covered the present slight deficiency of interest and created surpluses for the relief of taxation.Then we have the further fact that it has been the deliberate policy of every Government in Australia to spend money in developing its railways in order to develop its back blocks. In years of drought, in bad seasons, the Government railways have deliberately, as a matter of national policy, reduced the freights in order to save the farmers from ruin. That has been a matter of deliberate policy acquiesced in by all parties in the State. It is a farce to pretend that national railways, regarded as roads and as opening up country when they cannot possibly pay a return for many years to come and only after the country is properly developed—that these railways can be said to be a failure by losing money.12 n.
Take the case of the South African railways. There can be no question about the financial result. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, if he would be good enough to put the official figures in the Library of this House. I had the figures, but I wanted them from him. The right hon. Gentleman put the figures in the Library. The State railways in South Africa since 1922 have produced a net profit every year, varying from £1,433,000 down to £311,000 last year. Those are 2457 the official figures. Not only so, but here again we have the fact that in times of drought owners of stock who wish to transfer stock to fresh pasturage may simply give promissory notes to the State railways. Goods are carried at half price in bad seasons. In parts of the Cape Provinces and Namaqualand in time of prolonged drought there is free conveyance and also gifts of free water by the State railways. In addition there is a continual reduction in fares and freights, until now the State railways of South Africa carry goods at about 50 per cent. less than the ordinary rates. Take the Nigerian railways alone.