TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

HC Deb 17 November 1937 vol 329 cc479-540

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Simpson

I beg to move, That, realising that the present competitive system in transport has failed to provide satisfactory facilities and involves serious waste, and in view also of the part which transport must play in a proper planning of the nation's economic life, this House is of opinion that co-ordination of transport is essential, and that complete co-ordination can only be secured through unified public ownership. This Motion raises what is, essentially and traditionally, a Parliamentary subject. The earliest Parliamentary history has been concerned with transport in its elementary forms, and the evolution of transport has meant the creation of an arterial system, increasingly complex, on the maintenance and reciprocal strength of which the industrial health and the very existence of the modern community depend. In a Parliamentary Report of 1808 we read: Next to the general influences of the seasons upon which the regular supply of our wants and many of our comforts depends there is perhaps no circumstance more interesting to man than the perfections of the means of internal communication. Those were, indeed, wise words, but like so many other injunctions, they were soon neglected or overborne by clamant sectional interests. Evidence of this was all too soon to be forthcoming, when the steam engine arrived—described as the greatest impulse to civilisation of any single cause since the gates of knowledge opened to the human species at large. The steam engine and the railway systems of this country are still the dominating power in transport, in despite of the amazing progress of subsequent alternatives. I have had the privilege of some personal experience in the realm of transport, and I hope that in this House some knowledge of the subject may not be regarded as a disqualification. At any rate, it saves me from induging in wild and uninformed animadversions upon existing railway management as such. I have no hesitation in claiming that the British railway administration is as good as and, in many respects, possibly, better than any other in the world. We are familiar with outstanding personalities of deservedly national eminence at the head of various transport organisations in this country, and behind these, the possibly less known but no less able administrators and technicians and supporting staffs whose skill and reliability are possibly the best guarantee that, harnessed to this greater task, they are equal to its admittedly heavy claims.

My submissions are based on national considerations, although I am not unmindful of the working conditions and status of those who serve the country in these vital capacities, and who, together with their dependants, must number something like 3,000,000 of our population. I was familiar with service conditions when they were infinitely worse than they are to-day, and, contrary to many arguments advanced in old and recent times, the regular character of the employment even under those conditions proved a great social asset and made for a discipline and efficiency advantageous to employés and their calling alike. That is not to say that there is not a very sorry history, from the workers' point of view, in regard to railway development. But the victims of those times are now beyond the pale of redress and complaining and their troubles have gone with them into a buried if not a forgotten past. In other realms of railway history, however, the evil that men have done has lived after them in many respects of which we have evidence in the burden of present liabilities—a penalising proof of rapacity and crazy competition and an anti-social consequence of almost unbelievable proportions. The mushroom growth of the railways of this country, and the unprecedented speculation that has been associated therewith have left us a legacy of misfortune which is the central feature of our present problem. The chaotic and ill-directed paths of our railways remain the permanent monuments of that early folly.

I cannot to-night develop this black picture in full, but in a sentence I can say that in so far as railway progress in this country has been in the public interest, it has followed, however tardily, the principle adumbrated in this Motion. Various and conflicting transport policies have been vigorously debated in this House from time to time, and it is interesting to note that in the very earliest years, George Hudson, that tragic and extraordinary figure in railway history, the protagonist of private enterprise, described by Carlyle as the "big swollen gambler," was Member for Sunderland. It is also interesting to note that one of the most successful advocates of State control was the Member for Ipswich, James Morrison, who was regarded as a much more sagacious and dependable person than the advocate of private enter- prise in those days. In all the reports and inquiries of those times, the establishment of permanent and effective controlling boards by the State was advised, and this process culminated in the well-known Act of Mr. Gladstone in 1844 providing for modified State purchase of the railways. It is unfortunate but true that the recommendations on which that Measure was based were whittled down and the Bill was substantially weakened before it became an Act, the Government succumbing, as usual, to pressure from financial interests to the detriment of the national purpose of the Measure.

It is true, of course, that the railway pioneers, like all pioneers, made mistakes, but it may be said that the largely negative attitude of British Governments to the railways is in strange contrast to the positive attitude adopted abroad, with its logical sequence of State ownership. In those early days, I suppose, they had many other problems to deal with, but the amount of Parliamentary time devoted to private railway Bills was enormous. In the two years 1846 and 1847 no fewer than 116 committees sat for 1,502 Parliamentary days, during which time 466 railway Acts were passed. Even in those days some of those Acts were for amalgamations giving evidence of the weaknesses of early private ventures. These figures are of special importance as giving a clue to the colossal sums, variously estimated as representing the cost of these various applications and contests. Certain it is that a huge slice of existing railway capital consists of legal, Parliamentary and other extortions—a record of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once described as "scandalous pillage" the liability for which the present generation is expected to shoulder. The weight of that early and unjustifiable debt has necessarily hampered the treatment of obsolescence, and has delayed the initiation and integration of transport improvements and inventions such as the motor and electricity. It has been a great drawback to real transport advance in this country. It is true that the railways have suffered under certain statutory limitations, but the combination of those factors has impeded technical and economic advances which would have been of great advantage to the country as a whole.

I have no time to enter into the vexed question of watered stock and other current handicaps under which the present systems suffer. But under pressure of necessity, which is, after all, a poor substitute for intelligent government, the number of railway companies has been reduced from about 1,000 to the four principal companies with which we are familiar to-day. Obviously, the next step should be the welding together of the existing rail systems, eliminating waste and overlapping and securing standardisation in essentials, without stultification of means and methods of progressive service. Before the advent of road motor competition, the railways were subject to very little challenge except from the canals and coastal services. The canal systems have fallen into such abject oblivion in these days of speed fetish, that I am afraid their importance is largely overlooked. We have in this country, roughly, 4,000 miles of canals and navigable waterways, but they are not in very fit or efficient condition. With about one-third of the canals owned by railways which are interested in eliminating rather than developing parallel services, the country is largely deprived of the most economical form of heavy traffic transport, which has been exploited to the full by Continental countries. The canals, if modernised and worked in conjunction with road and coastal services, would provide a vast and useful field for relieving fast transit routes from congestion and providing correspondingly low freight charges for commodities which do not require quick transport.

Again, in a country like our own one would have imagined that we would have utilised our sea-board to the greatest advantage. The facts are, however, that the coastal services have made little or no advance in proportion to the vastly increased transport demands. We have a coastal fleet of approximately 1,300 vessels, excluding sailers, of which 300 are liners, the remainder being coastal tramps. I submit that the conditions in this coastal service are anything but creditable to the present age in regard to equipment and staff in particular. These services are subject to-day, I understand, to very undesirable forms of foreign competition which undercut British standards, for what the latter are worth. They naturally link up with rail, canal and harbour concerns, and in the latter connection we find that of 330 harbours, one-third are already under the control of public trusts, and of 10 leading ports the railways control three. Here, again, are obvious and desirable contacts that should be co-ordinated in order to secure efficiency and meet the varying needs of industry in this country.

There is another form of transport, not mentioned in the Motion, namely, the air arm, which already has Government intervention, and for effective co-operation and commercial advantage this should be organically associated with road and rail services. In referring to Government intervention and action in this matter, I do not, of course, refer to the kind of Government intervention that has been dealt with in such devastating fashion by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) this evening, and many of his criticisms might be usefully interpolated in what I have to say.

For the sake of convenience, I have left the major and most urgent factor in the problem, the advent of road motor transport competition, to the last. It has been said that British railways were built for eternity and that nobody had the foresight to think that any challenge would arise in such phenomenal fashion as to provide us with the problems which road motor service has left us to deal with at the moment. The history of road motor development has been less blameworthy, possibly, than the railway ramp; nevertheless, the early negative attitude of the Government has allowed a network of vested interests to take root, leaving us as usual to deal with damaging effects instead of dealing constructively with the causes which are responsible for them. There was special justification for Government interest and intervention in regard to the road services inasmuch as this new competitor to the rail was flagrantly exploiting public roads, at public expense, for private profit.

I cannot to-night analyse the economics of road and rail services, but it is clear that the rate advantages that have accrued have been largely subsidised at the public cost, at the expense of other transport users, or at the expense of road staffs. The invasion of public highways by heavy, unsuitable, unnecessary, competitive traffic is not only a crying scandal to-day, but definitely a public menace. Pedestrians and cyclists especially have been victims. Fatal and other accidents on our roads to-day amount annually in casualties to the total of a nineteenth century war, and during the short span of this Debate on transport to-night on October figures no fewer than three or four people will have been killed on our roads and 100 injured. I am not pretending that the introduction of competitive road transport is entirely responsible for these figures, but they are sufficiently appalling to justify mention in this Debate. There is no responsible person, I am sure, who would desire to obstruct any proper advance in transport amenities, but without the control that is asked for in the Motion the community is robbed of the real and net advantages of this new form of transport.

It seems to me that the demands on transport will progressively increase, and to mention only the one factor the impending holidays with pay to millions of workers in this country, the existing resources in holiday periods are taxed to the uttermost, and before these new holiday demands arise some effort at spreading and planning would seem to be absolutely necessary to give even the best transport organisation a chance. But even under existing conditions there is a very urgent need for additional equipment of all kinds, or during those holiday periods transport work will be a nightmare for the railway staffs, and, so far as many holiday makers are concerned, it will be merely a change from one form of discomfort and worry to another. Similarly, the outrageous conditions obtaining to-day, in which millions of people have to travel to and from their homes in this and other great cities, urgently call for improvement.

I am appreciative of the fact that in some directions the railways have indulged in enterprise that one is loth to condemn as an effort at improvement. We have, for instance, the spectacular streamlined luxury trains which are keeping railways in the news at the moment. But these aristocracies of travel under existing conditions can only be created with unfortunate repercussions on the many ordinary travellers and intermediate services, and they throw into vivid contrast the antiquated stock and services for the multitude. But in spite of the predilection of this Government and previous Governments for private enterprise, the facts are that they have been compelled largely to institute a monopoly for road transport at the present time, and what remains of competition in the realm of transport is largely a struggle between road and rail. It is true that the battles at the licensing courts are nothing but a financial bagatelle as compared with the struggles for powers in days gone by; nevertheless, they represent a very considerable amount of cost and waste for which the public ultimately have to pay. All these conflicts add nothing to public convenience, and duplications and fighting costs have finally to be borne by the people who use the service. It is obvious, therefore, that a scientific and rationalised system of co-ordinated control is far more necessary to-day than when these principles were clearly set out 100 years ago. Experience has amply proved the claims of the early pioneers for State control and management, and every increase in transport has accentuated the argument for that change. Population has increased enormously, and so have the trade and commerce of this country, and again in that proportion the change is more necessary.

There are one or two wider considerations to which I would like to refer. In these days of military strategic needs, these facts and considerations cannot be overlooked in regard to our transport services, and they have always influenced the attitude of foreign Governments. What possibly are of greater importance are the strategic needs of industry, for which this reform is urgently required. The basic industries of competitive countries have always been related to their transport policy. We have a Government to-day that is always tinkering with subsidies and artificial assistances, all in the direction of increasing prices, and I submit that in this proposal there is ready to hand a remedy of assistance to our basic industries by means of co-operation which will represent economies of a useful kind and provide a reduction of costs for everybody concerned.

I have time to give only one illustration of the reactions of imperfect and inadequate transport services in the realm of labour and industrial life. Early this year at one pit, for instance, 800 miners refused to go down owing to the shortage of railway wagons. The dislocation and lack of service had necessitated short-time working, which meant that the miners were able to earn only £1 a week, and in those circumstances they were deprived of unemployment benefit, making those working miners worse off than if they were on relief. Examples of that kind could be multiplied, and I only give that as a specific instance.

Furthermore, it is now accepted, I think, even by a Conservative Government, that basic industries such as agriculture, mining, and electricity must all come within the ambit of Government influence and control in some fashion. The establishment of a national transport service would dovetail into these fundamental schemes enabling a Government really to get to grips with location of industry and assume some control of our social destiny. In conjunction with this and other planning of a similar kind, given the application of this remedy that I propose, a framework at least of an ordered State would be in sight and something more than economic patchwork and alleviation made possible. There is no need, and I have no time, to cite foreign or Empire examples for the purposes of this argument. Chairmen of railway companies, economists, and business men of high repute have all urged the merits of this proposal on broad lines. It is true that the concepts and emphasis have varied in character, and indeed the Amendment which stands on the Paper is really flattery by imitation. The only reservation in the opinions to which I have referred has generally been that control should be free from wanton, mischievous, political interference.

I must leave my hon. Friends to develop the administrative and financial sides of this proposal. I only want to add, in conclusion, that whatever ideas may have existed as to managing industry from some attic in Whitehall, they are not the conceptions contained in my Motion. If those ideas existed at all, they must have been the natural ante-thesis to the conclusion that the industrial future and fortunes of this country could be safely left to directors in bath chairs and masterly Government inactivity. We may all be reluctant to accept new theories, but at least let us learn from history and from compelling circumstances, and let us recognise the existence of ripened processes that we have been indifferent otherwise to discover. The proposition that I have tabled is no simple one, but it is by no means beyond the genius and capacity available, freed from the trammels of the existing systems and stimulated by a worthy and urgent national objective.

It is, perhaps, a rather melancholy reflection, and evidence of slow-footed hope, which the Amendment would still further defer, that with the slightest of paraphrase one can fittingly conclude with a peroration which Mr. Gladstone used, after a two-hours' speech, by the way, in 1844, in his Second Reading speech on his Bill. He said: I contend that this Measure, so far from being a Measure of violence, is characterised by the utmost moderation, and feeling that we have right and justice on our side, I say-that, although private interests are powerful, I do not think they have mounted so high, or that Parliament has yet sunk so low, as that at their bidding you will refuse to sanction this Motion.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Watkins

I beg to second the Motion.

I am gratified that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is present this evening. He is the Member of Parliament for North Hackney, I am the Member for Central Hackney, and we all know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and I hope there will be enough right thinking on transport from the two Hackney constituencies other than the Parliamentary Secretary's to flow over and convert him to this proposal. We are offering the House this Motion, not merely because it is in harmony with the political philosophy of Members on these benches, but because it is an example of good business organisation. It would be an undoubted advantage to the people of Great Britain to secure the co-ordination of transport under public ownership, and it is tremendously important that this nation should have the best possible form, system, and organisation of transport. I suppose there is no other single factor that has made so large a contribution to civilisation and progress as has transport, and it is an old saying of mine that the world stood still for 2,000 years while there was no improvement in transport. Napoleon could only move his armies about Europe at the same speed and for the same distance as Caesar 2,000 years previously.

During that time transport had remained unchanged. Then came the steam locomotive, and the development and progress in civilisation have roughly been contemporary with the existence in transport of steam locomotion. An interesting little pamphlet was recently written by G. B. Lissenden entitled "The Civilising Influence of Transport." The foreword was written by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The writer of the pamphlet clearly sets forth what an enormous part transport has played in lifting the general level of civilisation. One of the most delightful essays that has been written in our language is that of De Quincey in which he described his experience when he sat on a stage coach that took the news of the victory of Waterloo in 1815 from London to the city of Bath. It took then a considerable time for that information to go what to us is now an exceedingly short distance. News now goes like a flash. A fair idea of the improvement that has occurred in transport and communications can be gained by contrasting 1815 with 1937. The improvement began with the coming of the steam locomotive. It was increased when Gustav Daimler and Otto Benz, working independently, hit on the idea of the internal combustion engine.

To-day we have all the engineering requirements of a really excellent transport system. We have the railways. Their early history, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, was characterised by some terrible mistakes. One of the worst was when they made the gauge of the railways 4 ft. 8½ inches instead of 6 ft. as Brunel had arranged, and Brunei had to alter his gauge to the far inferior gauge of to-day. There were any number of financial mistakes. Large sums of money were spent most improvidently in compensating landlords, in huge litigation fees, and in all sorts of wasteful expenditure. The importance of that is that the errors of a century or 80 years ago have been built into the existing transport system. The railways, in particular, are struggling with a weight of debt that is far larger than it ought to be to run the undertakings efficiently, while the workers are expected to earn dividends on money that was collected and spent in that wasteful way years ago. I recently came across an old book published in 1879 which described the life of a railway stationmaster and detailed his experiences previous to that year. One could see from the plain and interesting story which he told what a vast number of mistakes were made in railway management in those old days.

We have the railways and the roads available now for transport facilities, and to them has been added the air. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will agree with me, but I have always felt that civil aviation ought to come under his Department as a branch of the transport services instead of under the Air Ministry. There has been some coordination in the realm of transport. There was the Railways Act of 1921, which reduced the 100 or so undertakings to four great organisations. There have been the pooling arrangements whereby the companies agree to pool the receipts from traffic conveyed between points in which they are mutually interested. There have been working agreements between the railway companies and road undertakings and some rudimentary and fragmentary form of co-ordination of services. There was the Road Traffic Act of 1930, passed by a Labour Government, which makes for intelligent organisation on the road, and is steadily but rather slowly systematising the arrangements for road motor traffic. That Act left the ownership question untouched. Ownership is mixed. There has been practically no co-ordination or organisation in goods motor traffic. Then the local authorities have wisely organised passenger traffic inside their own boundaries. Most of them are doing it exceptionally well, and the undertakings are of great use to the citizens for whom they cater.

In spite of these rudimentary and first beginings in organisation and co-ordination, very little has been done. If we compare, for instance, transport with the General Post Office, we see what an enormous contrast it is. In the Post Office there is the postal, telephone, and telegraph services, and they are coordinated and interlocked. We can send a telegram over the telephone, and it can be delivered by the postal authorities as a letter would be. All three services have been combined in one unit of operation by the Post Office. It would be absurd, and no one would defend it for a moment to have postal arrangements in which there were four different pillar boxes at each street corner and four competing post offices in the main roads of our cities. Everyone realises that that would be the height of absurdity. It is equally absurd to have the railways split into four separate organisations. I know that some of the competition between them has disappeared and that there are working arrangements, but still there are four separate undertakings with separate capital, and separate boards of directors, and even now there is some competition between them for traffic.

We suggest that it would be good business for the nation if the whole of these transport facilities were operated as a unit, and for there to be established a National Transport Board which should be charged with the responsibility of organising and co-ordinating all forms of transport—road, rail, canal, coastwise shipping and air—in order that the utmost contribution from each one for transport services could be procured. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) spoke about the absurdity of transport being organised from an "attic in Whitehall." No one believes in that kind of administration. We desire a transport board which should be composed of the best transport minds in the country, men with a public spirited outlook, which should endeavour to serve the community to the utmost of the needs of the community. Sometimes we are taunted by hon. Members on the other side with desiring confiscation. They ought to know by this time that we desire nothing of the kind. Our proposal is that these undertakings should be taken over on reasonable and fair compensation. There ought to be no question on that point in 1937. My hon. Friend made some play with what Mr. Gladstone said in 1844. We have often heard the question asked as to what he did say in 1844. What he said in legislation in that year was: It shall be lawful for the Lords Commissioners to purchase any such railways upon giving to the said company three calendar months notice in writing of their intention and upon payment of a sum equal to 25 years purchase of the annual divisible profits estimated on the average of the three then next preceding years. I do not suggest that that particular form of words should be the basis of compen- sation, but I say that the way to discover the value of the railways is to discover their profit-earning capacity and multiply that by a given and agreed number of years. On those terms compensation could be given. There are some people to-day who, in the light of more recent developments, are tempted to decry the part which the railway industry plays in transport. They talk about the railways as being down and out. Of course, that is not the case. The railways are a very profitable undertaking. Out of every pound paid for goods transport or for tickets bought through booking-office windows in 1936 4s. 5d. was distributed to debenture holders and to shareholders. Any industry which can distribute nearly 25 per cent, of its gross revenue is certainly not an industry which is down and out. There was enough money distributed to provide for a dividend of 3¼ per cent., on the average, on all the existing railway capital. It is not the fault of the workers or of the nation that railway capital is so badly organised that certain shareholders get 5 per cent., some even more than 5 per cent., while some of the poor ordinary shareholders receive little or none.

I notice on the Order Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). When I read that Amendment I rubbed my eyes, wondering what had come over the Conservative party, because doctrines are included in that Amendment which would have made the predecessors of those who now sit on the Conservative benches turn in their graves. First of all the Amendment recognises the importance of a properly co-ordinated transport system. That is clear and obvious. Everyone in this House is against anarchy in transport, and we can count on the support of hon. Members opposite on that point. Then the Amendment goes on to say that the ownership of transport should be divided between public and private hands. We can all agree on that. No one on these benches suggests that all forms of transport shall be in public ownership. We do not want public ownership for bakers' carts or undertakers' hearses. All that our proposals cover are large-scale undertakings, the great railway companies and the large-scale road undertakings, and if the Amendment also means that there is no division of opinion between us. It is a great step forward for hon. Members opposite to make a proposal which supports the idea of public ownership of any form of transport.

The meaning of our Motion is that, instead of the disorganised system which prevails to-day, instead of the control of transport being in the hands of directors who are concerned merely with their own section of transport, and use it without regard to any other section, there shall be some co-relation of all the different forms of transport in order to obtain the best possible results. We are urging that, first of all, there shall be co-ordination inside each section, that all the railway companies for instance shall work together as a unit; and, secondly, that there shall be co-ordination between the different sections, so that road and rail may work in an interlocking way to meet adequately the transport needs of the country. In spite of all the mistakes of the past, in spite of the over capitalisation of the railways, in spite of other errors which have been, so to speak, built into our transport experience, I believe that if the nation through a National Transport Board accepted responsibility for organising nationally its transport, the effect would be beneficial to industry and beneficial to the men and women of this country and would provide something far more acceptable and far more advantageous than the present arrangements.

8.20 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: this House recognises the importance of a properly co-ordinated transport system, but considers that, having regard to the complex nature of transport requirements in this country and their widely varying conditions, there are definite public advantages in having transport undertakings under both public and private ownership and operating under such measures of statutory regulation and control as may be necessary in the national interest. I think the whole House listened with great interest to the two speeches made in support of the Motion, made, I notice, by two men whose lives have been spent on the railways, whose whole interest in life has been centred on the railways. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson started by paying a high tribute to the organisation and the efficiency of British railways. He said that British railway administration is as good as, and in many ways better than, any other in the world. He also said that it was equal to the admittedly heavy claims made upon it. I was very glad to hear that tribute from him, but later in his speech he must have forgotten it, because he brought up very heavy criticism and examples of bad management. If the railways are so well managed—and I took down his words at the time—I fail to see what the further object of the two speeches could be. The rest of the time he seemed to spend in telling us how appallingly bad the management was 100 years ago, and therefore we should have to nationalise the railways to-day; and I must say that he did exhibit the most appalling bias against the roads. Apparently, the whole case was that nationalisation will cure any troubles that there are. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), who seconded the Motion, and seconded it very well, brought up the story of the General Post Office, and said what a wonderfully efficient organisation it is. I join with him in that tribute, but though I am going to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), who is supporting my Amendment, to deal with that point, I would remark that the General Post Office hires a lot of its transport from private enterprise. It does not run its own transport.

Mr. Walkden

It owns a great deal of its own transport.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

But it is none the less true that it has to go to private enterprise for some part of its transport. Another point made by the hon. Member was that we should think it ridiculous if there were four pillar boxes of competing post offices in one street, and drew an analogy between that and the four railway companies. The position is not comparable. The four railways are not serving the same districts.

Mr. Watkins

In a good many cases they are.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

In very few cases, and where there is overlapping it is a matter for the management and can easily be cured. To say that nationalisation is the cure-all for everything is a parrot cry which does not bear much re- petition. It is a dictator's cry. Dictators use nothing else. If hon. Members want a reference for the use of nationalisation let them ask Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini. At the same time it is highly recommended by the Trades Union Congress. I do not understand why the Trades Union Congress agree with dictators in so many things like that. It is dictatorship that is recommended. We agree that proper co-ordination is necessary, but what we do not want is to see the dead hand of bureaucratic dictatorship on any industry. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion pointed out that there are at least five methods of transport in this country—road, rail, canal, coastwise shipping and the air. I am going to leave the air aside for the moment. Although air transport may be a factor of some importance in the future, at the present moment it is of no really great importance in the transport industry of this country, and I very much doubt whether it ever will be a very great factor, because the distances here are so small from an air transport point of view.

I have looked with great interest at the report of the Transport Advisory Committee on services and rates. I found a most excellent definition of co-ordination of transport, which, I think, was put forward by the Chamber of Shipping. I think hon. Members would do well to study this definition and see what we mean by co-ordination. The definition is: A state in which the various forms of transport, irrespective of ownership, can, under equitable conditions, function efficiently, not only within their several spheres but also as part of a comprehensive whole, under a system either imposed or reached by mutual agreement conditioned by public interest. It adds: For the carriage of goods by the means of transport which offers the greatest advantages, present and potential, of economy, efficiency, public convenience and national well-being. That is a very excellent definition of coordination of transport such as I think all would agree we desire. There have been such flattering remarks from the other side about my Amendment that I am fully confident that hon. Members will accept it as an improvement on their own proposal.

The Transport Advisory Council has a special paragraph in this report about coastwise shipping. They say: We are fully aware of the importance of the industry, both from the trade and national point of view, and of the need which therefore exists for taking no step which would be detrimental to this industry. Coastwise shipping is an essential part of our transport service. In ordinary times it is important, but in times of civil emergency it is absolutely essential. It is estimated that in 1935 coastwise shipping carried about 33,000,000 tons of cargo—no small proportion of the total services, and a considerable factor. The hon. Member pointed out that there are three types of coastwise shipping: the coastal liner, the coastal tramp of over 1,000 tons and the coastal tramp of under 1,000 tons. The reason why I have differentiated in the tonnage of the coastal tramp is because it is the smaller, under 1,000 tons, which is mainly subjected to foreign competition. That makes a rate agreement almost an impossibility.

What steps would hon. Members take under nationalisation to deal with this foreign competition? Would they stop it altogether? If we attempted to stop foreign competition altogether and forbade the entry of foreigners into that trade we should infringe the freedom of the seas, and we should bring in that discrimination which we have fought very strongly. We have had a lot of trouble against discrimination by Portugal, but that matter has been amicably settled, eventually. We should also very badly injure British shipping in other parts of the world, because those of our ships doing coastwise trade in those parts would naturally suffer. The repercussions from any attempt by nationalisation to stamp out foreign competition could be extremely dangerous. The coastal ship-ping trade relates the cost of the service to the freight charges. It is quite easy to do so and to estimate your costs. The road system can also carry out a similar method, but railways would find it very difficult to do so. I do not want the House to think that I am making an attack upon the roads. That is the last thing I would do, especially as it would not be in the spirit of the Amendment, which calls for co-ordination and cooperation. This very valuable report, which I commend to the House, suggests that co-ordination is best achieved by securing to traders adequate alternative facilities, and that there should be an unfettered right on the part of the trader to select the form of transport which he approves and which is the most economic "for his purpose. Those are two strong recommendations and I hope that I shall have time to return to them a little later on in my speech.

It is obvious that we cannot secure coordination of the transport services until road systems become stabilised. The Government recognise that, and in tire Gracious Speech from the Throne they foreshadowed a Bill for an alteration in the law dealing with the wages and conditions of service in transport services. There is, in Command Paper No. 5440, the report of a committee on the regulation of wages and conditions of service in the road motor transport industry for the conveyance of goods. When that legislation has been before the House and has been discussed, passed and implemented, we shall have got a great deal further on the road towards really good co-operation. The roads will then be able to get their rates on a better basis than at present. Up to the present, a very large measure of agreement has already been obtained, and the report embodies agreed representations made by road, rail and coastwise shipping. It has, therefore, begun to help in a very practical way towards this co-operation and co-ordination that we so much desire, even though it may not have secured the full approval of the industry.

The road industry is very individualistic. Over 50 per cent, of the vehicles are owner-driven, and therefore it is not the most suitable industry for nationalisation. It should be obvious to anybody who considers the matter that with that proportion of owner-driven vehicles the industry must be unsuitable for nationalisation. The words of the Motion are: failed to provide satisfactory facilities. I cannot see that that is the case. I consider that there has been ample provision of satisfactory facilities. What has happened has been that a succession of Governments, during the War and since, have failed to provide facilities proportionate to the development of motor transport, which has taken place to such a remarkable extent. The roads are neither good enough nor wide enough, nor sufficiently organised to take the transport which wishes to go on them. It is wrong to restrict transport in the way that is happening to-day. Approximately 800 new mechanical vehicles come on to the roads every day; that is a net figure and takes into account the old vehicles which are taken off the roads. This constant increase of road traffic will get far worse until some measure is taken to deal with it. I am convinced that the Minister of Transport realises the position, but I would tell him that the line to take is to develop, and not to restrict. Restriction is the wrong way to deal with this matter in these days.

I do not want to put before the House the report which was drawn up by Members of Parliament who had an opportunity of seeing the big motor roads in Germany. Those of us who went over there were in the difficulty of not knowing how to apply what we learned to the conditions that exist in this country and which are very different from the conditions in Germany. That we learned something is undoubted, and our conclusions are embodied in a report which has been issued by the Parliamentary Roads Committee. The Minister was good enough to refer to it as a valuable document, and from it those who are interested will be able to see whether our conclusions are sound, and to assist us to assist the Ministry in dealing with the matter.

The traffic problem of London is one of extreme complication, and it is likely to lead to still further complications in the near future. The idea of taking cars off the road in London is wrong. We must see how we can get over the problem of dealing with London transport, because otherwise it will grow to such an extent that there will be an almost complete stoppage of transport in London. The suggestion has been put forward, and I would put it forward again to-night, that with co-operation between road and rail, the electrification of the suburban railways having improved to the extent that it has, there is no reason why roads should not be built over the railways where they have been electrified. That would not involve buying up valuable property in order to drive new roads through London, and it is far more feasible than the suggestion I have seen that underground roads should be made through London. Underground roads are always very expensive to construct, and their proper ventilation is very difficult. If petrol-driven or oil-driven vehicles are sent through a tunnel, the most perfect system of ventilation is necessary, because these vehicles exhaust poisonous gases. Therefore, it is far better to use the overhead system if that is possible. The space is there over the railways, and there is no question of destroying buildings or amenities. It is a question of cooperation with the railways.

The railways would have to have considerable compensation for the disturbance caused to them—because it would cause a certain amount of disturbance to the railways—and that compensation would largely assist the railways by reducing their capital debt. I think that this idea deserves the closest examination and consideration, because in my opinion it would go a long way towards reducing the great difficulties of London transport, and especially the difficulties that are now facing us. What is done to-day will have its effect 10 years hence in a far greater degree than can be believed. If we look back 10 years, it is easy to realise that, if some of the projects which are being carried out to-day had been carried out then, the position to-day would not be nearly so difficult as it is agreed by everyone to be. I would put forward one small suggestion, namely, that the Ministry should take a census of all the abandoned-railways. There are throughout the country a certain number of railways which have been abandoned, and which one sees from time to time as grass-grown tracks. Cannot they be used as part of our road system, instead of spending money unnecessarily in buying new land?

No real co-ordination or co-operation can be effected until the thorny question of rates has been settled. As I said a few minutes ago the road transport industry cannot stabilise its rates until the questions of hours of service, conditions of service and wages have been stabilised in that industry. As soon as that is done, it may be possible to come to some agreement on rates. But the real difficulty is that the road transport industry is in competition with the ancillary user. That is a very real difficulty in the problem of arriving at a rate agreement. I believe, however, that that difficulty can and will be overcome.

The railways, starting about 100 years ago, created a monopoly in long-distance transport in this country. The British people have always disliked a monopoly, and we have taken pains through legislation to control monopolies as far as possible. The legislation that was passed to control the railway monopoly has placed very severe restrictions on the railways, and has involved, among other things, a most amazing method of rating on the railways. So far as I can see—I may be wrong, but nobody so far has proved that I am wrong—there is no definite relationship to costs in railway rating. The whole thing seems to be. based on what the traffic will bear, and the rates are levied according to what the traffic will bear. If they are too high, the traffic will vanish, but they are levied as high as possible provided the traffic will bear it. I believe that the common sense which seems to be permeating the transport industry at the present moment, and to be leading it towards agreement, will very shortly bring about a much closer relationship between road transport and coastwise shipping, and more particularly between road and rail, on the question of rates. The Mover of the Resolution talked about the serious waste that was involved. The Resolution says: The present competitive system in transport has failed to provide satisfactory facilities and involves serious waste. I was a little surprised to hear from the opposite benches the desire expressed for mechanisation and rationalisation. Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that such methods of dispelling waste are throwing people out of work, but, if I may paraphrase their plea this evening in language which I think is a more or less correct interpretation, not of what they mean, but of what will happen, it is something like this: "Push half these lorries and lorry drivers and operators out of work, carry as much as you can with as few people as possible running the show, and you will have a much more efficient organisation." That is what would happen. I do not suppose for a moment that it is what hon. Members intend should happen, but there is no doubt about it when the thing is analysed and looked at properly. People with an authoritarian outlook talk about the division of function, and that was rather suggested by the Salter Report. A division of function means that one person is told to send his stuff by rail, another to send his by road, a third to send his by ship, and meanwhile the whole industry will be sent somewhere else. The trader must be free to choose the type of transport that he wants, having regard both to the cost of the transport and to the question of convenience. The transport industry must be prepared to sell its services, and not to sit back and reap the fruits of monopolies. That would be the result of nationalising the transport industry.

Transport is the servant, and not the master, of industry. We already have enough dictatorships of various forms in the world without creating another. As I said before, the railways have suffered from restrictive legislation. The road transport industry at the moment is suffering from objections. Everyone seems to be able to come forward and object to a man getting a licence. What is going to happen in the event, so hoped for by the Opposition, of a decline in trade—[Interruption]—prophesied with such glee, shall I say? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, I will not withdraw; there is no reason why I should.

Mr. Mathers

Justify it.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

The speeches of hon. Members themselves justify it.

Mr. Silverman

In order to justify his statement, the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks of speeches prophesying that something will happen. Will he point to a single speech by members of this party, or anyone associated with the party, here or outside the House, which can be said to have prophesied anything of that sort with anything like glee?

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I do not know about glee. They have prophesied that a slump is coming, and the interpretation put on that by the public is that the Socialists want a slump, and hope that they will be able to get back on a slump.

Mr. Silverman

If the hon. and gallant Member now wants to shelter behind what some anonymous person has said, I cannot complain, but if he is speaking of his own opinion, where is there anything in any of the speeches to which he has referred that justifies the inference that this was prophesied with glee?

Colonel Sandeman Allen

The hon. Member's face is so full of glee as a rule that I put that interpretation on it when he spoke. This sword of Damocles is hanging over the industry. It never knows when everything is to be swept away. When the decline of trade comes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—should the decline prophesied by hon. Members come, the industry does not know what is to happen to it. It is not fair to have the sword of Damocles hanging over road transport. I will finish by quoting again from the Transport Advisory Council Report on Service and Rates: Far better ultimate results would be achieved through the more or less free coordination of all forms of transport through rates structures than can be achieved by arbitrary restrictions.

Those words sum up truly the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House.

8.50 p.m.

Sir Isidore Salmon

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to make a few observations with regard to the speeches from the Opposition benches. I feel that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken do not realise the problem which has to be considered when they speak of nationalising the industry. Let me deal, first of all, with road transport. Take the 460,000 commercial goods vehicles in this country. Over 300,000, or 70 per cent, of them, are operated by 186,734 private traders, solely for the carriage and sale of their own goods. It has also to be borne in mind that during the last two years they have increased by 25,000. The remaining 150,000 are operated by no fewer than 63,241 owners. The smallness of the units and the increase in private vehicles indicate some of the main advantages of road transport, namely, its individuality, its adaptability to peculiar local and trade conditions, and its flexibility.

To what extent does nationalisation help the users of the 150,000 lorries, under "A" and "B" licences, known as public hauliers. Industry would still require these lorries for the carrying on of business. To what extent would it free the roads? Who is to decide what alternative method of transport shall be used? Is industry to receive its instructions from some central authority? Is it to be told how it should deal with the goods that it has to deliver or the raw materials it has to receive? I venture to think that this problem has not had sufficient consideration from the hon. Members who introduced the Motion. I feel that when they speak about a board which should decide all this they are a little inconsistent. First, we had a historical survey of the position of the railways of this country, and complaints were made that they made mistakes. I would reply to hon. Members that they will never make a success unless they make mistakes. The proposers of the Motion did pay a compliment to the railways as a whole, although the Mover, or his Seconder, referred to the large amount of capital invested in the railways and alleged that if that had not existed improvement would have been more rapid. Without having any interest in railways, I can challenge any hon. Member to state which railways in the world beat the British railways to-day? It is useless to get up and make loose statements. They sound very nice for the moment, but we have a more important problem to consider. It is not often recognised what really has taken place in the last few years with regard to transport generally.

One of the hon. Gentlemen opposite gave evidence before the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be a member. I remember that Mr. Bromley, the hon. Gentleman, and another representative from the particular trade union gave evidence, but nothing that has been said to-night goes any further than what they said at the time. They made all these statements, but when asked "Why do you think that nationalisation of the railways would give you all the things you desire, and to what extent will the public benefit by having nationalisation?" they answered "That is our view"—a pious opinion. They are perfectly entitled to express a view, but they could give no figures or facts to justify it. I remember quite well pressing that very point, and up to now I have never seen, either privately or publicly, any way in which, if such a scheme of nationalisation of the railways were to take place, it would be a benefit to the public. I do not know and I would not like to suggest that Transport House wants to alter its name to Tammany Hall.

What is behind the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite in pressing nationalisation of transport? I suggest that it is that there is a great patronage attached to the idea of having the whole of the transport workers in a nationalised scheme. If that is the suggestion, we might have a repetition of the scandals that happened under public assistance committees, when it was necessary, in order to end such scandals, to take the matter out of the political arena and put it under the control of independent persons. I suggest that this is a very real danger. Pressure would be put upon the Government of the day to go on paying higher wages and to provide pensions because they were Government servants, and thus you would be increasing and not decreasing the expenditure of running the railways and transport. The result would be that real wages, as far as the worker is concerned—because it would depend upon what he could buy with his money—would be reduced, because transport charges, being higher, would have a consequential effect in increasing the price of the products he had to buy. Therefore, instead of being a help to the country, it would do considerable damage to the country.

The problem that faces industry to-day as regards transport is much more complex than many hon. Members seem to realise. It is so complex that it is impossible to attempt to work it out from one centre by the issuing of rules, regulations and orders. Each industry has its own peculiar problems with which to deal, and what may be perfectly sound for one industry in one area may be totally wrong for another industry in the same area or for the same type of industry in another area. Is not the real truth that each particular factory has its own particular idiosyncrasies as to location, and its own individual distribution problems? Do not let us forget that industry is the servant of the public. We seem to think at times that we can simply make rules and regulations and that the people vill sit still and abide by them. One of the difficulties that the railways have foutd in the past has been the number of regulations and rules laid down by Statute preventing them from having the flexibility which is so necessary to progressive industry. Here again hon. Gentle- men are suggesting a means whereby they would make regulations so rigid that industry as a whole, and consequently the country as a whole, would suffer.

It is interesting to note that the report of the Traffic Advisory Council has laid down three broad principles. They are principles which hon. Gentlemen who may follow me should bear in mind. They are

1. "(1) That, with a view to avoiding unnecessary overlapping of services and uneconomic competition, it is desirable to establish as great a degree of co-ordination as possible among the various forms of transport engaged in the carriage of goods, so as to ensure that each form of transport is used to the greatest national advantage;
2. (2) that the best line of approach to achieve co-ordination is to aim at securing for traders adequate alternative facilities, care being taken that the resultant competition is on fair terms;
3. (3) that there should be an unfettered right on the part of the trader to select the form of transport which he approves and which is most convenient and economic for his purpose."

I would remind hon. Members who are pressing this Motion that in addition we have the recommendations of the Baillie Report on the regulation of wages and service. Under that recommendation, which deals with the licence holder, that is the "C" licence, the worker is being prevented from being exploited. I believe that if you have, on the one hand, the Advisory Council's regulation and the Baillie Report, the public will be properly served and the employes will receive a reasonable and satisfactory wage. The difficulties that are anticipated by hon. Gentlemen opposite will not arise, and generally things will be much more satisfactory. One of the difficulties has been the question of the roads being dangerous because the machines were not kept properly and men worked excessively long hours. All that is done away with now in the recommendation of the Baillie Commission.

Hon. Members opposite ought to have brought themselves up-to-date before they put down a Motion of this sort, because they are not quite realising the progress that the industry is making. Transport to-day in this country is as efficient as any in any other country. It would be made less efficient by bureaucratic control. It is so easy to have enormous staffs. Take the London Transport Board, for instance. It has been suggested that that is an example of nationalisation, but I do not agree that it is nationalisation. I am perfectly prepared to face up to the position, and that is what we are doing in our Amendment. The London Passenger Transport Board is ran by men who know their job thoroughly and who are not responsible to anybody but to shareholders. [Interruption.] They are certainly responsible to their shareholders, because, if the company were not successful, they would very soon hear of it from the shareholders.

I am second to none in my admiration for the services of the magnificent staff in our Civil Service. It is no reflection upon them when I say that it is only natural that they would play for safety, and therefore they would not have the vision and knowledge required to run such a complicated machine as that of transport. When hon. Members speak so lightly about its being easy to do this or to do that, I always feel that if they had more practical experience in dealing with the problem as a whole they would have completely different views. It is often the case that fools go where wise men fear to tread. I suggest most seriously that the problem of trying to merge under one national board the whole of the transport of this country is not a practical proposition which could be worked satisfactorily. There is one school of thought which asks us to take the case of Russia. Hon. Members opposite say that Russia does this or that, but one thing that is wrong with Russia is that the Russians try to do too large a thing at one time instead of building up slowly. I submit that the steps the Government are taking and have taken are such that the Motion should be rejected.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Henderson

In supporting the Motion I should like to offer my congratulations to the Mover and Seconder for the very lucid way in which they moved it. With regard to the strictures of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen) it would appear, if I understand the English language correctly, that if there was national control of transport whoever was at the head of it, and presumably it would be the Minister of Transport, would be a dictator. I think the hon. and gallant Member would hesitate before he applied that description to the Postmaster-General. Could he place such a description upon the general managers of the national rail- ways in our Dominions? I leave out what was said about hon. Members on these benches looking forward with glee to a slump, but I would call attention to what a very eminent industrialist, Lord Austin, has said several times about trading concerns in this country. There are still lions in the path of transport, and I am afraid that the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) has confused Tammany Hall with Cadby Hall.

It will be agreed that an efficient transport system is fundamental to the services of modern life upon which the success and prosperity of the whole of industry depends. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion delved into history. The story of transport is very fascinating. We go back to the days of the turnpike roads of the eighteenth century and to the stage coach in the middle of the eighteenth century, when it took a week to go from London to York. I admit that a certain gentleman accomplished that journey in much less time, but he was on a mercenary expedition. In those days the journey to Edinburgh, in a state coach de luxe, occupied two weeks. I suppose that at the halting places there was as much excitement as there is now at the railway stations where the mammoth locomotives start for the North. The canal system has largely sunk into oblivion. Then came the railway system, and I say authoritatively that no civilised community can exist without railways and that in this country their maintenance is a national necessity. It is illuminating to glance at the figures of the increase of population which has given the impetus to transport development. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the population was 16,000,000, in the middle of the century it was 28,000,000 and at the end of the century it was 42,000,000, while in 1911 it was 45,000,000.

We come from the railways to motor transport. I have not the bias of the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment against road transport, although I have been 37 years in the employ of one of the foremost railway companies. My grouse is that the railway directors, who often on the benches opposite are eulogised for their business acumen would not accept the advice of far-seeing employés and get into the road transport industry long before 1928. They thought that the railway era would last for all time. They were like so many King Canutes, thinking that they could keep back the waves of developing road transport. Road transport has had phenomenal growth. Last year the number of cars on the road was 1,642,850, goods vehicles 459,227; omnibuses and tractor buses 49,116; Diesel buses and Diesel engine propelled vehicles 14,714. Air transport has developed, but I will leave that subject to subsequent speakers.

The Motion decries the waste that takes place. In the railway industry prior to the Act of 1921, when there were over 120 railway companies as entities, they had their various boards of directors. They are now reduced to four, but there is considerable waste yet in that direction. There is redundancy of very highly paid officials operating for companies, oftentimes under cover, which are in very stern competition. In the standardisation of equipment considerable economies could be made if a national system of transport was in operation. There is waste also in the motor transport industry. I shall be pardoned, I hope, for quoting from the Royal Commission's Report: We find that the goods haulage branch of the road transport industry is in a condition which lacks all unity and is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals, who, while endeavouring to compete with other forms of transport, are at the same time engaged in bitter and uneconomic strife with each other in their own particular branch. Regarded as a separate industry, the conditions obtaining in the business of road haulage are completely lacking in uniformity, and are very unsatisfactory.

Sir I. Salmon

That is perfectly true, but things have been altered since.

Mr. Henderson

Yes, and that is the reason for this Motion. It is true that things have been altered, because there have been three or four Acts of Parliament passed, in 1930, in 1933, and in 1934, but under the present state of road transport there are still numerous boards of managers which under a co-ordinated system would be swept out of existence. It means that if these services were regulate there would be a lot of dead capital comparable to the structure of railway finances. This has to be paid for by the general public who patronise these firms. Again, there is no organisation with regard to return loads.

Mr. Holdsworth

That is limited by legislation.

Mr. Henderson

Yes, but I fail to see the common sense of a man going from London to Penzance, and because there is no organisation to get him a return load he has to come back in ballast. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment emphasised the congestion on our roads to-day. Pedestrians can no longer traverse the roads unless there are footpaths, and as a hiker I must say that footpaths do not exist in many parts of the country. Then there is the heavy and unsuitable traffic which is on our roads. It is notorious that the traffic passing over the arterial roads is of a weight and dimensions that these roads were never intended to carry. One has only to go on to the Great North Road to see a justification for that statement. If you take a census of the traffic on the roads through Carlisle, which is the link with Scotland, you will find it is traffic which was never intended to go on the roads and streets of little country towns. It is having very serious effects. I know people who own property in the narrow streets of Carlisle near the road where there is this constant stream of heavy vehicles through the night. These people have found that it has played havoc with the foundations of their houses. This fact is recognised by town-planners, who insist on having buildings put back 100 feet from main roads. The fatalities on our roads are appalling, but I need not go into that subject, as my hon. Friend dealt with it.

The question of public ownership is suggested in the Motion. I believe that in all our Dominions there is some form of public ownership. The union with which I am identified, the National Union of Railwaymen, with 340,000 members, gave evidence before the Royal Commission in support of the suggestion in the Motion. I am aware that in 1931 the National Wages Board issued an award which was the subject of protracted and serious discussion among our members, but an addendum supported by representatives of the Co-operative movement and the Trade Union Congress suggested the type of organisation envisaged in the Motion. There will be no dictatorship. The Minister of Transport would be at the head of this national organisation and would be responsible to Par- liament. He would have, other men who understood the road transport side of the industry, the railway side of the industry and the canal and seaborne trade side of the industry under his direction, and they would be free to develop a national service so that the community and traders would have an efficient and cheap form of transport.

It is necessary to evolve some unification and co-ordination of the transport industry in view of the conflict between road and rail interests. There is warfare inside the road motor transport industry itself, and a little competition between the four railway companies. I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong and that there are many centres where two and three railway companies compete with each other. As far as heavy and long-distance traffic is concerned, the railways are best suited to cater for that traffic. What would happen if we allowed road transport of this class of goods to develop? Take the coal industry. An engine-man, fireman and guard will convey, say, 800 tons of coal some hundreds of miles—three persons. I suggest that the logic of the Amendment is that we ought to get a multifarious number of people to handle those 800 tons of coal and thus intensify the competition. As I said before, the railways are suited, and ought to be used, for that class of traffic. They have the huge personnel, they have equipment, they have experience, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the gentlemen who manage the railways are very capable and earnest people but are round pegs in square holes.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misinterpret me. I never suggested for one moment that the railway traffic should always be carried by road. That is ridiculous.

Mr. Henderson

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if there was a co-ordinated system it would mean a diminution of the number of men employed, and of course the opposite of that would be an increase. The railway companies are best equipped to provide this service. They have 90,817 steam locomotives—that is exclusive of electric and Diesel oil locomotives; they have 42,656 passenger carriages, 618,948 wagons of various dimensions—30, 20 and 10 tons capacity; including sidings they have 50,701 miles of track; they have 6,747 passenger stations, 6,948 goods stations and approximately 600,000 employés. And may I say in passing that the railways are one of the best customers of the coal companies, because they purchase from the various collieries a total of 15,000,000 tons of coal a year?

Road transport could be linked to the railways. I admit there are difficulties in the matter. We do not suggest, as I believe the hon. Member who seconded this Motion said, that this system should include the undertaker's van and the butcher's van, but the necessary prerequisite of a national form of transport would be the ownership of the railways of this country. Linked up with that would be the services of the motor hauliers, and powers should be given to the Commissioners who would work under the control of the Minister of Transport, and I would suggest, with all due respect, that they would be men of experience, of ability and of public zeal, who would assiduously endeavour to give the traders and the public cheap, safe and efficient transport, and that by that means you would get unified control and ownership. You would get not only a good transport system, but by the economies you would effect and the additional patronage that you would attract you could pay the employés good wages, and give good conditions of labour, and if there were any men who had to be reduced, or transferred from one service to another, adequate safeguards would be provided.

Reference has been made, I believe, to the crisis of 1914 to 1918. There may well be another emergency of that description, though I hope not. The last time it was very speedily overcome because the predominant form of transport in this country then was railway transport; but a very different set of conditions would face whoever had to deal with the situation in the next emergency, and unless some means of control were evolved, such as is envisaged in this Motion, you would then have to improvise machinery and introduce legislation to deal with the new factors, and probably by the time that was developed and adapted to the changed conditions dire consequences might ensue.

In conclusion may I say that in the year 1937 there is an imperative need for efficiency in all forms of transport, for co-ordinating them, for preventing overlapping and wasteful competition, and for ensuring a satisfactory transport service for the country; and these important aims would be achieved, I sincerely believe, if the system proposed in this Motion were carried out, with all the good will that would be given by men of experience, adapting themselves, each in his different sphere, to the common weal.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworths Knowing that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion had for some years breathed the wonderful air of Yorkshire, I thought that for once we should really get an intelligent analysis of what nationalisation really means. I thought we should not merely have wonderful platform speeches in this Debate—the hon. Member who has just spoken twice used the unparliamentary expression "my friends," the sort of thing that I have always heard in discussions of nationalisation from the platform, in speeches consisting of meaningless platitudes and phrases, without any proof of its efficiency or any explanation of what it actually means. Then I went on to read the Amendment, and I did not feel very much happier. I am one of the few in this House who still retain a belief in individualism. Most hon. Members offer apologies when they speak of individualism, and when I read the words "co-ordination," "statutory regulation "and" control "my suspicions were aroused, and they were only slightly allayed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the historical survey given to us by the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson), and I thought that the finest part of his speech was the peroration in which he quoted the greatest of all Liberals, Mr. Gladstone. I want to compliment him on that choice.

One other speech to which I want to refer is that made by the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) smile when the hon. Member was referring to the London Passenger Transport Board. He did not seem to me to object to the structure of that Board, he did not seem to object to the principle involved in the working of that Board. All he was concerned about was that the Labour party should not run it. You can call it nationalisation as long as they do not run it. But I do not for a moment accept the view that the London Passenger Transport Board has given increased or better passenger facilities in London. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney will tell me in what way the public of this City have gained by the setting up of the London Passenger Transport Board. Are they enjoying cheaper fares? Are they benefiting from better facilities? My view is that the management of London traffic received its great impetus from the pirate buses, because better facilities were offered through the sheer play of individual competition.

I want now to deal with the Motion because so much of what has been said in this Debate had no reference to it. This Motion makes a definite charge. It states that private enterprise has failed to provide satisfactory facilities. Can that charge be sustained?

Sir John Haslam

No.

Mr. Holdsworth

Let me deal, first of all, with railways. Every hon. Member who has spoken from the Benches above the Gangway is in some way connected with the railways, and has been, to some extent, speaking from an interested point of view. In all the speeches that they have made during their political lifetime, they have denounced the railways, but now they come to the House and without exception pay a tribute to the railways of this country. Not one of them has failed to say what an efficient railway system we have. Let me say that I believe our railways compare favourably with any in the world. We have a tremendous network of railways, and I do not know what people are complaining about.

In post-War years the whole history of the railways has been a story of cutting down, co-ordination and regulation of every sort, for the purpose of bringing about what hon. Gentlemen are attempting to bring about in another way, by this Motion. I believe that for some forms of transport railways are completely out-of-date, and that they have been supplanted by road transport. We ought to face the fact that they cannot go back to their former position. One might as well talk of going back to the old coaches. The world has moved on. It is of no use the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. J. Henderson) asking what we are going to do about the railways and saying that they have so many engines which cannot be destroyed, and so many workers who cannot be dismissed. The hon. Member's idea of co-ordination is to keep things back, and not to march forward. He does not recognise that there is a demand for this new kind of transport.

I wish to say a few words about the road transport industry, I think the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was unfair in his criticism of that industry. He made a great many statements which cannot be substantiated. Let it be remembered that this industry is almost entirely a post-war industry. Let us consider for a moment how efficient it is. There is hardly a hamlet in this country where passenger vehicles are not provided for the use of the people living in those hamlets. Not only are there those facilities, but there are facilities which enable people living in urban areas to see the beauties of their native land. Those facilities are absolutely marvellous. Nobody can say that dear fares are charged. The complaint of the railways, indeed, is that the road transport industry is giving the public services which are too cheap. It is not the inefficiency of road transport service about which the railways complain, but their complete efficiency. The services they give are splendid. A person riding in a motor char-a-banc to-day can be as comfortable as a man riding in a Rolls-Royce car.

Sir J. Haslam

More so.

Mr. Holdsworth

The fares are cheaper than on the railways, and a person can get on at the precise point he wants and go to the precise destination that he wants. No charge of inefficiency can be made against the road transport industry, which has changed the life of the people of this country. What does the London Passenger Transport Board do? Before these ridiculous restrictions were put into force, one could go to the Embankment and get a trip to almost anywhere out of London. Now it is said, "Oh, no, these poor people shall not enjoy these wonderful trips into the country, riding in a comfortable bus; we must have some co-ordination and limitation. Why should these poor people, who have never been farther than Lambeth, want to go to the beauties of the South Coast? Why should they get on the bus at a con- venient place? The tram drops them at the Embankment; let them go a mile away, let them have a walk before they begin the trip. "It is not a question of more facilities being provided, but of coordination, of control, a terrible word which I hate.

I would like briefly to deal with the carriage of goods by road transport. In this sphere there has been a revolution. I do not mind telling the House that in my own small business the saving in transport charges, as a result of using road transport, amounts almost to as much as the total profit of the business. Transport of goods by road has worked a revolution, and has cheapened goods. The hon. Member for Ardwick said that if one goes on to the Great North Road at night, one sees these vehicles passing along there. He talked as though it were a great crime that they should be there. What are they doing? They are carrying goods from one city to another, providing the amenities of life for the people of this land. They leave at night and deliver the goods early in the morning. There is no delay, and there are no breakages owing to trans-shipment. The road transport industry is rendering a wonderful service. It has even got to the point of providing special kinds of vehicles for special kinds of goods, such as insulated vans for frozen meat, thus making possible a tremendous saving in packing costs. I would like to give a few figures about this industry, because I want to meet the charge of there being a lack of facilities.

Mr. Quibell

Has the hon. Member any shares in this industry?

Mr. Holdsworth

Not a pennyworth; I wish I had. In 1913 the number of motor vehicles of all kinds in this country was 305,000. In 1936 there were more than 2,750,000. That is what hon. Members call an inefficient industry. The number of workers employed in the industry at the present time is more than 1,250,000. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the charge that motor vehicles are not paying for the use of the roads. What is the truth? In 1913, motor vehicle taxation of all kinds amounted to £1,359,000, and in 1937, it was almost £75,500,000. If hon. Members look up the figures of the Road Fund they will find that the gross expenditure on roads, apart from interest on loan, was £58,000,000 and even in- cluding interest on loan, the total is less than the amount which motor vehicles pay in taxation of one kind and another. It is totally unfair to make a charge of that description.

Then consider the tremendous growth in the production of vehicles. In 1913, the number was 23,000; in 1936, it was 461,000. As to prices, taking 1924 as the standard year and taking the figure for that year as 100, we find that in 1914 the figure for private vehicles was 76, and in 1936 it was 49. In the case of commercial vehicles the figure for 1914 was 78 and the figure for 1937 was 60. I had intended to deal with the question of wages in the industry, but perhaps it is better to leave that matter until the Baillie Report has been studied and the Government have decided what action they are taking. But I do not know of anyone who would suggest that the industry has succeeded by the payment of inadequate wages. That charge cannot be substantiated. In view of the figures I have given, can it be said that the industry has failed to provide satisfactory facilities? Has the hon. Member substantiated his charge?] suggest to the House that it is an absurd charge, and cannot be substantiated.

I ask the hon. Member another question. If there is any lack of facilities, who is to blame? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is one of the persons to blame. The 1930 Act was an Act of restriction practically all the way through, and it was backed up by the 1933 Act. In both there was the same sort of disease—restriction, restriction, restriction all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you vote for it? "] I did not. Hon. Members may, if they like, look up the OFFICIAL REPORT. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did your party do? "] I am not concerned; I am speaking for myself. The whole idea behind all this legislation—and the House knows it very well—has been to put the road transport industry into irons for the benefit of the railway companies. [Interruption.] I do not mind hon. Members conversing with each other, but it is difficult for me to go on while there is a continual stream of chatter passing between one bench and another. As I listened attentively to the earlier speeches, I hope hon. Members will give me their attention.

Then the hon. Member suggested that public ownership was the cure for all the ills of the transport industry and referred to State railways. That did amuse me. I do not know whether the hon. Member has been abroad or not, but from my own experience of travelling on State railways I say that there is no comparison between the comfort of the English railways and the conditions on State-owned railways. I have not time to go into details of the conditions on the Hungarian railways, but I will say that the inevitable consequence of the State ownership of railways in all the cases of which I know, has been to relate all other forms of transport to the State organisation. If the State railway does not pay, then the idea is to eliminate every form of competition. I have found that in the cases of certain goods which were carried by the State railway in Hungary, other transport organisations had to pay a fine in order to be able to compete with them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney may be able to tell me that I am wrong on this point, but I put this to hon. Members: Is there a State railway anywhere, particularly in Europe, that is an economic proposition? Is there a State railway in Europe that pays its workers better than ours are paid, gives better conditions of labour, or renders better service in the carriage of goods? I think if one studies the matter one will find that year after year these State railways suffer tremendous financial loss.

What has been our own experience in the post-war years? Before the great development of road transport the railway companies did as they liked. Customers had to appear before them almost as suppliants at the mercy seat if they wanted their goods carried. But the competition of road transport has revolutionised the railways in this country. Indeed, their manners have improved as well as the facilities which they offer. I remember when, if a firm asked that certain goods should be moved, they were never quite certain whether those goods would be moved or not. It once took me three-quarters of an hour to persuade a railway company to provide a track at a dock to lift goods. The way to cure that was by going over to the lorries straight away. Now we find the railway companies very deferential as a result of road competition. It has made them institute cheap fares. Do hon. Members think we should have got all the wonderful excursion facilities which have been provided in the last few years had it not been for road transport competition? Better services are also obtainable. All this is the result, not of co-ordination and regulation but of competitive industry.

I was very glad to hear the statement, and I think we ought to thank Members of the Labour party for making the matter clear, that although they have great ideas of taking over all public service vehicles and all public goods vehicles, they are prepared to allow the man who owns a lorry to retain his own property, and that as far as "C" licences are concerned, we need not worry. Apparently, we have not quite reached the totalitarian State yet. But I wish to put a question to hon. Members. What then do they mean when they talk of the unification of this industry? If they do not mean to take over all private goods vehicles, will it not destroy the other part of their suggested bargain? I believe it to be true, as the hon. Member for Harrow said, that a great number of the vehicles on the road to-day are owned by private concerns. In any case one must say to the Labour party, "Thank you very much for leaving us that little bit of freedom." Apparently we shall still be able to run our own vehicles. I wish to repeat what has been said so often and what is laid down as an axiom in the report, that traders must have an unfettered right to select the form of transport which is most convenient and economic for their own purposes. I believe the hon. Member who moved this Motion did not make out his case, and has simply repeated a worn-out political shibboleth.

I want to say a few words about the Amendment. I said at the beginning of my speech that I was doubtful about the Amendment. Those three terms—coordination, statutory regulation, and control—frighten me. We have an expression in Yorkshire, "We have had some," and if I might use this for the purposes of illustration, we have had control of milk, with what result? We have had control of the growing of potatoes, and if a man grows an acre too much, he is fined £5. It is coordination, statutory regulation, real planning. The same sort of thing can be said with regard to coal, and my experience in this House during the past six years has proved that every time the Government step in with this marvellous idea of planning and co-ordination, the real meaning of it is limitation and dear-ness. I am certain that if we could get a free vote of this House on these things, there would be a tremendous majority for taking them off. One knows what many Conservative Members think about all this co-ordination, and I wish they would put their views into practice in the Lobby. The modern definition of coordination is limitation of production and supply, and the result is dearness and scarcity. I recognise the need of both railways and roads, I recognise the need of vehicles being mechanically sound. I recognise the need of efficient and safe drivers, I recognise the need of adequate remuneration and proper conditions of service within the industry, I recognise the need of measures to assure as far as possible safety to life and limb on the road, but I do not recognise the need of oppressive, unnecessary, and restrictive legislation. The less bureaucratic interference, the better I shall like it.

May I now refer to a speech made some weeks ago by the Parliamentary Secretary? At a dinner of the London and Home Counties Division of the Commercial Users Association, he used these words: His Ministry was only a machine which carried out decisions by Parliament. Well, for six years I must have been living under a misapprehension when I thought that Parliament was a machine which registered the decisions of Ministers. They come down here and say, "Here is a regulation. Come on, boys, put on the old school tie and all vote in the same lobby. We cannot have disloyalty. We have taken this decision, and you must confirm it. The world would be in a terrible havoc if this particular regulation was not confirmed, and if you do not confirm it, you will bring down the Government." I am delighted to find out that I was wrong. I will remember the correct position of the two partners, and I may in the future even venture to remind the Minister of his assistant's words. I do not altogether like the Amendment, but after listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut. -Colonel Sandeman Allen), I do not think there is much danger in voting for it. I think it would be a terrible mistake to vote for the Motion. Transport in these modern days is the life blood of industry. Let it flow freely, stimulated by the food which has built up the prosperity of this country—competitive industry.

10.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson)

I shall not speak at great length, because this is a private Members' day, and I want to give as much time as possible to them. We are having a very interesting Debate, but the more I listen to it, the more I wonder what is in the Motion, because the Mover and Seconder of it and the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment all seem to have had different ideas as to what exactly the Motion contains. It is very refreshing to hear from the Mover of the Motion what Mr. Gladstone said in 1844 as President of the Board of Trade. We have often heard what he said when he was Prime Minister, but this is the first time I have ever heard him quoted as President of the Board of Trade. I would also like to say how pleased I am to see that the historical connection of the Borough of Hackney with transport is being maintained. We have a Hackney horse and a Hackney carriage, and to-night we are having the three Members for the Divisions of Hackney addressing the House on transport.

What does this Motion say? We have to take it as it appears on the Paper, and it seems to me to be one of the most sweeping which has ever been brought before this House at the instance of a private Member. It proposes, in its last sentence, through unified public ownership, to place the whole of the transport industry of this country under public control. In other words, it proposes to nationalise the railways, road transport—both passenger and goods—canals, coastwise shipping, and, according to the Mover, civil aviation as well. I reckon that we should bring under State control, if this Motion were carried, some 1,500,000 persons, or rather more if we brought in civil aviation. I ask myself, who is the superman who is to control all this? Unification surely means one at the head who is to exercise this control. Some people thought that when in 1933 the London Passenger Transport Board was put under one control, it was too large as a unit, but that enormous undertaking is a mere drop in the ocean compared with what is proposed in this Motion. Personally, I never can see anything but the greatest disadvantages in what is called nationalisation. I cannot see what benefit it can be to any industry to take it away from the people who know how to run it, and who probably have run it all their lives, and put it under the control of politicians. Certainly, in the case of an industry with the ramifications of transport, the suggestion seems to me to be little short of madness.

Look for a moment at the wording of the Motion. The Mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who has just sat down, drew attention to the fact that it complains of a lack of satisfactory facilities. In my opinion that is definitely incorrect. Under our present system a trader has a choice of railway, road, canal or sea, and he can make his selection with a view both to his own convenience and to the cost of the different forms of service. There is on the goods side of the transport industry certainly no lack of facilities in this country. In the same way as regards passenger transport, there is probably no country in the world with better facilities, both urban and rural, giving a choice as it does to a passenger of the means of travel which he may wish to adopt. It seems pretty obvious that if this suggestion of nationalisation—or, if you like the word better, unification—is carried out, the free choice which the trader now has with his goods, and which the passenger has as to his mode of travel, will not remain.

The Motion further talks about involving serious waste. That phrase makes me all the more suspicious that if we had unified control under what I might call a transport dictator, the citizens of this country would be told what transport they were to use, and freedom of choice would be a thing of the past. There is one phrase with which I can heartily agree although the hon. Member who has just spoken disagreed, and that is that co-ordination of transport is essential. That was largely the reason for the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 and 1934, for the London Passenger Transport Act, and for the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. It was also the reason for the legislation on what is called the Baillie report, which was promised in the Gracious Speech, and for the Report on Service and Rates, which has been got out by the Transport Advisory Council. We can get co-ordination without State ownership, and that is the difference between hon. Members opposite and Members on this side.

I have not time to go into the details of what a revolutionary proposal of this kind would involve. I understand from the Seconder that it was not their intention in putting down the Motion to bring in the "C" licence holders. We have not heard what is their intention with regard to the "B" licence holders, but if we tried to unify the whole industry, it is difficult to see where we could draw the line. We might have the ridiculous position in the case of the "C" licence holders in which we had a private enterprise dairy with a nationalised milkman. These are only some of the difficulties which, if you go in detail into this proposal, meet you at every turn. The transport industry is an up-to-date industry constantly adapting itself to changing needs and extending to meet new requirements. As the last speaker said, it plays a vital part in the industrial life of the nation. We on this side agree that a certain measure of statutory control is necessary in the national interest. It is, however, our policy to encourage coordination by voluntary methods, supported, where necessary, by legislative action. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Motion and support the Amendment.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

The Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I do not deal with history, because I am sure that it will be deal with in a later stage of the Debate. I should like to say, however, that the House will be greatly disappointed at the somewhat cursory handling that he has given to what is a vital question. Nor do I wish to deal with the interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). Everybody who heard him will admire the gallantry and courage with which he pursues his lonely battle for a lost cause. He does it with a combination of the loyalty of a Don Quixote with the fidelity to principle of a Rip Van Winkle. I want to say a word to the Mover of the Amendment. I dare say that in the heat of Debate he may have been led to say a little more than he meant, but, as he said it, it is well that it should be answered. I hope he does not believe that we on this side, when we deal with what we believe to be the inevitable outcome of our system, namely, a slump in a few years' time, look upon that prospect with any glee or hope. We realise that when a slump comes it is the people whom we represent who bear the full brunt of it and carry the whole cost of it. The hon. Member and his friends may suffer some restriction in dividends, but they will not lack a meal or a suit of clothes. They will hardly lack another motor car. Slumps do not affect them to the same degree, and when people on this side of the House and those outside who agree with us talk about the slump that is coming, it is with fear and trembling and horror, and not with glee and hope.

Commander Marsden

You will be glad to see it come.

Mr. Silverman

The hon. and gallant Member will have to let me relieve the hon. Member for South Bradford of Rip Van Winkle's mantle and give it to him instead. We do not want the slump to come. What we want the Government to do is to plan now to prevent it, and the burden of our complaint is that they sit back and do nothing. It may or may not be a true complaint, but let not the hon. and gallant Member imagine that we desire the slump to come.

Commander Marsden

Will the nationalisation of railways prevent it?

Mr. Silverman

I do not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me that. I was dealing with the point about the slump because it was dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment, and I was replying to it. Several hon. Members in opposition to the Motion have taken the phrase which talks of the lack of facilities and have indignantly denied that there is any lack. I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would spend a few days in North-East Lancashire. It is a depressed area and has been doing all it can by its own efforts, without any Government assistance, to attract new industries. Railway facilities, transport facilities, in North-East Lancashire, are a disgrace. If there is one factor more than another which prevents that part of the country from sharing in the very limited measure of prosperity which the Government boast about so much it is the totally inadequate lack of transport. I know that I am voicing the opinion of every Lancashire Member, whether he sits on this side or that.

Mr. Goldie

May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that he should do what I did when I was in Burnley: get across to Wakefield, where he will find a fast train to London, first stop King's Cross.

Mr. Silverman

I know that there are many ways in which people who have the means may get adequate passenger facilities, but it is not so easy to do what the hon. and learned Member has said. I am not dealing with passenger facilities, though they are bad enough. With many passenger trains it takes three and a quarter hours to travel the 51 miles between Liverpool and my constituency. But I am not dealing here with passenger transport, but with goods transport. The measure of recovery in Lancashire has confined itself to an area of a very few miles round Manchester, and the reason for that is that when people consider the possibility of starting new industries, and think of the transport facilities, they dare not build new factories or take new industries to North-East Lancashire, because they know well that the transport facilities offered to them are completely inadequate.

I am not saying what is the remedy for that. It may be that what is suggested in the Motion is the remedy, or partly so, or it may be that it is not; but when we are considering co-ordination, or unification, or whatever else you like to call it, do not let us delude ourselves about the facts. If people go away from this Debate feeling that our transport arrangements are perfect, that there is no room for improvement, that services are completely satisfactory everywhere, they simply delude themselves, and make it impossible for them to approach this problem with a requisite knowledge of the facts. I do not wish to say anything else, because there are others who are anxious to speak, but I thought it was worth while making the two points which I am grateful to have had the opportunity of putting forward.

10.17 p.m.

Sir J. Haslam

It is not often that I attempt to address this House, but I could not resist the opportunity to do so to-night, after listening to every speech which has been made on this Motion. Before I come to the arguments put before us, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) whom he thinks that we on the Conservative side of the House represent. He said "they" represent the workers of this country. We have manhood and womanhood suffrage in this country, and some of us have been returned here by huge majorities in working-class constituencies. According to his argument the only Members who represent the working classes are those who sit on the Labour benches.

Mr. Silverman

I did not desire to make a party point at all. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me when I say that anyone, no matter what his party, who feels that he was elected by and represents working-class people will agree that no one claiming to represent working-class people, whether on these benches, or those benches, or those other benches, views the possibility of a coming slump with any glee or with any hope. It is that with which I was dealing.

Sir J. Haslam

I am glad the hon. Member has explained himself, because I have heard that argument used so often from the Labour benches that I thought it was about time—and I do not get many opportunities of laying down the law—it was pointed out that we here represent the working classes, perhaps more so than they do, and certainly as much. I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He spoke about the Liberals and the voting Lobby, and about we of the Conservative party following party ties. I watch his party very closely from the seat which I usually occupy, and when there is a Division if there are a dozen of them in the House four go in one lobby, four go in the other and four abstain from voting. We have heard a lot to-night about co-ordination and unification, and it is about time the Liberal party had some co-ordination.

May I say a word about the subject under discussion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At any rate I am not the first sinner to-night in that respect, and think I can plead some justification for having been dragged away from it. The plea of every speaker seems to have been that if we could have co-ordination and unification it would lead to what the Motion describes as better facilities. What better facilities would be offered to North-east Lancashire, about which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne spoke? Geographically it is almost inaccessible. I knew that district, I think, before he did. Its geographical position, with the hills round about it, makes it difficult for either road or rail transport. It is inevitable, and you would have to put up with it, whether you had nationalisation, coordination, unification, or anything else. The facilities would be no more than they are at the present time. It has been my privilege to travel on most of the railways in Europe, and I say that the facilities offered here are far superior to those of any other railway that I know. We have every reason to be satisfied with them.

I noticed that the speeches in favour of the Motion, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, were by hon. Members who represented the railway companies in some way or other. I have had complaints from transport people in my constituency saying how well consolidated were the railway directors in the House of Commons, and I invariably say that those who look after railway interests in the House of Commons are not always railway directors. After the exhibition we have had to-night, I shall be more emphatic than ever in pointing out that certain hon. Members allow their vested interests to rule their arguments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including bacon."] I think I can ignore such an interruption. My chief complaint about the Labour party is that their principal questions to Ministers and their arguments are about two subjects, which are very well represented by Members sitting on the Labour benches. I refer to the coalmining industry and the railway industry. I do not blame hon. Members, and perhaps it is inevitable that it should be so; but, on the other hand, they cannot claim to be a national party and to represent national interests so much as some other party in this House can rightly claim to.

I am an admirer of the railway system of this country. Somebody has said that it is a national necessity; I agree, and so is the road transport industry, and quite as much as the railway system. I want to see both systems working together as servants and not as masters of the public, -to serve the best interests of those whose servants they are. They should work together for the common good. In this country we invariably follow a middle course and we are doing so in allowing these two industries to work together as far as possible and by giving favours to neither. I would help both industries as far as lay in the power of the House. The railway companies have made huge developments in post-war years and I consider that a good deal of the development is owing to the competition they have experienced from road transport. The Minister mentioned that, in addition to railways, we had canal traffic in this country. It has almost disappeared, comparatively speaking, and some of us know the reason. Fortunately, certain powers have not been able to throttle the road transport industry, although they have made gallant efforts, as happened to the canal industry.

I hope the House will accept the Amendment rather than the original Motion, because the Amendment follows a middle course, which is traditional in this country. We want both systems, and we want them both to be worked satisfactorily. The road transport industry is an industry of which we can be proud, and I hope the Minister of Transport will remember that, and will provide the industry with proper facilities. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and hope that it will receive, if not unanimous support, the support of a large majority of the House.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Walkden

I want to try to assist the House with one or two facts which may clear the minds of hon. Members of a complete misapprehension. The Seconder of the Amendment—who seemed to me rather to have damaged its prospects than otherwise—suggested that no benefit could possibly come, or ever did come, from public ownership and control. I would ask the House to consider the London Passenger Transport Board, which is publicly owned, and which works very efficiently within its present limited scope, which it will extend as time goes on. The improvements it has made in labour conditions are worth well over £1,000,000 a year, but no increased charge has been made to the public to provide for these benefits which have been given to labour. On the contrary, facilities have been increased and certain fares have been reducd.

No one should blame the great mainline railways for not doing what they cannot do. They cannot develop as they would or could have developed if they had had the benefit that public ownership would give them. What they need is new capital to develop their business to meet modern requirements, but under private enterprise they cannot be enterprising enough; private enterprise never is enterprising enough for a great national purpose. The main-line companies have recently had to meet certain labour claims, which were absolutely fair. The cost of meeting those claims and restoring the cuts which had been a hardship since 1931 was £3,000,000. This year the railway companies have had the benefit of an increase in revenue amounting to a solid £6,000,000 en the year, that is to say, twice as much as they need in new money to pay for the improvement in labour conditions. But, they have gone to the Railway Rates Tribunal and, having put their case with superb ability, have been given power to lay on the public additional charges which will bring them in another £4,000,000. They have, therefore, £10,000,000 with which to meet their difficulties. Labour receives £3,000,000, and the public have to provide £4,000,000.

Sir Charles Gibson

Would the hon. Member say what are their increased expenses?

Mr. Walkden

They have not published their increased expenses, but we who are associated with the railways know that they are always effecting increasing economies, and they are not afflicted at all seriously with increased expenses as against the solid £6,000,000 of new money that has come in. I think that that is a fair example of the benefits accruing to the public from public ownership operating through the London Passenger Transport Board, as compared with the main-line railway companies. The mainline railway companies might well have been merged completely under public ownership in 1921, but, instead, a hotchpotch grouping arrangement was brought about by the Railways Act of 1921.

The reply of the Minister's representative was exceedingly unsatisfactory. It amazes me to hear an hon. Gentleman of great education and experience saying that no man could do this job. I beg to inform the Minister that if we are in military trouble this year, within a week, a fortnight, or a month, someone will have to do it. We on this side stand in peace time, as well as in war time, for the services being run for the benefit of the whole community. That is our only motive. I well remember on the night of 4th August, 1914, when Sir Edward Greys ultimatum expired at 11 o'clock the railways were brought under public control at midnight. If they had not been, we could not have carried on the War. All through the War, there was haggling as to the amount the company should receive. Eventually they got an extra £60,000,000 as a solatium for allowing the State to use their railways during the War. I do not want that sort of thing to happen again. I want our country to be able immediately, in the event of war, to have all the transport under public control, and to be able to use it as they wish without any such difficulties.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison

We have had a very interesting discussion on the Motion brought before the House by my hon. Friends and the Amendment submitted by two hon. Members opposite. An interesting point that comes out is that, with the exception of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), there was no one in the House to defend the doctrine of competitive capital. It is a very significant thing that there should be such a very wide measure of agreement in all quarters, with the exception of this little island of 18th century thought which still persists in the House of Commons, that in these days transport must be a matter of public concern, that there must be coordination, that there must be public regulation and that the old doctrines of capitalistic free competition are dead.

We must leave the hon. Member for South Bradford alone. He represents the Liberalism of the early part of the nineteenth century, and I apologise to him for the fact that there was a little conversation going on between my hon. Friend at the back and me. I said, "Is this hon. Member a free Liberal, or is he sitting in the wrong place? Ought he not to be a Con- servative?" My Friend said, "No, he is a Liberal all right. The trouble is that the Conservatives would not have him, as he is not progressive enough." The hon. Member was very sure about his point of view. He spoke with a great deal of confidence. He condemned some of my hon. Friends for having been railway men, but they have to get their living somehow; and they do not speak for the railway companies in this House, for, so far as I know, the railway companies are not advocates of nationalisation. They are speaking about the higher direction and higher policy of the industry in which hundreds of thousands of members of the trades unions concerned work, and I am always delighted when trade union leaders and representatives talk about higher industrial policy and direction, as well as about the narrower issues of wages and hours of labour.

My hon. Friends ought to be encouraged in doing so rather than discouraged, but the hon. Gentleman, who condemned what he wrongly called their bias and began to extol himself for his broad-mindedness and impartiality, had not been speaking long before it was perfectly clear that he was a road transport fanatic, with a terrible bias on that side of the picture. I am not complaining, because it is nice to hear a real healthy bias. I am not even complaining about the hon. Member's antediluvian outlook upon economics and Socialist policy. After all, one sees the Conservative party moving. It is true that they are at least always 20 years slower than we are in seeing any elemental truth, but still they move, and they have been saying to-night undoubtedly what we were condemned for saying 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They do move, but always behind the times, and they are never on the spot when they ought to be. They always take longer than other people to see the facts, but still they move, and so it is good to hear the thoroughly reactionary stick-in-the-mud, antique point of view of the hon. Member for South Bradford. If it be the case that he sits upon the Liberal benches it makes him all the more interesting and all the more unique, and we welcome his intervention in this Debate to-night.

The Parliamentary Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), who seconded the Amendment—this is an indication of how they move—have both moved since the beginning of the year 1931. They have both to-night welcomed the London Passenger Transport Board. They have said that it is not nationalisation; it is respectable business management. I told them from the Treasury Bench in 1931 that it was respectable business management, and that it had the principle of public ownership in it as well. I claim that I had combined in the Bill public ownership with good commercial management. This is what we want to do with the transport industry as well. They say to-night that that is quite right, that it is not a nationalisation concern, and therefore they support it. Of course they must, because this Government put the finishing touches to the legislation. Recalling what the hon. Member for Harrow said, that London transport is all right, that it is not nationalisation and that there is nothing Socialistic about it, and that the Parliamentary Secretary by inference said precisely the same thing, would you believe that this Amendment was moved by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to the Second Reading of the Bill in March, 1931, and that these two hon. Gentlemen both voted for the Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill? This was an Amendment to reject a Measure, which they now say was sound and was not nationalisation. They voted for this: This House, whilst willing to consider any sound scheme for the co-ordination of London traffic,"— just like this jolly old Amendment to-night— declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides for the nationalisation of London passengei transport; deprives local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings; takes the property of private owners out of their control; gives them no option of sale, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 71, Vol. 250.] That is what they voted for in 1931. We always welcome the sinner that repenteth. To-night, they have been on the penitent form. They say that, after all, it was a very good Bill and, indirectly, they have complimented me on my enterprise and courage.

I admit that there were Amendments made in the Bill by this Government. The Amendments were not good Amendments. What was the Amendment that Ministers used to prove to their members that there was no Socialism left in the Bill? The substantial Amendment was that instead of the board being appointed by the Minister of Transport it was to be appointed by a body of appointing trustees, the most curious device that I have ever known in the history of legislation. It was a bad Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, with one or two exceptions, the people appointed were the same people that a Conservative, a Labour or a Liberal Minister would have appointed. However, it was an alteration. I objected to it because it was aimed at conferring upon the board that very character of irresponsible, dictatorial power to which we object. It was aimed at removmg all forms of Parliamentary criticism of an effective character. The whole theory was that that took the Socialism out of the Bill.

Captain Hudson

Politics.

Mr. Morrison

Why do the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General appoint the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation? Is there politics there? The suggestion was all nonsense. The Government had to make an alteration so that they might say to their supporters: "You voted for the Amendment to the Second Reading in 1931, but now we have altered the Bill, and those who have been convinced up to now that this was a dangerous, revolutionary, Socialist Measure can go into the Lobby, believing that they are voting for private enterprise." That is what they did.

The essential and most revolutionary provision of the Bill was retained, and that was that the Bill took away the ownership of the undertaking from the existing owners, and did not give them the right to cash in compensation, but compulsorily gave them paper. It abolished the right of the shareholders to elect the directors and only gave them a certain right to apply for a receiver in certain circumstances which they will be very careful about exercising. Never before had Parliament compelled capitalists to take paper in compensation for an undertaking and denied them a voice in the election of directors. Now, we are told by the Government and their supporters that that was good business, but in 1931 they said it was terrible.

Let us look at the elements of the problem which the House has been discussing to-night. Here is a little country in size, requiring a great deal of transport of various kinds, railways, road transport, some canal transport, coastwise shipping, air transport and so on. There are two ways of doing that. There is the way of leaving it to private competition, compromised and limited later on by trade agreements, combines and State regulation, carrying on the business for profit-seeking motives. On the other hand, there is the way of the community deliberately planning the transport system so that it will meet the needs of the community in the best possible way. One is the method of planning deliberately to do the job that needs to be done and the other is the method of competitive private ownership which may or may not do the job that needs to be done. It is said that in some ways and in some parts of the country the job is done reasonably well and that in other ways and in other parts of the country the job is done very badly.

Let us look at the matter as a business proposition. Take a railway that is running with all its fixed costs of capital expenditure, its fixed minimum costs of maintenance, and which as the result of competition from other companies and road transport is running railway trains for passenger and goods traffic with a load factor which may be 30 per cent. of its capacity or 40 per cent., 50 or 60 per cent., and sometimes 100 per cent. If it be the case that the railway cannot efficiently do the job and have something towards a 100 per cent. load factor, then it cannot be helped; but if it be the case that the railway can efficiently carry something near a 100 per cent, load then is it not the case that somebody somewhere will have to carry the fixed capital charges, fixed minimum maintenance and running charges, without the undertaking discharging its full effective economic capacity. [Interruption.] I am coming to the business of the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). It is a well conducted business and within its limitations is an example of the application of Socialist economics to Capitalist ends. The hon. Member does not believe in competition, but in co-ordination.

Sir I. Salmon

I think that competition is the fresh air of trade.

Mr. Morrison

I think the hon. Member is right, but he believes in the maximum possible degree of a unified, combined, solid almost a dictatorship direction of the business and industry with which he is concerned, and he has played it with great success. But there is a bit of monotony about it. If I go into an ordinary marble top tea-shop in London, as I do sometimes, and ask for a cup of tea. and two sardines on toast it does not matter into which one I go—I do not know how many shops there are in the London area—it is the same two sardines—at least they all look exactly the same to me—the same cup of tea, and the vinegar tastes exactly the same. This is under a capitalist enterprise. And why is it done? It is because if you get a single unified direction of a great service you effect enormous economies. I do not blame the hon. Member or his firm for having done that in the catering business. It is done for the purpose of securing a direction of that business undertaking in the most effective and economic way. But, if it is right in a great catering business, why should not the great firm of Great Britain plan its transport? Why should it not control, consolidate and direct our transport as a united undertaking with a view to getting the most effective economies and the best service for the community?

Sir I. Salmon

Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that the company to which I have the honour to belong has no combination whatever? The competition is enormous throughout the country.

Mr. Morrison

I quite agree that there is competition. But the hon. Gentleman knows that within that field of business in this great London of ours the competition is nowhere near as great as it was when his firm began, and as a matter of fact his firm is the really big influence in the catering business of London. But I only say that there is a principle of commercial and industrial enterprise, and I hold that it is a principle which is equally applicable to the State and the organisation of transport. Transport suffers in various parts of the country from there being too much transport and also too little transport. It was notoriously the case all over the country before the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that there were areas where omnibuses were almost falling over one another. The services were too frequent at one hour and insufficiently frequent at another. The cream of the traffic was picked up by the competitors, and it may be that areas which greatly needed to be served but which were not commercially profitable were deliberately neglected.

Mr. Leslie Boyce

The Road Traffic Act does not apply to omnibuses.

Mr. Morrison

I am not talking of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933; I am talking of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. But that is what private competitive enterprise had done, and what was the result? That the public was getting an irregular and unreliable service, that their lives were literally in danger from the unsafety of this system, that the standard of life of the working people in the industry was steadily declining, and that some districts had too many buses and others had not enough. That is true of commercial transport at the present time in a number of districts. It is still true in part of passenger transport and of other facilities. Moreover, there is not enough interchange of traffic. I would like to see every corner of the country covered with transport of an organised character of some sort or another. I would like to see a standardised district collection of goods from the farmers, rapid delivery to the railway stations, trans-shipment, rapid delivery by train, and picking up if necessary of goods at the other end, and individual delivery. But at any rate we ought to have a planned transport whereby the railway does the job for which it is most capable, and road transport does the job for which it is most capable, and so on.

This conflict of road and rail is a senseless business. It is not in the interests of transport, and not in the interests of the country. Our job is to see that each form of transport does the job which it is best capable of doing in the circumstances of the case. That does not mean that no individual journey would be covered by both forms of transport. It might well be so, and we must preserve a proper freedom of choice within reason, but you cannot run this freedom of choice doctrine to the extreme conclusion that you are prejudicing the economic and efficient organisation of the industry itself. We believe that the boards of public corporations should be deliberately hand- picked in order to find good business managers, not to find jobs for pals—I often think, when I watch the appointments of Conservative Governments that they are guilty of that kind of thing, which is improper and wrong—but to find men, on grounds of their ability and competence and not of their class, to whom there should be given, under proper public control, freedom to go ahead and organise the industry in the public interest. I believe that would be a good thing to do.

The hon. Member for South Bradford argued about the London Passenger Transport Board, which is praised by the hon. Member for Harrow and by the Parliamentary Secretary, and he asked what it has done. He said that nothing is better, and that not a single improvement has been made. That is not true. It must be admitted that various forms of London transport were on a pretty high level before that combination took place. I agree that both under private enterprise and municipal enterprise, certain forms of transport were very well carried on; but some forms were very bad. What was the position that we were in? The London North Eastern Railway frankly told me, as they had told preceding Ministers, that they could not electrify their suburban lines, because competition made it impossible, because the capital they had invested was not secure from road transport competition. They said flatly that competition had made it impossible for them to electrify their suburban lines.

Lord Ashfield, for the traffic combine, told me, as he had told my predecessors, that he could not construct tube railways without a State subsidy. He said that the competitive system would not allow it to be done. State subsidies were given. The railways got into—and still are partially in—a public assistance frame of mind. I asked them to electrify the main lines, and they said, '' How much are you going to give us? "I replied," You are a nice lot. You say that if I want the railways to be properly run, you want me to give you a State subsidy. You had better apply to the public assistance committee of the local authority, or give the railways up altogether." That was the state of mind of the railways. Since the Transport Board has existed, wage conditions have improved by over £1,000,000 a year, a point which is often forgotten. Tube extensions have been made, without a State subsidy, although, I agree, with a State guarantee; but there is nothing improper about a State guarantee to a public authority. There was not a State subsidy as in the case of the Morden Tube. There have been tube extensions. Electrification is being carried out on the Great Eastern, and the old Metropolitan private enterprise rolling stock has been steadily improved.

Therefore, I say that private enterprise is far from perfect in many ways. Sometimes it gives too much transport and sometimes too little. Sometimes there is poor rolling stock. By the way, can any railway director tell me why it is that at

many railway stations in the provinces, one finds difficulty in knowing where one is because they keep the name of the station secret? It is known that there are many imperfections in private enterprise, but it is known that public enterprise, in various directions, has proved itself to be sound and in the interests of the community.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 163.

Division No. 17.]	AYES.	[11.0 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Hayday, A.	Parker, J.
Adamson, W. M.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt, Hon, F. W.
Alexander, Rt. Han. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Hills, A. (Pontefraet)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Ammon, C. G.	Hopkin, D.	Riohards, R. (Wrexham)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	dagger, J.	Ridley, G.
Banfield, J. W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Riley, B.
Batey, J.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Ritson, J,
Bellenger, F. J.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Kennedy, Rt. Han. T.	Sexton, T. M.
Bevan, A.	Kirby, B. V.	Shinwell, E.
Brawn, C. (Mansfield)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Silverman, S. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Lathan, G.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Burke, W. A.	Lawson, J. J.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cape, T.	Leach, W.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cluse, W. S.	Leonard, W.	Sorensen, R, W.
Cove, W. G.	Logan, D. G.	Stephen, C.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Lunn, W.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	McEnlee, V. La T.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	MoGhee, H. G.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Day, H.	MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)	Tinker, J. J.
Dobbie, W.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Walkden, A. G.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)	Marklew, E.	Watson, W. McL.
Ede, J. C.	Mathers, G.	Welsh, J. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Maxton, J.	Westwood, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Messer, F.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gardner, B. W.	Montague, F.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Garro Jones, G. M.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney,	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Greenwood, Rt. Han. A.	Muff, C.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Naylor, T. E.
Groves, T. E.	Noel-Baker, P. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Oliver, G. H.	Mr. Simpson and Mr. Watkins.
Hardie, Agnes	Paling, W.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke	Craven-Ellis, W.	Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Foot, D. M.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Crooko, J. S.	Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Furness, S. N.
Barrie, Sir C. C.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Ganzoni, Sir J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Crossloy, A. C.	Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Beit, Sir A. L.	Cruddas, Col. B.	Gluokstein, L. H.
Bird, Sir R. B.	Da Chair, S. S.	Goldie, N. B.
Bossom, A. C.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Grant-Ferris, R.
Boulton, W. W.	Dcland, G. F.	Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Bowater, Cot, Sir T. Vansittart	Donner, P. W.	Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Boyee, H. Leslie	Drewe, C.	Gridley, Sir A. B.
Brooklebank, Sir Edmund	Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Duggan, H. J.	Grimston, R. V.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Duncan, J. A. L.	Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Butcher, H. W.	Eastwood, J. F.	Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Eckersley, P. T.	Hannah, I. C.
Carver, Major W. H.	Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Harbord, A.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Elliston, Capt. G. S.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Emery, J. F.	Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Colman, N. C. D.	Emrys-Evans, P. V,	Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Colvitle, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Errington, E.	Heilsers, Captain F. F. A.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Hepburn, P. G. T. Bwehan-
Cox, H, B. T.	Evans, Capt, A. (Cardiff, S.)	Higgs, W. F.
Holdsworlh, H.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Holmes, J. S.	Moreing, A. C.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Horsbrugh, Florence	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hank., N.)	Munro, P.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hume, Sir G. H.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hunter, T.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Hutchinson, G, C.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Owen, Major G.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Keeling, E. H.	Peake, O.	Tasker. Sir R. I.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Petherick, M.	Thomas, J. P. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Latham, Sir P.	Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton	Touche, G. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)	Radford, E. A.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Turton, R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Wakefield, W. W.
Leighton, Major B. E, P.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Loftus, P. C.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Wayland, Sir W. A
Lyons, A. M.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)	White, H. Graham
McCorquodale, M. S.	Rowlands, G.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Royds, Admiral P. M. R.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
McKie, J. H.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.	Salt, E. W.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Magnay, T.	Savery, Sir Servington
Maitland, A.	Seely, Sir H. M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Markham, S. F.	Shakespeare, G. H	Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen
Marsden, Commander A.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	and Sir Isidore Salmon.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Several hon. Members

rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

c540
1. ADJOURNMENT. 16 words