HC Deb 17 December 1935 vol 307 cc1589-98

Order for Third Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This Bill was before the House so recently, and has been discussed so fully at various stages, that I need not weary the House with any long speech on the present occasion. Further, the Bill has been received with a degree of unanimity which encourages me to think that hon. Members opposite regard it with as much favour as they could bestow upon any financial project emanating from these benches. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to give effect to their part of the agreement which they have made. The agreement, until the Bill becomes law, is, of course, provisional upon Parliament assenting to the Government agreeing as is set out in the Schedule. There are scheduled in the agreement the various works which it is proposed should by means of the agreement get the credit facilities for which the Bill provides.

The only major point of which I ought to remind the House is that the Government are satisfied, with regard to the general character of the works, that they are works which the railway companies would not normally put in hand at this time were it not for the assistance by way of credit which is afforded by this arrangement. They are altogether additional works, that is works which are additional to the normal programme of renewals and replacements which the railway companies would carry out. As regards these works I ought to remind the House that before the railway companies can carry out all the works in the Schedule they will have to come to Parliament again with a private Bill to get the necessary statutory powers. So that all that is being done at this stage is to enable the agreement to be carried through by the Government.

As regards the finance of the Bill, the main point is the creation of a Finance Company to enable Government credit to be put at the disposal of the railway companies for the purpose of carrying out the agreed works. This device of a Finance Company has now passed the new and experimental stage, because we have had experience of it working satisfactorily under a similar arrangement for London Passenger Transport. The device is one, therefore, which we can recommend to the House as likely to succeed in effecting its purpose.

During the discussions which have taken place at earlier stages of the Bill hon. Members from all parts of the House have raised many points, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have done our best to answer satisfactorily the points of substance which were put forward. We cannot, of course, cherish the hope that we have answered all those questions to the satisfaction of hon. Members; that would be too much to expect. But I think I can say that we have done our best to disclose our minds fully as to what we are trying to do, and why this particular method of carrying out our purpose has been adopted. With these words I commend the scheme embodied in the Bill as a practical and sane use of public credit to further certain purposes which are in the public interest. We believe that this scheme will make an important contribution to employment, to the safety and convenience of the travelling public, and also be in the interest of traders in securing for them a greater degree of swift and safe transport for their goods.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his short remarks made the statement that a certain amount of the work which is to be done by the railway companies would not have been done but for the financial arrangement between the railway companies and the Government. Of course that is a matter of opinion. We believe that the Government ought to have examined the question more closely and ought to have satisfied themselves that this work is not an accumulation of arrears of work over a period of years, work which ought to have been done with the ordinary finances of the railway companies. I shall not go into that matter at length, but I should have thought that in view of the large amount of money which the Government is to find for the railway companies the Government would have satisfied themselves upon that point, that is, that the work which is to be done is new work and not work which ought to have been done out of the current finances of the railway companies.

I am not going to debate the question of the financial agreement, which has been discussed sufficiently already. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday was very kind in trying to satisfy my hon. Friends on this side of the House who asked questions. I believe my hon. Friends were generally satisfied, but there is one point which I would stress. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again whether the work is something which ought to have been done in the past by the railway companies. I shall come back to that subject on the Schedule. I am of opinion that a large amount of the work which is now to be done, or a proportion of it, ought to have been done a long time ago. Mention has been made of the Wirral railway. I have known that railway for the last 40 years. It was for a long time a kind of ramshackle affair. It is a railway which is helping to open out a large holiday resort, and it is now to be electrified. It has been known for many years in West Kirby and Hoylake that it would be electrified, and that there would be better communications with Liverpool and Chester than those which now exist. It has taken the company all these years to decide to do anything. I am wondering whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has satisfied himself that the railway companies are not now asking for money to do something which they ought to have done long ago.

The work mentioned in the Schedule is all right, but I am not sure whether the Government ought not to have taken a much wider view, a view which would bring about a greater unification of the three principal transport services. We are all being driven to the conclusion that sooner or later the Government will have to consider the co-ordination and unification of the whole system of transport in the interests of the country as a whole. This Bill does not enable that to be done. The work mentioned in the Schedule could have been greatly extended if there had been a greater supply of money by the Government. I am not one of those who harp about the Government finding money in a matter of this kind, because I look upon transport not altogether as private enterprise, though it is in the hands of private enterprise, but as something which is essential to the well-being and fuller development of our country. If the Government had been prepared to find a greater amount of money a wider scheme could have been undertaken in the interests of the railways and the travelling public.

Much has been said about the favourable conditions in the money market. We have cheap money, we have work which requires to be done and we have many people unemployed. Is this not a time for a greater development. I am sure, from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few days ago respecting the favourable condition of the money market, that we shall not have another opportunity of this kind to get money so cheaply. Much work requires to be done apart from what is being done on the railways. Let me quote a few words from the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking on the question of finding employment, and he said: As far as this project is concerned, it is a response to an appeal male to the Government very often—and not from one one side of the House alone—that if the credit of the Government can be advantageously and safely used to promote an enterprise which is going to develop the resources of the country, give better conditions and employment to a large number of people, that they should not hesitate to do so. I commend the project to the House not only because it is a response to that appeal, but also because it is a provision for the comparatively near future—and that is a consideration which should be borne in mind. I quite agree with that statement. But of course we are confining this effort to one direction, to the railways. There ought to be opportunities for wider development, for better conditions for our people, for finding employment which would give them at least opportunities which they have not got at the moment, and which would provide work that, like that on the railways, would when completed be an asset to the nation as a whole. If large advances to private enterprise are to be made by the Government there ought to be Government representation on the bodies which spend the money. It seems to have been part of the Government's policy during the last few years to provide subsidies, quotas and grants to private enterprise, but we have never found, side by side with those subsidies, provision for representation of the Government. There has been much debate on the question and I do not intend to go into the details again.

Let me pass to what is contained in the First and Second Schedules. On the question of these works replacing housing as a means of providing employment, let me answer one or two of the points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some months ago the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with spending money on unemployment works or works which would facilitate employment. In other words he did not believe that public works would relieve or solve the unemployment problem. I agree that they are not going to solve the problem, but I do believe that they would relieve it to a certain extent. In that same Debate to which I have referred the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: Hon. Members on more than one occasion have said that we shall have to consider in the not too distant future a condition of affairs when the building industry will begin to slacken off, and when the great amount of employment which is brought about by the activities of this industry will therefore slacken, and that we shall have to think of something to take its place. Here is something which will take its place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1935; col. 1290, Vol. 307.] I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will this work absorb those people who are now working on housing estates? Will the two kinds of work fit in, one with the other? In the development of railways there will be no need for joiners and house builders. The labour required will be of a different class. In my opinion while housing development is on the decline these developments on the railways will not absorb the workers now engaged in building, or it will do so only to a limited extent. It will be largely work for general labourers, but it will not absorb the tradespeople now employed on the building of houses. Other forms of development must be considered. I do not find in the Schedule a mention of one single level crossing which is to be abolished. Every one will agree that the level crossings of this country are most inconvenient and dangerous. They are responsible for a large number of accidents, and they are certainly responsible for much loss of temper, and of conflict between motorists and drivers and the police. The sooner the Government or the Minister of Transport decides that the level crossings of the country must be cleared away the better. It will be a good thing for the country, it will save many lives, it will expedite the transport services along the roads and therefore will be in the interest of the community as a whole.

Special provision is made in the agreement for material to be purchased in the special areas and for the payment of fair wages. The Chancellor was asked yesterday what was meant by getting material from the special areas. There are many special areas which cannot supply material, and probably within a very short time of these developments taking place they will pass out of the category of special areas on account of the work that has been provided. There is something in Schedule I, Part I, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into consideration—reconstruction and enlargement of important stations including Banbury, Exeter, Llanelly, Oxford and others. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what is taking place at Llanelly. There is a very old station there. I understand that they are going to do away with it and to widen the lines, having four tracks instead of two. Just outside the station is a level crossing. There is a lot of difficulty as to what ought to be done and the matter has been under consideration by the corporation and the Great Western Railway Company. Ever since about 1928 the matter has been hanging over, and nothing has been done. The company had promised to a certain extent that it would be prepared to undertake the expense of constructing a bridge.

The suggestion in the past was that the railway company should bear the cost of the bridge while the local authority would bear the cost of the approaches thereto, subject to a Government grant from the Road Fund or the Ministry of Transport; but now they are disclaiming any responsibility for the construction of the bridge. The company are intent upon placing the whole responsibility for the bridge upon the corporation. Not only will it mean the expense of building the bridge but it will mean the abolition of a fair amount of property, which may or may not be valuable. If the corporation has to undertake this expense, in order that the company may build a new station and widen their lines, I think some of the money for making provision for the crossing of the railway ought to come out of this scheme. We are informed that the company did not contemplate bearing any proportion of the cost, their responsibility being limited entirely to the construction of their railway lines and station building, leaving to the local authority the expense of the bridges and approach roads subject to financial assistance to be secured from the Ministry of Transport. It is a very unfair position in which to place the corporation, simply because the station is out of date and the line wants widening. Now that some alteration has to be made, they are claiming that they should not bear the expense out of the money that is being voted in this Bill. I want the right hon. Gentleman to make some inquiries on the point, because it is a matter that ought to be dealt with.

I want to ask a question with regard to the West Kirby and Liverpool Railway. It runs from Liverpool, or Birkenhead, or New Brighton to Chester. I should like to know whether there is to be continuous electrification to Chester or if it is to terminate at West Kirby? The area is developing at a rapid rate. There is an item for the construction of 360 locomotives. This looks a formidable amount to be required at one time, unless they have been scamping during the last three years. I do not think any railway could need all these locomotives at once unless they have been running short or have been delaying repairs and building for a considerable time. The London Midland and Scottish Company has big engineering works at Horwich. They built locomotives there for a long number of years, but for the last few years they have been doing nothing there more than repair work, with the result that the numbers employed have dropped from 4,500 to 2,500. Have the Government had any promise from the company that they are going to do some of the building of the new locomotives at those works, thereby bringing back the prosperity which the town has lost? Blackrod, which is almost dependent on Horwich, is almost derelict. If something could be done in this direction it would help very considerably, because the central part of Lancashire, from Horwich to Wigan, is a very depressed area indeed.

The hon. Member for Anglesea (Miss Lloyd George) raised the question of the construction of 270 new carriages last night. The company has very up-to-date works at Wolverton and also has works at Earlstown in Lancashire. I should like to know if any of this work is to be diverted to Earlstown with a view to helping that area. I notice that at the annual dinner of the company at Black-pool on Saturday the passenger manager of the company made an astonishing statement. He said that, as the result of this Bill, they would be able to put 1,000 new carriages on the line by the end of June. There is a great difference between 270 carriages and 1,000. It is a newspaper report and I accept it for what it is worth, but it cuts directly across the Schedule that we have before us. I think the London Midland and Scottish Railway might have done something towards electrification from Manchester to Blackpool and other places where they are carrying 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 passengers a year and, if they are improving stations, they might have done something for Wigan. There are two stations there not 200 yards apart, and any one coming from the South and going on to Bolton or Southport has to go out of the station and cross the road. The company might take the opportunity of remodelling the station and finding a certain amount of work for the unemployed.

The question of redundancy was raised last night, and I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the fair manner in which he met the question. I think my hon. Friend who raised it will be perfectly satisfied with the answer. The Minister of Transport stated that, when changes of this kind have been made, the company has never discharged redundant people, but has kept them on until the time came when they could be absorbed in some other part of the works. In the development of the transport services that is one of the things that we must not forget. The services are interlinked and tied together in such a way that you cannot separate them. Road transport is interlinked with the railways, and the railways with road transport. I should say that the railway companies hold nearly as much money as any other party in the road transport business. I believe that the nationalisation of the whole of the transport services will come much sooner than the Government imagine. We cannot get away from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) stated that this was the Government's policy nearly 20 years ago, and we cannot forget that the Colonial Secretary was all in favour of nationalisation, though that was before he left the straight path and before his vision was blurred, and when he could see the true line of progress. Changes have come since then. The light is now coloured. On the railways we have many coloured lights. His sight may not be as clear as it was before he parted company with what he used proudly to call the "gallant band of railway workers."

I should like the Government to take a wider outlook altogether. To do a little something for one railway will not carry the country very far. If the Government want to do something really big for the country, there is a big problem here awaiting solution. We believe in the principle of nationalisation, and that where large sums of Government money are granted we ought to have representation in the interests of the Government. We also believe that workers who become redundant through alterations or the institution of new methods ought to be compensated. As transport is so essential to the strength and well being of the nation, it should, as soon as possible, come under the Government as a nationalised service.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS

The easy passage which this Bill has had in its earlier stages, and the prospect it apparently has of being read the Third time without a Division, appears to be somewhat significant. However much hon. Members of the Labour party may cling to outworn Socialist theories, and however much some Members of the Conservative party may continue to object to any Government intervention in private enterprise, it is evident that there is a growing tendency for combinations between the State and private enterprise in the control of some of our great industries. No doubt, in some cases, this will lead to the evolution of entirely new forms, as, for example, is the case with regard to the London passenger transport. In every case it will result in the strengthening and development of existing arrangements. The tendency is very marked, and I believe that it is one which has very widespread public support.

This Bill provides that State credit shall be used for the benefit of certain private enterprises. But that is not the whole story. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised the fact that the railway companies are statutory bodies, that is to say, that they have certain special privileges and liabilities placed upon them by Statute. He has told us that the fact that they are statutory bodies has induced him to bring in this Bill. I hope very much that this combination of State control and assistance with direct management by private enterprise will continue to be the method employed by us in the conduct of our great railway systems for many years to come. Apart from that somewhat wider issue, the objects which this Bill has in view are such as commend themselves to all quarters of the House.

It has been pointed out that the chance of any charge on the public funds is in fact negligible, and, on the other hand, that the benefits that will accrue from the Bill will be immediate, the efficiency of the railway systems will be increased, the travelling public will reap the benefit in important facilities for passenger and other goods transport, certain industries which will carry out the work described in the Bill will thereby be assisted, and very many men at present unemployed will secure employment. The more I study the Bill, and the more I listen to speeches made about it from all quarters of the House, the more I hope that other somewhat similar schemes may be laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and be so fortunate as to gain his approval. I support the Bill for itself and also in the hope that it will prove the first instalment of this method of giving to industry direct access to the exceptional terms on which at present the Government can borrow money.