MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. (Hansard, 3 March 1930)

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
I will explain to the Committee the reasons which have led to this Supplementary Estimate. With regard to Sub-head A, the greater part of the additional expenditure is in consequence of the efforts of the Government in connection with certain aspects of unemployment. The original Estimates for the administrative cost of road works were calculated on the then foreseen requirements, and, so far as I know, no special provision was made definite for acceleration in connection with unemployment relief works. As the Committee will know, as soon as the new Government came into office, a programme of additional works was brought forward, with the consequence that the expenditure upon staff, salaries and wages at the head office of the Ministry of Transport and at the divisional offices had to be increased. The expenditure which is now before the Committee is not in respect of roads themselves, but only in respect of staffs, wages and salaries necessarily consequent upon the programme which has been approved in connection 68 with unemployment by the present Government, and by far the greater part of the £16,000 odd under this Subhead is accounted for in that way. In addition, however, to increased work in connection with the preparation of road schemes, it is the duty of the Ministry of Transport to advise the Committees under the Development Act as to schemes submitted by railway companies, electricity undertakings, and harbour and canal undertakings. Each one of those schemes which is considered by the Committee under the Development Act, is reported upon by the appropriate department, which, in all these cases, is the Ministry of Transport. Therefore, it was necessary for us to engage additional technical and clerical assistance, and that, in part, accounts for the Supplementary Estimate which is now before the Committee. There is a further reason for additional expenditure, and that is the establishment of an experimental station in connection with road construction at Harmondsworth in Middlesex. That expenditure is recoverable from the Road Fund, as indeed, is the expenditure in connection with the road programme, but it has to pass in and out of the Exchequer, and, therefore, it is included in the Supplementary Estimate this afternoon. That accounts for the £16,652, and I am quite sure the Committee will readily understand that the money is necessary consequent upon departmental work in connection with unemployment.
I pass to sub-head C, which deals with "Special Services and Inquiries." This expenditure is accounted for by one inquiry which has been before us, namely, the inquiry in connection with a Channel tunnel. It was necessary, in connection with the technical inquiries as to the possibilities of a Channel tunnel, to engage eminent consulting engineers, who were requested to make a report on the technical problems involved in any scheme for the construction of a Channel tunnel. The fee to be paid for this service was 5,000 guineas, and the Supplementary Estimate makes provision for this sum. I may inform the Committee—and it is the only information that I can give, or that the Government can give at this stage—that the engineers duly reported to the sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research, and it is understood that 69 the sub-committee's report was received by the Prime Minister a day or two ago, but the Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering the report or the action to be taken upon it.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
The hon. Gentleman says that the fee to be paid was 5,000 guineas. What services did the £4,200 in the original Estimate include?

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am sorry, but the original estimate is not before the Committee. The only expenditure with which I am dealing this afternoon, or which, I think, the Committee would be in order in discussing, is the additional expenditure which, as the right hon. Gentleman will see in this estimate, is £5,250 or 5,000 guineas.

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
What portion of this £5,250 is a new service, and what portion is additional to an under-estimate for the service contained in the original Vote?

§ Mr. MORRISON
The House has voted various sums of money for Special Services and Inquiries. Presumably, as the year went on, it was found necessary to incur this expenditure of 5,000 guineas in respect of the Channel tunnel, which, probably, had not been foreseen, and it is that 5,000 guineas, and only that, which is included in this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. BROWN
May I put this for the sake of shortening the Debate later? In the original Estimate I see "Fees and Expenses of Consulting Accountants, Engineers, etc.," £3,000. Surely it cannot be that the under-estimate on that one' item was 5,000 guineas—the difference on one scheme between £8,000 and £3,000? Surely the Minister must be in error there?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Perhaps I had better state at the beginning that, naturally, none of these Votes affirm a principle which has not previously been approved by the House, and we cannot discuss the question of principle now, but the Committee will be perfectly entitled to discuss the reason for the increase in the Estimate itself.

§ Mr. BROWN
That is precisely what I am trying to find out. The original Estimate speaks of "Departmental Committees 70 and Special Inquiries," and it goes on to say, "Fees and Expenses of Consulting Accountants, Engineers, etc." Then the Supplementary Estimate says, on the same point (c), that the increase is 5,000 guineas. Now the Minister tells us that that is only one scheme. Surely there must be some mistake there?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is not my function to answer on behalf of Ministers. All I can say is that where these Votes are not entirely new Votes—and these are Supplementary—we cannot discuss the principle, but the Committee is perfectly entitled to ask the reason for the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Is it not the point that since the original Estimate was drawn up by the former Minister of Transport, there has been an agitation for a Channel tunnel, and a special committee of inquiry has been set up?

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Really the hon. Gentleman must be thinking of other things. That committee was set up in the latter part of last year.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
You said we could not discuss the question of principle, Mr. Dunnico. There has been no question of principle in this Vote, because the money originally voted was for special services and inquiries, and surely the Committee is entitled to find out exactly what are the inquiries? It is very mysterious that 5,000 guineas excess should be exactly the sum that this particular inquiry involves, when an Estimate was apparently taken in the main Estimate for some sort of technical Committee in regard to it.

§ Mr. HARDIE
May I ask whether it is not the custom for this Committee to deal with what is contained in the last two lines on page 20, beginning with the words, "Add—Sum now required, £16,392"? Is the argument in Debate not confined to that?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The total sum is divided up amongst various services. The Committee is entitled only to ask why an increased sum is required for any specific purpose.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I am sure I am right in coming to the Committee ready to defend a Supplementary Esti- 71 mate, and not to defend an original Estimate of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
With all respect—

§ Mr. MORRISON
With all respect, I think the Committee had better get on. This is a perfectly simple issue. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, that the Channel tunnel has been under discussion for some time, and I am not concerned as Minister of Transport with the discussions, at any rate, until the money may be involved. Presumably, it was not contemplated by the framers of the original Estimate that it would be necessary in the financial year to employ consulting engineers. Subsequently it did become necessary, as the figure of £5,250 shows. It is that figure which I am now submitting to the Committee. It seems to me that it is perfectly clear, and I am at a little loss why it should involve anything else.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
Surely, of the original sum, one-half must have been spent, with the result that the original sum is partly for the Channel tunnel and partly for the original purposes, and the new sum is partly for the original purposes and partly for the Channel tunnel, so that the whole things is absolutely mixed up.

§ Sir ASSHETON POWNALL
We want to know whether this sum of 5,000 guineas is in addition to any sums already paid?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES
Has not the Lord Privy Seal informed the House that further sums will be required for further investigation? Is this sum of 5,000 guineas not to meet that?

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The fee agreed to be paid for the consulting engineers is 5,000 guineas exactly. Why I should mix it up with the original Estimate, I do not know; nor should I be in order in going into the original Estimate. I am concerned with the Estimate now before the Committee, which is the 5,000 guineas for consulting engineers, and nothing else, and it is exactly that sum. I hope that I have made that point perfectly clear. That is my version, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of putting me right 72 afterwards; but I do not think that they will succeed in putting me wrong. That accounts for sub-head C.
I come to sub-head H, which deals with Ramsgate Harbour, one of the State institutions of which the Minister of Transport is the possessor. It became necessary, some months ago, to overhaul the dredger, which was specially designed to serve the peculiar needs of the harbour at Ramsgate. The sum of £3,500 was included in the original Estimate to cover part of this expenditure, and it was hoped that the balance of the sum payable during the course of the coming financial year could be found from other sources. That has not proved practicable, and, therefore, a further provision of £2,400 is required for expenditure on reconditioning the dredger, which is expected to come in course of payment during the present financial year. The original Estimate, I am afraid, was pretty finely cut when framed. The result was that it did not altogether cover the expenditure of the dredger, and the additional expenditure has become necessary. That practically explains the entire expenditure in respect of Ramsgate Harbour.
I then come to another of my unprofitable possessions—the Caledonian Canal. Previous Governments have not left us much in the way of undertakings out of which any money could be made. They have been very careful to leave us institutions where money was not to be made. So far as the Caledonian Canal is concerned, the explanation is as follows: On 22nd February, by one of the accidents that flesh is heir to, a steam drifter broke through three pairs of lock gates at Banavie, doing very considerable damage. The canal, in consequence, had to be closed from 22nd February to 15th May. It re-opened in time for the election, as far as I can see. It is estimated that the receipts from the undertaking in the current financial year will be about £1,700 less than was originally expected, after allowing for the sum of £690 recovered from the owners of the vessel. The amount which we can recover under the Merchant Shipping Acts from the owners of the vessel that did the damage is limited to £8 per ton of the gross registered tonnage, with the consequence that the cost of the damage to the Ministry was greatly in excess of 73 the amount that we could recover. In addition to providing for the loss of revenue arising out of this accident, it is estimated that a sum of £500 will be required to make good the damage, part of the cost of which was met from the previous Vote. That deals with the Supplementary Estimate of £2,200 required in respect of the Caledonian Canal.
Now I come to sub-head L, the Severn barrage investigation. The sum provided in the original Estimate was in respect of the maintenance of the tide gauge and the maintenance of the model, and fees and expenses. Since the original Estimate was passed at the beginning of the financial year, the Committee of Civil Research has accepted the conclusions of the Severn Barrage Sub-Committee in regard to the preliminary investigation begun in 1925 as to the practicability of a scheme for the construction of the barrage, and recommended the preparation of a complete tidal power scheme, with an estimate of the cost of the necessary work. The second part of the investigation has now been put in hand, and it is estimated that a sum of £2,650 will be required to meet expenditure falling due before 31st March. The whole cost of this second stage of the investigation is estimated at £17,000, and provision is proposed to be made in the Ministry's Estimates next year for that proportion of the charge which is expected to fall due in 1930–31. In 1925, the Government authorised certain inquiries, which reached a, certain point. We were satisfied, on the Report of a Committee, that it was worth going further, and it is for the purpose of going further and for the necessary engineering assistance, the preparation of models, and so on, that this expenditure is required. It does not mean that the Government have yet come to any conclusion whether it will be wise or not to erect the power station. It merely means that the result of the first stage of the inquiry was sufficiently encouraging to warrant us going a little further, and we hope for a valuable Report in due course.
The only other item I am called upon to explain is sub-head N in connection with Appropriations-in-Aid. The additional sum to be recovered from the Road Fund in connection with increased staff in that Department, and in the Finance branch, 74 amounts to £13,950. In so far as expenditure on the Roads programme, which has been increased in connection with unemployment, involves expenditure on the administration of that Fund, it ultimately comes out of the Road Fund. The greater part of this sub-head N, Appropriations-in-Aid, is money coming back out of the Road Fund after it had gone into the Road Fund via the Exchequer, and that accounts for the greater part of the Appropriation-in-Aid item. Apart from that, and modifying that figure, are sundry minor adjustments which are necessary in respect of sums to be recovered from other sources, with the result that the net addition to the sub-head amounts to £12,760. There were one or two minor adjustments that had to be made, which accounts for that change. The principal adjustments are that the expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, which recovers its expenses from the railway companies, were over-estimated at the beginning of the financial year to the extent of approximately £1,000 and that the actual receipts from fees and the sale of documents are also likely to be less than estimated. Those two items between them account for the difference and, together with the Appropriation-in-Aid in connection with Road Fund expenditure, account for the item of £12,760. That explains the total amount of this Supplemental sum, but I shall be glad to give any other information that the Committee may desire.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
The heading of this Vote gives the Committee very varied fare, and almost enables us, as I see it, to survey mankind from China to Peru, Here we have salaries of the Ministry, expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, expenses under the London Traffic Act, expenses in respect of advances under the Light Railways Act, Holyhead Harbour, Ramsgate Harbour, and the Caledonian and Crinan Canals. Of course, the main items will be those with which the Minister dealt, but he carefully omitted to give us any information on one or two very important matters which you, Sir, have read out from the Chair, and which I should like to know something about, namely, the expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, and expenses in respect of advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896. Let me take the last first. This is a non-con- 75 tentious matter, but I am under the impression that during recent years advances under the Light Railways Act have very much diminished, and that you would expect, because the light railway is a thing that came before the motor omnibus. Now that you have the motor omnibus, I take it that Light Railway Orders are very sparingly given.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I ought to inform the right hon. Gentleman that this title of the Estimate is a carry-on of the original title of the Vote. I presumed I should not be allowed to refer to the Light Railways Act or to expenditure under the London Traffic Act.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I am willing to be called to order by the Chairman, but it is not for the Minister to point out to the Chairman what his business is.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I meant nothing discourteous to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He asked me why I did not refer to expenditure under two Statutes. If I thought I could have done so, I would have got the information, but I was anxious not to go outside the Rules of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On examining the Estimate, I cannot see any figures bearing on the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am afraid that we cannot discuss them.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
Is it not a fact that in this, as in all other Estimates, some extra money has to be taken owing to the Government having adopted a higher scale of bonus for all civil servants, and is it not in order to refer to the staff of the Ministry, which includes an officer for light railway work, and to that extent would come within the ambit of the Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The matter came up only a few nights ago, and I pointed out then that it comes up on almost every Supplementary Estimate. We cannot go on discussing the same thing on every Supplementary Estimate. To be strictly in order, it could only be raised on a Treasury Vote. After all, the Minister is only responsible for the Acts of his Department, and he cannot be expected to answer for matters for which his Department is not responsible.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
Surely, a Minister is entirely responsible for the salaries on the Vote which he presents to Parliament.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Minister is not responsible for the action of the Treasury.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
May I then draw attention to Sub-head A, Salaries, Wages and allowances? The Minister informed us that this extra sum of £16,652 is really necessary because of additional work imposed on the Department in connection with Measures adopted for the relief of unemployment. May I draw attention to the rather significant phrase, Measures adopted for the relief of unemployment. Up to now we have always used the words, works expedited for the relief of unemployment, which is a different thing altogether. The Coalition Government quite legitimately said, "Here we have unemployment. We hope and believe it is merely temporary. Let us, therefore, put in hand road works under the Ministry of Transport and water and drainage works under the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, before the time when we should normally do so. This will keep some of the unemployed at work, and we shall, having expedited certain necessary works, have the benefit of them." That seemed to me a not unreasonable attitude to take up, but this is quite different. It is not a question of taking things that are desirable and doing them before they are really needed, but of adopting Measures simply to relieve the unemployed, apparently without any consideration whatever as to whether they are necessary works. I should like an assurance that it is definitely the policy of the Department to expedite useful works and not to adopt works, good or bad, simply in order to find employment for those who are out of work.
There is another point I should like to raise. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that this extra sum of money is really needed? I know the extreme economy which has always characterised the Minister of Transport, but I cannot close my eyes to certain facts. We had from 1921 down to 1924–25 a great employment programme similar to the programme with which we are dealing here 77 under part of the scheme of the Lord Privy Seal. There is a great similarity between the totals voted by Parliament or out of the Road Fund in those years and the amount of money which, I understand, is provided under the Lord Privy Seal's plan and which really comes out of the Road Fund, the administration of which is being secured by this Vote of £16,652. In those five years, no less a sum than £45,000,000 was voted, and I understand that the sum which has now been arranged is in the neighbourhood of £42,000,000. When the first programme was initiated, extra staff were taken on, and properly taken on, and I want to know if that extra staff has accomplished its work. Has not that extra staff finished administrating that £45,000,000 by 1930? I do not know, but it may be that some of that staff may have recently been dismissed and are now going to be taken on again. If that be so, it shows a want of foresight. Why cannot that staff which was brought in to look after £45,000,000, giving work to 40,000 be equally available and capable of looking after this new programme of £42,000,000, giving work to 38,000? It should be remembered that the whole of this £42,000,000 is not to be used for Ministry of Transport business.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young)
This is not a Vote for £42,000,000, but for £16,000. This is a Supplementary Estimate, and it is beside the question to discuss the sum of £42,000,000.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Your Ruling, Mr. Young, restricts the discussion. May I point out that this £16,652, if you look at Item A, is for Salaries, Wages and Allowances of extra staff. It is required to meet the cost of performing additional work imposed on the Department in connection with measures adopted for the relief of unemployment. Surely, I am entitled to ask whether, if the sum be £42,000,000, £25,000,000, or £35,000,000 in respect of work to be done, the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that it is necessary to have this extra staff when there was a large staff dealing with these matters many years ago.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in order is asking questions dealing with the additional staff, but I do not think it is in order to discuss the £45,000,000 or £42,000,000 at 78 this stage. The Supplementary Estimate is a sum of £16,000. If he desires to show that there ought to be no necessity for this expenditure then it will become another matter.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I should like to know whether this extra staff is really needed and whether it is necessary to expend this £16,652 in view of the fact that not long ago the staff of the Ministry was able to deal with a programme very similar to the programme which is being adopted at the present moment. I come to Item "C," Special Services and Inquiries. That is really a very important item indeed, namely, Fees to consulting engineers for report on Channel Tunnel Scheme. I think it is extremely fortunate that we should have this Supplementary Estimate to-day, in view of the fact that from what I see in the public Press, we are to be asked to listen to a statement on the part of the Government to-morrow telling us something about the report on the Channel Tunnel Scheme. The Committee is entitled to know something about the report of these engineers. We are going to find £5,250 in connection with this report, and surely we are entitled to know what the engineers have reported. Have they reported that it is practical from a technical point o£ view to make the Channel tunnel? Why should we spend £5,000 without knowing whether we are going to get our money's worth. Can the tunnel be constructed? How long will it be? Did they discover from their borings whether there were any fissures.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Department were merely seeking the advice of consulting engineers. I suppose that they would have to call in consulting engineers before they could have a tunnel. We are not considering here whether we should have a tunnel or not. This sum merely relates to the fees of consulting engineers brought in at the beginning.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
Are we not to know whether the consulting engineers have done their work, and have we simply to vote money without discussion? If you think so, I have nothing more to say.

§ The CHAIRMAN
They must have done their work, because they have sent in their report. Whether it is decided to go on any further with the scheme is another matter.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I note that there are further advances to assist the working of Ramsgate Harbour. Is the hon. Gentleman making any renewed efforts to get rid of Ramsgate Harbour, which is one of the unprofitable undertakings which belong to the Ministry of Transport. Two or three years ago the Ministry made a great effort to get rid of this very onerous burden, and the Corporation if, I recollect correctly, endeavoured to get the town to agree to take over Ramsgate Harbour. Eventually, the proposal was turned down. We do not want to have these extra Votes in respect of Ramsgate Harbour brought forward year after year. Is the hon. Gentleman making any efforts to get rid of it, and, if so, in what direction? If this is regarded as a successful effort in nationalisation, it is one which we should not wish to see further extended.
The Caledonian Canal, in respect of which further advances are required to assist the working of the undertaking, has been an unsuccessful enterprise. I will not say that it has been an unsuccessful "Scottish enterprise," because that would be casting an aspersion upon Scottish ability, but it is an undertaking which occurs in Scotland. It is really a canal which has not brought great profits to the Department or, indeed, great honour in later years to Scotland itself. It is unfortunate that we should always have to be spending this money. I understand that the trawlers, now being larger, are more inclined to go round the North of Scotland and do not use the canal as they used to do, and consequently the receipts are not so large. I should like to ask the Minister a question which is of some importance from the point of view of the working of the canal, and even of greater importance from the point of view of those who live in that part of Scotland. Is it his intention when the Road Traffic Bill passes to put into force Clause 54, Sub-sections (1) and (3)? At the present moment the Minister of Transport is in a very unfortunate position regarding this enterprise which he has on his hands. The bridges over the Caledonian Canal are in a shocking state and will not take more than three or four tons. Traffic is held up practically across the whole of the North of Scotland and, although the Minister must come to Parliament for a 80 certain amount of money, he really cannot like always to be asking for Supplementary Votes. Grants are made from the Road Fund for various purposes, and it seems to me that charity ought to begin at home, and that the Minister of Transport should be able to make grants for these purposes. If the Traffic Bill becomes law, he will be enabled to do so. I would suggest to him, if, and when, this Bill becomes law, that he should try to put weighbridges at convenient places to catch the traffic as it crosses the Caledonian Canal, to protect the existing bridges.
Item "L" is by far the most important item in the whole Vote, and indeed it would be an important item in any Vote. It is the "Severn Barrage Investigation." We are asked to give an extra sum of money—not the whole amount for which we shall be asked in due course—amounting to £2,650 for experiments on existing model and construction of new model and fees to consulting engineers. I was very glad indeed to hear the Minister say that the preliminary investigations and reports, and the tentative model, which has been working for the best part of a year now, have turned out to be a success; that the very complicated model, with water and sand, working to a scale of the Severn Estuary, has been successful from a technical point of view, and that the Committee of Research have decided to go still further. I take it that what the Minister indicated was that the committee are satisfied that it is possible to build the barrage—that there is sufficient foundation—and that, as far as they can see, there is nothing technically impossible in regard to building the barrage. That is a very great advance, because before that decision there were many difficulties and doubts as to whether it could be built there at all. That bridge having been crossed, we can proceed to the next step with confidence—the next step in respect of which we are asked to spend a sum of £2,650.
I should like to know whether the proposed new model is to be on a larger scale and will show the effect of the tides and the barrage upon navigation? We know now that it can be done. The next stage is whether it will injure the naviga- 81 tion of the ports of Avonmouth and other ports on the Severn, and whether it can be done without any danger of silting up and like troubles? Can the hon. Gentleman say how long this next stage will last? I should grudge no money within reason for this experiment, because the possibilities of the undertaking are so enormous and so overwhelming if the barrage really came to full fruition in the course of a few years that I do not think even in these days of economy we should be chary of giving any reasonable sum, or even any unreasonable sum, in making this experiment a thorough success. I hope that the Minister will get more information about the Severn barrage, and let us have it as soon as possible.

Sir HILTON YOUNG
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the last sub-head in the Estimate, N—Appropriations-in-Aid, amounting to £12,760 which is brought in as an offset against an increase of £16,652 under Sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances. I should like it to be made clear that that sum can only be brought in against the first sub-head and that it cannot be brought in against the subsequent sub-heads. If we were quite clear on that point it might save a certain amount of time in future discussion. If the Minister is unable to tell us at the moment, perhaps he will be able to tell us at a later stage of the discussion. I must assume that it is not perfectly clear and that it may be that the Sub-head Appropriations-in-Aid, is brought in also against some of the sub-heads following Sub-head A. If that be so, it seems to me very strange that you should take an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Road Fund and put it against such accounts as Ramsgate Harbour, the Caledonian Canal and the Severn Barrage investigation. Possibly, when the Minister clears up the matter he may be able to assure us that Sub-head N is only brought in against Sub-head A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances. That would seem to be more appropriate. Assuming that that is what we ought to understand and that it cannot be brought in against Sub-heads C, H, J and L, where it would seem to be very curiously placed as an Appropriation-in-Aid, I think there is some comment to be made on the form in which the Estimate has been presented.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The Appropriation-in-Aid is only in respect of the first sub-head. It is an appropriation from the Road Fund, and the Road Fund cannot be used for the other purposes mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. YOUNG
I am glad of that assurance. That puts the matter upon a clear basis and confines my comment to the form in which the Estimate has been presented. The Minister will observe that, in form, it is made to seem as if the Appropriation-in-Aid is brought in against the total, including sub-heads C, H, J and L, against which it could not really be set off. It would be of assistance to the Committee and would be a clearer presentation of the Estimate if in such a case as this the Appropriation-in-Aid was shown definitely as set off against the sub-head against which it can in fact be set off. I should like also to make what appears to me to be a more serious comment upon the principle involved in voting such an Appropriation-in-Aid as we are asked to vote upon this Supplementary Estimate. I should have been glad had it been possible to address my observations to a Treasury Minister because, although the Minister of Transport is presenting the Estimate, my criticism is a matter which finally should be brought to the attention of the Treasury, who prepare the form of Estimate which the Minister presents.
Upon this Estimate there is an expenditure amounting to £29,000, which is fresh expenditure by the Government Department, and has to be found out of public money. Then we have an Appropriation-in-Aid of £12,760 brought in against it. By bringing in that amount against the total expenditure of £29,000 it is made to appear in our total annual accounts as if we had been spending only £16,392. If the Appropriation-in-Aid had been of the sort of receipt which is characteristically described as an Appropriation-in-Aid, this is, small profits or fees in the Department, that would have been quite proper, and that is well recognised in our general system of finance, but in this case it is not so. The Appropriations-in-Aid under Sub-head N are from the Road Fund, and the Road Fund is taxpayers' money it is taxpayers' money that is being brought in to pay for public expenditure. I think the Committee will see the point at 83 once that, under these conditions, when we have a perfectly normal case of expenditure met by taxpayers' money, to cut down the total amount spent by pretending that there is an Appropriation-in-Aid, is really falsifying national accounts. I am aware that the Minister of Transport cannot deal with this matter and put it right, because the Treasury has, no doubt, authorised this method, but perhaps he will bring my criticism before the appropriate Treasury Minister.

§ Sir A. POWNALL
I should like to call attention to Sub-head C—Fees for consulting engineers for report on Channel Tunnel scheme. I am not quite clear on that point. Is this Supplementary Estimate for a further sum in addition to the sum which was originally provided for work in connection with the Channel Tunnel scheme? If so, the consulting engineers will have received, not £4,200, but £9,450. It is important to know the actual sum that is being paid and whether the original consulting engineers have done work other than work associated with the Channel Tunnel. With regard to the Severn Barrage investigations, they have been on the tapis during the 10 years that I have been a Member of this House. I agree with the late Minister of Transport that this is a matter of such importance that the question of a few hundred pounds or a few thousand pounds does not seriously matter, but I do submit that the question of years does matter. It was in the year 1920 that a report was first made in regard to this scheme, and in 1924 the question was first seriously taken up by the Government. Six years have passed, and to-day the Minister of Transport has stated that the sum now voted is part of a sum of £17,000 which it is intended to spend. At this rate, it may mean another eight or 10 years before the extra sum is spent.
This is one of the things that ought not to be allowed to drift on indefinitely. We ought to ask those who are responsible to tell us by a definite date next year what is to be done. In the intervening years the Free State Government in Ireland have carried out a very big scheme in connection with the river Shannon. They have not shilly-shallied as we have in regard to this question. They have got the whole thing 84 through in four or five years. I do not know whether the two schemes are comparable, but there seems to be a certain amount of similarity, and those who are looking to the matter ought to get a move on. In regard to the Caledonian Canal, as one who has much enjoyed the amenities of that canal, I agree that this extra sum cannot be avoided. I congratulate our Scottish friends on getting the British taxpayers to be responsible for this expenditure. We are told that it is an example of the advantage of State industry that these losses fall upon the taxpayers as a whole. Our Scottish friends are getting the Anglo-Saxon taxpayers to bear nine-tenths of this particular charge. I hope that when there is Home Rule for Scotland this is an item which we shall not see on the Estimates in future.

§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE
The Minister of Transport is to be congratulated on the manner in which he has introduced this Supplementary Estimate, but I can hardly believe that, to use a colloquialism, he expected to get away with it, after such little explanation as he gave. His attitude was that such sums as are set down here must be perfectly clear to anybody, and that no explanation was required. I would draw attention to item A, which deals with a sum of £16,652 for salaries, wages and allowances. In the original Estimate, on page 123, it is there stated that this sum is required for "additional provision for work in connection with relief of unemployment." The Minister of Transport when he dealt with this part of the Estimate merely repeated that statement, but did not give us any details. He can hardly expect us to vote this money without knowing definitely what it is for and to whom the money is to go.
I do not want to deal with the matters that have been mentioned by previous speakers, but I would like to turn to item H, in respect of Ramsgate Harbour—further advances to assist the working of the undertaking. The sum of £2,400 may not appear to be a great deal of money, at first sight, but if hon. Members will turn to the trading profit and loss account of the harbour they will see that there is a continuous reduction in the income, and I think it is a natural question to ask the Minister what he expects in the future.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
Is the hon. Member referring to the accounts in the original Estimates, which have been approved, or to the new figure in the Supplementary Estimate?

§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE
By that inquiry does the Minister mean that I am out of order?

§ Mr. MORRISON
No. I was asking for my own information.

§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE
I am referring to the original Estimate, of which this Supplementary Estimate represents an additional grant. As it is an additional grant, I am asking the Minister whether, seeing that the undertaking is steadily losing a small sum, and perhaps an increasing sum, every year, he could tell us what in his opinion is the future of this undertaking, and what he thinks the State should do about it. The Committee is entitled to consider whether we shall have to make further grants in the future. The Minister said that he had inherited certain nationalised industries. I realise that he did not mean it seriously, but lest for a moment it should be suggested that there was any serious tendency in that remark, let me say that this is not a nationalised industry at all. The fact is that the State took this over, as I see by the statement in front of the accounts, in 1861, or, rather, in 1861 the State stopped the possibility of the harbour getting any of the dues to which it had been originally entitled, and it was taken over in 1862 by the Board of Trade. The harbour was built under conditions which have entirely passed away, and, that being so, it is natural to ask to what extent the harbour is used, whether it is necessary in the national interest to keep what is largely a fishing harbour there now, and what the Minister thinks are likely to be in future the money requirements from the State to keep the harbour in existence. I do not put these questions with any idea that the Minister should have done something else. I only want to get an idea of what he thinks should be done in the future in this connection.
The same remarks apply to some extent to the Caledonian Canal. I realise that this particular Estimate may be due to the accident to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but again I would remind him that the Estimates we are asked to pass are 86 further advances to assist the working of the undertaking. Although there may be many who regret very much the passing of the Caledonian Canal, we have to face the fact that conditions in connection with transport have entirely changed since the canal was built, and if this is, as I suppose it is, a matter which we may have to face from year to year by being called upon to make additional payments, it becomes of value to know whether, in the interests of the fishing industry, for example, or of local trade, it is worth keeping the Caledonian Canal under the conditions which now exist. The hon. Gentleman gave no indication as to what is his policy in connection with these matters, and I think we are entitled to have a little more information.

§ Major ROSS
There are a couple of items about which I should like to ask some questions, and they are principally of the quasi-nautical type. One is the report on a Channel tunnel, and the other is the Caledonian Canal. As to the former, there is no question but that that question must have the most careful inquiry before any work is started upon it, because there is not only the question of policy, but also the question of engineering difficulties in the construction of such a work. What is to be the scope of the report which the engineers are now making? I should be out of order, and it would be improper, to suggest that we should now have the result of that report, but I think the Committee is entitled to know what the terms of reference were. I am wondering whether this report will be of value as regards channel tunnels generally, or whether it is purely ad hoc, dealing only with a tunnel to France. For instance, would this report be of value on the question of a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. and gallant Member must wait till the report appears. The reference is to a "report on Channel Tunnel Scheme."

§ Major ROSS
That is the point I wish to find out—whether it is a report dealing only with the Channel tunnel, or whether it is a report dealing with channel tunnels.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. and gallant Member must in all these 87 cases look at the document in his hand. If he does that, he will see that it is a "report on Channel Tunnel Scheme."

§ Major ROSS
It says "Channel Tunnel." That question is a general question, as to whether there can be a tunnel under a channel, and I submit that I am quite in order on this point. If it had been a report on a Channel tunnel to France—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. and gallant Member, and people throughout the length and breadth of the land, know what is meant by the Channel Tunnel Scheme.

§ Major ROSS
As one who is, I hope, a patriotic Member for Northern Ireland, I would like to say that to us the Channel tunnel is not one to France, but one from Great Britain to a portion of the United Kingdom which is very anxious to be united more closely than it is now, and I must ask you, Mr. Chairman, to excuse me if my feelings on this point are different from yours. However, I have made my point, which is to ask whether this is a technical report dealing only with geographical affairs connected with a tunnel to France, or whether it would be useful with regard to all tunnels.
With reference to the Caledonian Canal, as I understand from the Minister's speech this expenditure was occasioned principally by a minor catastrophe, in the course of which a drifter carried away two pairs of lock gates. That is an occurrence which has thrown considerable expense upon this somewhat unprofitable nationalised enterprise; and has not the time come, before paying this increased amount to the Caledonian Canal, to consider whether one of two courses must not be taken? Must the canal not be either abandoned altogether and allowed to sink into a state of picturesque dilapidation, in the course of which it would no doubt add something to the attractions of that part of the country from the point of view of tourist traffic, or has not the time come when it should be brought up to modern needs and so enlarged as to enable the modern type of fishing vessel to go through?
As I understand, many of the more recently built fishing vessels wishing to 88 traverse Scotland go north about and not through the canal. Has it, been considered by the Ministry whether it would not be well to bring in a scheme, which would be of assistance from the point of view of unemployment, to bring the canal thoroughly up to date, or whether it would not be well to let the canal, as such, be abandoned, so that we should not be called upon to spend any further money on an undertaking which seems, by all accounts, to be a most unprofitable one?

§ Captain CAZALET
With reference to Sub-head A, "Salaries, Wages, and Allowances," the Minister of Transport said that a certain portion of this money was being spent at Harmondsworth, where experiments are being carried out in regard to road surfaces, and apparently they are preparing new experiments in order to meet the difficulties that we have all experienced on these new arterial roads under various weather conditions. Up to a few years ago, if my information is correct, we had spent in this country nearly £100,000,000 on road development, without having spent anything on experiments as to what kind of surface was most suitable for these roads. I believe I am correct in that, and, so far as I am informed, a few years ago a certain sum of money was voted for experiments in this matter. On a subject of that kind, which is of general interest, I think the Minister might perhaps give us some further information as to what experiments are taking place, and—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Minister is not entitled to give an explanation of anything outside the Estimates.

§ Captain CAZALET
The Minister has already told the Committee that some of this money was being spent on experiments, and perhaps it would be in order for him to say how much is being spent on these experiments, so that we could judge for ourselves whether fit and proper progress is being made on this very necessary aspect of arterial road development in this country.

§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
I remember that the Minister during his speech referred to the increased technical assistance which was being given to the production of new roads in this country as part of these Estimates. I imagine that that would come either 89 under Subhead A, where additional work is imposed on the department for the relief of unemployment, or under Appropriations-in-Aid, which is £12,760. I agree entirely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) in that connection. We must remember that the real amount of money that has been spent is not the lesser sum of £16,392, but the gross amount of £29,152, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, £12,760 of additional receipts came from the Road Fund itself, and that money, of course, is public money which has been paid by the taxpayers of this country.
I should like to know how this money has been expended and whether the hon. Gentleman has arranged for special inspectors as to the kind of roads and road materials that are going to be used. Up to the present, as far as I have been able to make out in travelling over the country, these new arterial roads are not very good—the surface is not very good—and if we are going to vote money for this increased technical assistance for road making, we should inquire of the Minister the sort of inspectors that he is going to use for this purpose. Would they, for instance, look into the road surface? I ask because the road surface has a great deal to do with whether or not a road is going to be durable and whether or not it will be a dangerous kind of road. I suggest that with the assistance of the technical experts tests should be carried out as to the skidding qualities of these roads. If we are going to spend this money on getting this advice we ought to know whether we are going to get full value for the expenditure.
Then there is the question of the Channel Tunnel. The additional expenditure under this head is £5,250. The original estimate was £4,200; and it seems to me that we should be discussing not merely an addition to the old expenditure which has already been passed by the Committee of this House but a new service altogether. Possibly I should not be in order in discussing it as a new service, but it is a moot question as to whether it is not really a new service. The same remark applies to the expenditure on the Severn Barrage Scheme, where you also have a considerable increase. The original estimate was for only £975. Now the Minister requires an additional £2,650; 90 more than double the original amount granted. There again we might almost claim it to be a new service. The sum of £5,250 is to pay the fees of consulting engineers for their Report on the Channel Tunnel. Is not this what has happened? We granted a sum of £4,200 for experiments on these lines, but now the Government have come to the conclusion that, as this is a very important matter indeed, they will call in somebody new and pay them a fee of 5,000 guineas for their advice? I think we should first decide whether we are going to have a Channel Tunnel or not. If we are, then an expenditure of 5,000 guineas on expert advice and consulting engineers is justifiable. If not, then the only thing we are doing in voting this 5,000 guineas is to waste public money. We ought to know why these extra consulting engineers have been called in.
As far as the Severn Barrage Scheme is concerned, if we can make a success of it I should be most thankful. We are lagging behind in this country in the production of electricity by water power. We have not the advantage of mountains like they have in Switzerland and France, and if we can use the tides—it is a feasible scheme—we should do all we can in that way. I have nothing to say against that proposal, but I should like to know the size of the model, whether it is a large one or not. I hope the Minister of Transport will be able to answer these few questions.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I should not have intervened in the Debate at all but for the fact that two hon. Members above the Gangway have cast some aspersions on the Caledonian Canal. They advocated it being closed. I hope we shall be told before the Debate is ended that there is no such intention on the part of the Government. The Caledonian Canal—this is the only historical reference I shall make to it—was the great unemployment scheme in Scotland after the Napoleonic wars. It was built by the troops who returned after Waterloo to their native hills, and it has served a useful purpose up to the present day. It goes through one of the most beautiful parts in Scotland, and serves a useful industrial purpose. To shut up the Canal would mean that the Minister of Transport would have to find £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 more for a substitute road up through the 91 hillsides. I do not know why this £2,000 is necessary at the moment. Perhaps we shall get a reply from the Minister of Transport.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I have already given the reason; and it has nothing to do with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am sorry I missed the explanation, and I should be much obliged if I could have it again. At any rate, I shall see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I only desire to protest against the observations which were made by hon. Members above the Gangway.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
There are just a few questions I desire to put to the Minister of Transport, but before doing so I think it is well to remind the Committee that when we have passed this supplementary Estimate we shall have brought up the total of supplementary Estimates to nearly £11,500,000. That is a matter which the Committee should view with considerable seriousness. I think the Minister of Transport inadvertently omitted something from his description of what was covered by the additional estimate under the head of "salaries, wages and allowances." He said that it was an additional provision with regard to the work imposed by the relief of unemployment. Is the hon. Gentleman quite right? Is it not the fact that under this supplementary Estimate comes the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary?

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
In part it does.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I am glad to hear that.

§ Mr. MORRISON
But the hon. and gallant Member must not misrepresent what I say. I said that it was in respect of unemployment work schemes.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I do not thing the hon. Gentleman was quite fair to the Committee. The much more important part of this Supplementary Estimate, which we want to discuss, is the policy of re-establishing a post in the Government which, for reasons of economy, the late Prime Minister abolished. He did not abolish it because 92 the holder of that post was not the most capable of his junior Ministers. He was a right hon. Gentleman who above all others was fitted to fill that position. The late Prime Minister abolished the post because the work had decreased so much. Now the present Prime Minister has re-created the post. Lord Russell was the first holder and then, owing to the unfortunate misunderstanding in regard to the number of Under-Secretaries who could sit in this House, there was a reshuffling of junior posts and we lost the hon. Member for Brightside, who blossomed out as Lord Ponsonby and the holder of this office.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
Unemployed.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
He was unemployed; and perhaps he was the Minister chosen for unemployment. I am sorry it is the Minister of Transport who has to reply because he is not in a position to criticise his colleague and he cannot tell us whether he thinks the office is redundant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be here to give us the Treasury view in regard to this additional post in the Government service. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether this Supplementary Estimate covers any part of the salary for the new post which has been created, "Principal Assistant Secretary."

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
No.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
He is a person who comes in after the 31st of March this year? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps he will find out. I should like to know whether any part of this new official work will come into this financial year? The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised an important point when he touched upon Appropriations-in-Aid; and I must warn the Government that this point will be raised on a great many occasions in connection with these Estimates, mostly from the Liberal benches. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) has made a special study of this point and I warn Ministers, in a friendly fashion, on this matter. I am not working in collusion with the right hon. Member for Camborne, but I am following his views on this subject with 93 great interest. This is a good example. The Minister said that the reason why this extra money was required for the Caledonian Canal was that certain fees had not been paid because a certain part of the Canal, owing to an accident, had not been used; a certain amount of money which was expected had not come in. That is, I think, what the Minister said?

§ Mr. MORRISON
I think it would be better if we could discuss this in the usual way. I will deal with the points put forward by the hon. Member at the end of the discussion. He is putting a series of questions to me and wants me to answer them as he goes along.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I am quite prepared to wait until the Minister replies. I thought it would be more convenient if the Minister replied at once. We have extracted from him information about the Parliamentary Secretary. In that case any suspicions were right and his explanation wrong. In this case, certain fees have not come in because of an accident by which a certain part of the Canal was not in use. Therefore, more money is to be granted to make up the deficiency in fees. I should have thought under an ordinary system, Appropriations-in-Aid in regard to the Caledonian Canal would have been put in as a side-head under Appropriations-in-Aid.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman has explained to the Committee that the whole of these Appropriations-in-Aid refer only to Salaries, Wages and Allowances.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
Exactly, but I am questioning why it should increase Sub-head J, instead of decreasing Subhead A. The fees did not come in, and, therefore, we have to find more money. If they are entered under sub-head Appropriations-in-Aid it would mean that the Appropriations-in-Aid was less that it otherwise would be. I think that that would give the Committee a fairer picture of what happens. It has nothing to do, I understand, with the actual running of the canal. The point to which the Minister referred was the fact that certain fees were expected to come in and did not come in. If what I have said correctly represents the situation I hope that the Minister will at any rate consider 94 the point, and see whether on some other occasion this question of the fees of the Caledonian Canal had not better come under Appropriations-in-Aid. I am glad that the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) has now arrived. Perhaps he will reinforce what I have said.
There is another point. Could the Minister guarantee to the Committee that the expenditure for the consulting engineers under the Sub-head C is the sole expenditure which has been incurred by the investigation into the Channel Tunnel Scheme? Is there other expenditure? Is it the only expenditure? The Minister shakes his head, and then wags it the other way. Without asking him to rise now I want to make sure that the clerical staff—I imagine that the Committee would require something of that kind—does not come under Sub-head A, but is paid for out of some other Vote. I said in opening my speech that this brings up the total of Supplementary Estimates for the year to over £11,000,000. The Committee should also remember the very serious figures which follow those which we are discussing. Under Subhead L, the Severn barrage investigation, the original Estimate was £975, the revised estimate, taking this Supplementary Estimate into account, is £3,600, and in the ensuing year that is rising to £14,650. Though at the moment the Committee is only discussing the extra amount required for the current year it must envisage the fact that this is a growing and a very expensive service. There is exactly the same thing under Subhead J in reference to the Caledonian Canal. The original Estimate was over £5,000. There was an increase of £2,200, making a total of £7,300, and in the ensuing year it rises to £15,000.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member must leave out the ensuing year. We cannot have the discussion widening out to next year's Estimate.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I am not discussing it at all. I merely wanted to warn the Committee that we are starting on another line of very considerable expenditure, and that if we are to accept these Supplementary Estimates we should do so with our eyes open, knowing that in future they will involve us in more expenditure.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not in order to pursue that subject.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
The Minister did not expatiate at all on what the existing model or the new model really was, and as he was not kind enough to tell us the amount of money involved, I thought there might be no harm in just pointing it out. As the Prime Minister is now present he may wish to intervene and answer the question with which I opened my speech. As the right hon. Gentleman does not know what it was, I will briefly tell him. It raised a very difficult question for the Transport Minister to answer. It is quite true that this Vote covers part of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary. Can the Prime Minister tell us why it was that the present Government found it necessary to revive a post which the previous Government, on the ground of economy, abolished? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of his very happy coming into the House now to let us know what were the reasons.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I wish to refer to the sum included under the heading "Appropriations-in-Aid," and to put a definite question regarding it. Will this sum go through the Consolidated Fund or will it not? In recent times we are continually getting Supplementary Estimates with large sums deducted from them, as in this case, as Appropriations-in-Aid. The Committee will remember that Appropriations-in-Aid used always to be regarded as merely sums of money received by Departments and off-set against a Vote. There is a point of principle involved. If this sum goes to the Consolidated Fund I have nothing more to say, because we shall have an opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill of discussing the matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Any savings under Appropriations-in-Aid are not discussable.

§ Mr. BROWN
I agree. It is just because of your ruling that I have put my question. The modern custom of putting large sums in Supplementary Estimates as Appropriations-in-Aid, if they do not go through the Consolidated Fund, has the effect of withdrawing millions of the taxpayers' money from all chance of Parliamentary discussion.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That may be a good point to raise on the original Estimate, 96 and when discussing things from the beginning. My experience extends over 11 years, and I always remember these Supplementary Estimates and Appropriations-in-Aid.

§ Mr. BROWN
My point is a very important one. In the 11 years to which you have referred I think you would not find continuous Supplementary Estimates with large sums of this kind of the taxpayers' money. My point is that the old Appropriation-in-Aid was a definite sum received by way of fee or something of the kind by a Department. This is not that; it is a sum of the taxpayers' money received from the Road Fund. If this sum does not go to the Consolidated Fund, is it in order for it to be brought in with Supplementary Estimates with which it has no connection whatever? On the surface there does not appear to be any connection between the Supplementary Estimate and this £12,000 from the Road Fund. On the original Estimate there is a definite repayment of two sums, A and B amounting to £138,000. With that we can deal, but this £12,000 is not in that Estimate, and therefore when the Estimate comes up we cannot discuss it. On the other hand if the sum does pass through the Consolidated Fund I have nothing more to say.

§ The CHAIRMAN
My information is that these Appropriations-in-Aid are governed by Statute. Therefore, if there is any objection to the way in which the matter is carried out it must be raised on the Treasury Vote when that comes up.

§ Mr. BROWN
That ruling will enable us to clear the matter up on the Treasury Vote. In connection with the sum under Sub-head A for provision of employment, does anything refer to schemes on the East Coast of Scotland, to the Tay and Forth Bridges, or the ferries there?

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I find here a further advance to assist the working of the Caledonian and Crinan Canal. I want a more definite explanation from the Minister regarding this sum. Why was the work outlined not proceeded with to help unemployment? I am not satisfied with the description of canals as an unprofitable possession and as obsolete institutions. My contention is that Governments have never taken the trouble to develop them.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
A large number of points have been raised, and I will endeavour to reply to them briefly. The right hon. Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) noted a change of the word "expedited" to "adopted." I do not know the reason for the change, but the right hon. Gentleman may be sure that no reason of policy actuated the change. Many of the works with which Sub-head A is concerned are expedited works. Some of them are works which even at this time are perfectly sound works to do, whether or not any question of expediting them arises. But there is no particular significance to be applied to the change of the wording. It is true that there have been fluctuations in the staff of the Ministry, but the Committee may be sure that all the money for which we have asked in connection with the expansion of staff is really necessary. Expansion of staff did not take place immediately the policy of developing works to assist unemployment was adopted, but only as and when staffs really became necessary in order to discharge the liabilities which had arisen. It is a little difficult to make comparison between one year and another, owing to the fluctuations of policy which have affected the Ministry of Transport. Early on there was a very big staff, then there was a reaction, and then there were periodic unemployment pushes which involved temporary expansions of staff, but I am satisfied that there is no staff at the Ministry which is needless or beyond requirements.
In so far as some of the staff which comes under this Estimate is concerned, a great deal of the increase is temporary and can be contracted as and when contraction is required. Of course, it must be remembered that the staff was needed not only in connection with road work, but part of it in connection with services which did not exist before, namely, advising the Committees under the Development Act, which have a whole series of schemes, including those of railway companies, electricity companies, and canal companies, many of which were not eligible for assistance under previous Statutes. To that extent a new service actually does exist. With regard to the Channel tunnel I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have said. It will be remembered that the Committee dealing with the Channel tunnel is a sub-committee 98 of the Committee of Civil Research, and that the Prime Minister is concerned with the supervision of that Committee. It is to the Prime Minister that the Committee reports. A Report has been made to the Prime Minister as the Minister concerned with the Committee of Civil Research, but as I have not yet seen the Report, which has only just been received by the Prime Minister, I cannot deal further with the Channel tunnel. I understand that questions are to be put to the Lord Privy Seal on the subject to-morrow, and possibly further information may then be forthcoming.
With regard to Ramsgate Harbour, I hesitate to say that we are energetically engaged in trying to get rid of it because we do not like it—that would not be a recommendation in the eyes of any possible purchaser—but the view of the Government is, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, that Ramsgate Harbour, by its nature, would be better under some kind of local body rather than under a State Department. [Interruption.] I said "some kind of local body." We are still of that opinion, and we are willing to discuss it with any body which may desire the transfer of the undertaking. It has come into our hands and we are doing the best we can with the harbour, which undoubtedly has proved very useful for local services. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to know, regarding the point which he made as to Clause 54 of the Road Traffic Bill, that that Clause will enable us to deal with the bridges on the two canals in Scotland, and preliminary steps have been taken so that we can be in a position to deal with the matter when that Clause goes through. Discussions are taking place with the county councils concerned, and I hope that suitable arrangements will he made and that in connection with that matter the new Clause will be of value. I have no recollection that we have yet discussed the question of weigh-bridges on these bridges, but I have noted the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made and it will be given consideration.
With regard to the Severn Barrage, it is difficult, in the middle of an inquiry, to give all the particulars that one would like to give, but I quite agree that the proposal is a matter of very great interest. As the Committee know the practicability of constructing a Severn 99 Barrage has been under continuous examination by a sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research since October, 1925. I believe there was a reference to them by the previous Labour Government and early in 1926, on the recommendation of the sub-committee, steps were taken to initiate the first stage of investigations which included a survey of the proposed site by the hydrographic department of the Admiralty and the construction and operation of a large-scale model. The supervision of that investigation was entrusted to a small expert co-ordination committee and the preliminary investigations are being completed. As I have already explained, the sub-committee made a Report that they were satisfied regarding the practicability of constructing a barrage across the Severn estuary at English Stones; they recommended that arrangements should be made for the preparation of a complete tidal power scheme and it is at this point that the money with which this Estimate is concerned, is involved. We had to be satisfied that there was a prima facie case for going ahead. We are so satisfied, and, as I say, the Committee recommended that arrangements should now be made for the preparation of a complete tidal power scheme, an estimate of the total capital cost based on the data obtained when they first made inquiries, the total amount of electricity which may be expected to be generated and the approximate cost of the electricity. These recommendations have been approved by the Government; steps have been taken to prepare a scheme, and it is anticipated that that stage will be completed in about two years.

§ Mr. ALPASS
This is a matter which affects the port of Bristol very seriously indeed, and there are grave apprehensions that any barrage constructed across the Severn may possibly have an injurious effect upon the entrance to our docks at Avonmouth. It is to be presumed that the views of the people who are concerned with the Avonmouth docks, will have due consideration before the Government are committed to any scheme.

§ Mr. MORRISON
The hon. Member may be assured that we are a very long way off that stage of the discussion. The 100 Government are not committed to doing anything. All we say is that if the possibilities are what some people think they are, then a proposition of great importance in connection with the generation of electricity has arisen, and we are bound, as a Government, to consider it and to consider it seriously. But we have not yet got to the stage of conclusions as to the desirability or otherwise of a scheme. We have only got to the stage of being satisfied that further investigations ought to take place and the hon. Member may be sure that before any final conclusions are come to—which in any case cannot be for some time unfortunately—the opinions of local bodies such as the corporation and the dock authorities will be taken fully into consideration. It is true that this business has taken some time and we are all very sorry that that should be so, but the Committee probably know that this is an exceedingly complicated and difficult subject and it would be a thousand pities if we made a false step in regard to a question of this magnitude. Therefore I think this Government and the previous Labour Government have been justified in conducting the most elaborate investigations in order to be sure that what we do, if and when we do anything, is the right thing to be done in the circumstances of the case.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir II. Young) raised matters which he agreed were matters of form for the Treasury rather than for myself, but he may be certain that his points will be considered. As he knows, from his Treasury experience the Road Fund is in a rather exceptional position. That is to say, it is exceptionally treated as compared with other forms of expenditure. But I should be the last to think, or to encourage the Committee to think, where there is a gross expenditure of a certain amount and Appropriations-in-Aid for a substantial amount materially reducing the gross sum, that therefore this Committee or the Minister need only worry about the net amount required. I agree that both the Committee and the Minister must worry about the gross figure of expenditure and I regard it as my duty to watch all expenditure, irrespective of the source from which it is made. Whether it is out of the Road Fund or direct from the Exchequer, it is 101 my duty to be economical and careful in regard to that expenditure.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Can the hon. Gentleman say what opportunity the House of Commons will have of discussing this £12,760, the precise sum which was taken out of the Road Fund, and used for purposes absolutely irrelevant to the Road Fund?

§ Mr. MORRISON
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that his last point is not correct, but as far as the question which he raises is one concerning the business of the House, I am afraid I cannot undertake responsibility in that matter. With regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) I can explain that the entire sum of 5,000 guineas is in respect of payments to consulting engineers. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) raised several points regarding the Caledonian Canal, but I think I had covered them in my opening speech and if not they will be covered before I conclude. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) tried to tempt me into a discussion on a Channel tunnel between England and Ireland, but I am perfectly certain that you, Mr. Young, would not allow me to go into that matter, and I am afraid I must leave it at that. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) raised a question regarding the experimental station at Harmondsworth. That is a purely new development and is concerned with experimental work in connection with roads. We are trying to do certain things there and to carry out research work. A pamphlet in regard to the work of the experimental station has just been published and in view of the interest of the hon. and gallant Member in the matter I will send him a copy. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) wanted to know whether the inspectors appointed under sub-head A inspected materials and so on. I do not know whether the inspectors deal meticulously with that particular point but they have to be satisfied generally that the quality of the materials is adequate and that the work is being properly carried out. I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member any further information about the Channel tunnel for reasons which I have already stated.
102 The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) wanted some information, which I have already given in regard to the Caledonian Canal and, as he is not here, I need only say that if he looks in the OFFICIAL REPORT I think he will be fully informed on the points which he raised. With regard to the numerous questions which were asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) regarding the staff of the Department, I wish to say that it is certainly not what I should regard as a small matter. It is perfectly true that there have been certain changes, first as regards the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary and, secondly, changes necessary in the Department, consequent upon works for dealing with unemployment which have given rise to a new state of affairs. It was necessary to release the Assistant Secretary for Roads in order to make him Deputy-Secretary to the Ministry, and, therefore, it was necessary to substitute somebody for him which in due course would mean some addition to the staff. But with regard to the salary of the officer concerned there has been no change. There has been a change of designation but no change of salary. With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not wish to impinge on the responsibilities of the Prime Minister but from my own experience of the Ministry I am fully convinced that under present conditions, when we have so many things in hand, when considerable road works are in progress, when interesting experiments are being conducted and important reports are coming along, when we have all sorts of problems in connection with traffic and other matters, it is necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary.
It is true that the last Government at one time were going to kill the Department altogether. I believe that that is so of a previous Conservative or Coalition Government and those who take the view that there is no need for a Ministry of Transport, would certainly hold that there was no need for a Parliamentary Secretary. Personally nobody regretted more than I did when Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, who was a very efficient Parliamentary Secretary, went from the Department. Of course, it was no busi- 103 ness of mine, but I think everybody was sorry when such an able man went from the Department and I am perfectly satisfied that the responsibilities of that Department are bound to grow as time goes on and that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary. Anybody who has been Minister will agree that, except when times are particularly slack, it is desirable that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary if the Minister himself is not to be over-burdened. The hon. and gallant Member who raised this matter may be assured that I am not afraid of work. I rather like work, but in order to do it efficiently and effectively, it is desirable that the Government and the House of Commons should provide me with the necessary assistance.
6.0 p.m.
Regarding the point raised as to appropriations-in-aid that is a matter partly for the Treasury and partly for myself, and it will be taken into account, as will also the observations as to whether the receipts from the Caledonian Canal should be brought into account or not. If I remember rightly, the point of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) was answered as he went along, and therefore nothing further arises on that matter. As regards the question of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), I cannot answer for previous Governments as to the Caledonian Canal, but we ourselves have spent what money we could in order to keep that canal in an efficient condition, notwithstanding its not altogether happy financial results. If we were always actuated by pure finance, whether in regard to the Caledonian Canal or some other things, including a well-known contract in Scotland for some forms of transport—if, I say, we were solely guided by finance, many of these things would be closed down, and if they were closed down I am afraid that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies would make their voices heard and there would be excitement in the House of Commons for some time to come. When we are dealing with areas—particularly Highland areas—which are sparsely populated, we have as taxpayers to bear things which we should not undertake as commercial 104 propositions, and, on the whole, we think that the expenditure on the Caledonian Canal is reasonable. With few exceptions the only time when, as far as I can gather, any anti-Labour Government has nationalised anything has been when it was losing money, and the only time when they have refused to nationalise has been when there was money to be made out of it. I refer to that only as a matter of historical interest. I consider that the maintenance of the Caledonian Canal is of interest and importance in connection with the services of Scotland. I have tried to give all possible information in response to the points that have been raised, and I hope that the Committee will now give me the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I was astonished to hear the deprecating reference which the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport made in his opening remarks to the Caledonian Canal. In his second speech he did something to take the bitter taste out of the mouths of people who admire the canal, but there is not the least doubt that in his opening remarks he spoke of the canal in the most disrespectful way. Though the canal, as he said, might not be remunerative, it is one of Scotland's great national assets. It is a highway of unrivalled beauty from one end of Scotland to the other, and it is a matter of astonishment to me to hear an hon. Gentleman who bears a Scottish name refer to it in the terms in which he did. It is an unusual thing to hear a Scotsman decry any of the natural beauties of his native country.
I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the best possible legal advice with regard to the accident which he described at Banavie last year, when a drifter charged through the lock gates and appeared not to be liable for the damage that occurred. I am not at all sure that he is right in saying that the owner of the drifter is not liable. The owner of a sea-going vessel in a sea-way is liable only for damage up to £8 per gross registered ton, but does that apply to inland waters? A barge on a canal is liable for the full amount of the damage which it does. This drifter commenced her career of destruction in canal waters above Banavie, although she may have finished 105 it in the tidal waters of the loch. If the destruction commenced in inland waters, it seems to me that it is possible that the owners of the vessel were liable for the damage. Perhaps the Attorney-General will enlighten the Committee as to whether there is anything in the argument which I have advanced in the endeavour to save money for the taxpayers in general, and the Minister of Transport in particular.
I must enter a vigorous protest against money being spent on the Channel tunnel in the way suggested in Sub-head C. Not long ago I attended a deputation to the Minister of Transport with regard to the Humber tunnel, and he promised that investigations should be made. There is nothing in this Estimate about investigations for the Humber tunnel; it is confined to the less important undertaking known as the Channel tunnel. A really important undertaking like the Humber tunnel is left to wait for some future Estimate. With regard to the investigations of the Severn Barrage, is the model which is mentioned in this Estimate on show, and could the Minister allow Members of the Committee to inspect it? Further, can he tell me whether the model shows to any extent the effect which the barrage will have on the tides of the Severn, and is it likely to influence in any way the silt in the lower reaches of the river? On the lower reaches are one or two important tidal harbours—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman must keep to the point.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
May I not refer to the effect which this barrage is likely to have?

§ The CHAIRMAN
When the discussion on the barrage comes on, it will be time to do that.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I will then not enlarge on that question. As the Minister admitted that part of Subhead A was his own salary—

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
It is not for my salary; my salary is safe anyway.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I am very glad to hear that, when we consider the efficient way in which the hon. Gentleman performs his duties, and the courteous replies which he gives to all Members, 106 even when they make mistakes, as I have unfortunately done. It is the Parliamentary Secretary's salary which is in question under that Sub-head, and as there was no Parliamentary Secretary when the original Estimate was introduced, and it seems to me that that is a new service, I should like to say one or two words on the policy of the Government which has actuated that appointment. It shows more than anything else that it requires two Socialist Ministers to do the work which has hitherto been done by one Conservative, and it shows, what everybody who studies the question knew, how Government expenditure would increase directly a Socialist Government came into power. I admit the great efficiency of the Minister of Transport in the last Government, but it shows up the state of affairs on the other side when it takes twice the number of men to do the work. The hon. Gentleman said that he worked very hard and that he liked it, and it only accentuates the state of affairs when the Government have to appoint two of these hard, energetic workers to do the work of one hard, energetic worker in the last Government.
Again under Sub-head A, this additional expenditure is required to deal with measures for the relief of unemployment. There, again, everybody knew that unemployment would increase under a Socialist Government, and that consequently additional expenditure and measures would be required to deal with it. I think that I have said all I have to say—[Interruption.] If hon. Members on the back Benches have not quite understood the force of my arguments, and if they want me to say it all over again, I shall be only too glad to oblige them.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to say it all over again.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I do not want to prevent the hon. Gentleman from getting his vote, but I want to express my surprise and regret that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not been on the Bench during the discussion. It used to be the custom, whenever a Supplementary Estimate was under discussion, for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be there in order to explain those financial points with which the Minister is very often not familiar. To-day, a first-class financial point has arisen during the dis- 107 cussion of this Vote. I do not know how far it is in order to discuss this Appropriation-in-Aid. I gather not very far, but we want an explanation as to how a sum of £12,760 drawn from the Road Fund finds its way into this particular Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury might explain it to us. Had this represented the growth of the Appropriation-in-Aid—increase in fees and so on—it would have been in order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss Appropriation-in-Aid. The total amount asked for is reduced by the Appropriation-in-Aid. The discussion of the total amount is in order.

Sir H. YOUNG
On this particular Vote, when we are dealing with an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Road Fund, the amount of the Appropriation-in-Aid actually depends upon the amount of expenditure; the two are linked together, and the one is proportionate to the other. Therefore, I venture to invite your Ruling whether, in these circumstances, it is possible to make an arbitrary distinction in the discussion between the expenditure and the Appropriation-in-Aid?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Appropriations-in-Aid cannot be discussed nor can the question of savings which may go to make up an Appropriation-in-Aid be discussed. All that we can discuss is the fact that the Government have asked for a larger amount than was stated in the original Estimate. That larger amount, and questions regarding what savings the Appropriations-in-Aid are made up of, are in order.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Does that mean that I may not ask the Secretary to the Treasury how it comes about that this sum of money has been allocated by the Treasury to be taken out of the Road Fund? That is the real point which is worrying us. The hon. Gentleman said that schemes may be held up by pure finance. They are not upheld by impure finance; bad things happen to a country where that is allowed. I must express my astonishment that the Treasury has allowed this to be done and—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman must raise that on the Treasury Vote.

§ Mr. JONES
I shall take the first opportunity on the Treasury Vote to raise that matter with some severity, and a great deal of surprise, astonishment and indignation.