Commons Sitting of 17 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION
Mr. Erroll: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of a large number of persons in the North-Western Traffic Area, against the nationalisation of the road transport industry. The Petition has been signed by 109,238 persons. This is an open referendum of the people; many of the signatures are those of people who are compelled to support the Government through compulsorily levied trade union contributions—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should read the Prayer.
Mr. Erroll: The Prayer of the Petition is as follows:
"We, your Petitioners, humbly pray your Honourable House to reject any proposals which may hereafter be submitted to Parliament for approval, or for legislation, with the object of replacing private enterprise, in the provision of road transport, by a nationalised or Government-controlled system of transport, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of a large number of persons in a Southern Traffic Area, against the nationalisation of the road transport industry. The Petition has been signed by 17,251 persons. The Prayer of the Petition is as follows:
"We, your Petitioners, humbly pray your Honourable House to reject any proposals which may hereafter be submitted to Parliament for approval, or for legislation, with the object of replacing private enterprise, in the provision of road transport, by a nationalised or Government-controlled system of transport, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that a large number of these signatures, particularly of those people employed by transport undertakings, have been obtained by intimidation—
Mr. Speaker rose—
Mr. Shurmer: Put it in the wastepaper basket.
Major Tufton Beamish: On a point of Order. When the first Petition, signed by 109,238 people, was being presented, Mr. Speaker, I heard a Member opposite, a Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham, suggest that it should be put into the wastepaper basket. Is that in Order?
Mr. Speaker: The proper place for Petitions is here, where they must be brought. A wastepaper basket is not the proper place for Petitions, although I must say that I did not hear that remark myself.
Mr. Shurmer: I suggest that they should help to keep the fires going through Christmas.
Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) has just said, within the hearing of most Members of the House, that these Petitions should be placed on the fire. Is it in Order, Sir, for a Member to make these suggestions, and is it not a fact that a Petition is one of the greatest rights still open to a citizen of this country, which ought to be preserved more and more as the days go by?
Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly true that Petitions are an ancient right, but I cannot help the somewhat irrelevant interruptions which take place, not only from one side but from all parts of the House.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    6th Airborne Division (Libel Charge)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War who authorised the articles written by Lieutenant

    1735
    Gourlay, who was recently acquitted on a charge of libelling the 6th Airborne Division because of authorisation by higher authority; and if he will state the name of the officer responsible, together with an indication of the action to be taken.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The articles were authorised by a Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services who had been released from the service before the trial of Lieutenant Gourlay and could not be traced when required at the trial.

    Egypt (Removal of Troops)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost to date since the end of hostilities of removing British troops from Egypt; and what is the cost for the same period to the end of the financial year of providing alternative accommodation both in the Canal zone and elsewhere, giving the cost for each area separately.
    Mr. Bellenger: I regret that I cannot provide the figures of cost of moving personnel since it would entail an excessive amount of accounting work to separate these transport costs from the cost of normal movement. The approximate cost to date of moving stores is £200,000. The total estimated cost of providing alternative accommodation to the end of the financial year is £1,589,100 in the Canal zone and £110,000 elsewhere.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it is anticipated that this accommodation will be required, and will the Egyptian Government take it over at cost afterwards?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should require notice of that question.

    Donington Park
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed retention of Donington Park as a permanent Army vehicle maintenance and disposal centre.
    Mr. Bellenger: Donington Park is being used as a vehicle reserve depot and its release cannot at present be contemplated. The question of its permanent retention is
    1736
    still being considered. I am writing to my hon. Friend about certain detailed points on this subject which he raised in correspondence
    Mr. Cooper: Is it not possible to find some other camp for these vehicles, so that the public interested in motor racing may look forward to the use of Donington Park in the not too distant future?
    Mr. Bellenger: This matter has been very fully debated in this House and in another place. It may interest my hon. Friend to know that the War Office discussed the possibility of using this as a racing track with a society representing motor manufacturers, and they definitely recommended against it.
    Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister aware that there are many other people besides motor manufacturers interested in this matter, and will he communicate with them, including the British Motor Racing Drivers' Association?

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for War why Driver E. Turner, particulars of whom have already been sent him, was kept under close arrest for six months without trial; and whether he will make a statement in connection with this matter.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer.
    Driver Turner was concerned in an incident in May, with three other men, whom it was thought necessary to try first. The trials of the second and third of these men could not be held until September since special investigation was necessary. Driver Turner was tried on 1st October but the proceedings were not confirmed. A second trial was delayed because his family were trying to obtain the services of a certain lawyer to defend him. Eventually, Driver Turner refused this assistance and asked to be tried at once. His second trial took place on 29th November and he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. I have not yet heard that the proceedings have been confirmed. I am satisfied that there was good reason for keeping him in close arrest while he was awaiting trial, and that the delay in bringing him to trial

    1737
    was unavoidable. The time spent in arrest however was taken into account in fixing his sentence.
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether the account of 14610781 Private J. Walwyck, Med. Pln. Admin. Company, 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment, S.E.A.C., has been revised, following the reduction of the soldier's voluntary allotment to his mother on 3rd December, 1945.
    Mr. Bellenger: Following the reduction of the soldier's allotment in December, 1945, his unit was advised of the revised rate of pay available for issue. This information was repeated in routine notifications in April and August, 1946, and again on 3rd December, 1946, following a complaint by the soldier's mother. Payments made to him exhausted his available credit balance in July last, and the latest payments recorded are consistent with his full entitlement.
    Dr. Comynsasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Silvertown can expect a reply to his letters of 4th September, 1946, and 19th November, 1946, relating to 14039062 Private L. Newlands, at present stationed in Troon, Ayrshire, who has appealed for a compassionate home posting near London.
    Mr. Bellenger: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend today.
    Mr. A. Lewis: May I ask my right hon. Friend why my hon. Friend has had to wait from 4th September to 17th December to receive a reply on such a simple matter as this?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that it was quite such a simple matter as my hon. Friend makes out. There was a delay of a few days due to my insistence on more information, and, as soon as I got that information, I replied to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there were a few days' delay that does not take into account from 4th September to 17th December, which is more than a few days?
    Mr. Bellenger: I quite agree, and I will look into that point.
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for War why the whereabouts of Mr. Waxman, 20, Sillwood
    1738
    Road, Brighton, were only recently discovered for calling-up purposes, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Labour, who issued the order, knew of his whereabouts all through the war and gave him permission to join the Merchant Navy in 1942, R.A.F. Ferry Command in 1944, and later allowed him to be transferred to B.O.A.C. and finally released him; what decision has been reached about his release; and the disciplinary action to by taken in this case.
    Mr. Bellenger: A list is kept of men who are absent from their units; it is checked every six months and addresses, if known, furnished to the local police. It was as a result of one of these checks that Mr. Waxman's whereabouts were reported. His release group at present remains uncertain until particulars of his Merchant Navy service have been verified and taken into account. With regard to disciplinary action, he has been admonished by his commanding officer.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the reprimand ought not to be given to this man but to the staff who could not find him, in view of all the points in the Question? He has worked with distinction in the service of this country all throughout the war and is now being made to train again for no apparent reason except that he is losing his regular employment.
    Mr. Bellenger: That is not quite the position. This gentleman did avoid military service, although it is true he served in the Merchant Navy, but as soon as we verify certain particulars about his release group, I do not think he will have too long to serve in the Army.

    Warren Woods, Cromer
    Mr. Goochasked the Secretary of State for War if he will release the Warren Woods, Cromer, Norfolk, still requisitioned by his Department and thus enable the Cromer Urban District Council to put this former public walk and pleasure ground in order for use by the residents and visitors next summer.
    Mr. Bellenger: As this land is no longer required by my Department we have agreed, at the request of the council, that they should clear the defence works, under the special scheme for South-East coast towns. Under this scheme the cost,

    1739
    subject to scrutiny by my Department, of making the land safe for the public is reimbursed to the local authority.

    Trieste (Leave Transport)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will permit Army vehicles to be used without charge by troops stationed 10 miles from Trieste when proceeding on leave or furlough to Trieste.
    Mr. Bellenger: The normal charge at home and abroad for the use of War Department transport by troops for recreational purposes is ¼d. a mile, with a maximum of 6d. for each return journey, for each passenger. As this charge is certainly considerably less than would normally be incurred by troops if public transport were available, I am not prepared to modify it.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that this camp has no recreational facilities at all, and that the troops stationed there regard it as mean that they have to buy these tickets before they can use Government transport?
    Mr. Bellenger: The G.O.C.-in-C. has permission to waive the charges if he thinks it necessary to do so.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister draw the attention of the General Commanding to this position and ask him to reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

    Port Said (Incident)
    Dr. Comynsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the incidents at Port Said, on 18th November, 1946, which resulted in a charge of mutiny
    Mr. Bellenger: On the evening of 10th November men of a Docks Operating Company at Port Said held a meeting outside the canteen. Next morning the whole unit, about 200 strong, was absent from work. The officer commanding troops called in men of two other units, paraded the Dock Company and arrested the N.C.O.s. The majority were released after being addressed and questioned. All men of the company were back at work on 12th November.
    Dr. Comyns: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to my information four N.C.O.s have been under close arrest since 10th November? Are these men still awaiting trial, and, if so, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to expedite their trial?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether the number mentioned by my hon. Friend is correct, but the trial of those arrested will take place before Christmas.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Will my right hon. Friend say what was the cause of the trouble?
    Mr. Bellenger: If men refuse to obey orders and do not go to work that is sufficient trouble.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the same com manding officer still commanding the unit?
    Mr. Bellenger: Off-hand, I do not know.

    Qualification Pay
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Secretary of State for War if he will define exactly the category of officers who are entitled to draw qualification pay referred to in paragraph 25 of Command Paper 6750.
    Mr. Bellenger: There is at present in force an interim scheme for qualification pay at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day for lieutenants, 4s. for captains and 5s. for majors; the list of qualifications is a long one and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL RETORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if war substitute courses will enable officers to qualify for this pay?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have given a rather long reply, which I am circulating, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at it first, and if he then puts down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.
    Following is the List
    In addition medical and dental officers classified as specialists may draw qualification pay at a that rate of 4s. a day in ranks up to and including lieutenant-colonel.
    The following are the qualifications which carry eligibility for qualification

    1741
    pay under the interim scheme. Those under 2 reckon only if the qualification was held on 1st July, 1946:

    1.—(a) Graduate of Junior Wing, Staff College.

    (b) Qualified at a Senior Staff Course, 1939-, qualified at an Intermediate Staff Course, or the equivalent, 1939-, qualified at a Junior Staff Course, or the equivalent, 1942-, and passed a Territorial Army Course in Staff Duties, provided that the officer has subsequently held a second grade staff post or a Lieutenant-Colonel's appointment satisfactorily for a period of one year.

    (c) Passed the final examination of the Advanced Class Military College of Science.

    (d) Qualified at a Small Arms Technical Long Course.

    (e) Passed an Advanced Mechanisation Course.

    (f) A.M.I.Mech.E.

    (g) A.M.I.C.E.

    (h) A.M.I.E.E.

    2.—(i) Royal Armoured Corps officers who have passed as instructors at 12 months' courses on tank gunnery, wireless or maintenance, partly at the R.A.C. school and partly at the Military College of Science.

    (j) Instructors in gunnery who hold a "g" qualification.

    Officers who have passed

    (h) the R.E. Long E. and M. Course,

    (l) the R.E. Long Transportation Course,

    (m) the pre-war Long R.A.P.C. Course,

    (n) the pre-war Long Ordnance Course.

    (o) Officers who, before VJ Day, held appointments as Lieutenant-Colonels for a sufficient period to become war substantive majors. Applicable only to officers of the Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery, Infantry, Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Army Ordnance Corps and Army Catering Corps on reverting from temporary rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

    (p) Officers who hold any degree in the United Kingdom acceptable to the institutions of Civil and Electrical Engineers as giving exemption from the Institutions' theoretical examinations Parts A and B. Applicable only to the Royal Engineers and Royal Corps of Signals.

    Requisitioned House, Ipswich
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War why he has not derequisitioned Colne House, 51, Henley Road, Ipswich, although it has ceased to be used by his Department for some considerable time; and when this house will be returned to its owners.
    Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend is misinformed. Colne House is occupied by the staff of the War Department Land Agent, who is a central figure in the derequisitioning of lands and buildings in
    1742
    the area; I expect that the house will become available for release in May, 1947.
    Mr. Stokes: That may be, but is my right hon. Friend aware that at the time the Question was put down the owner advised me that the house was empty? I do not know what happened to the people inside.
    Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps the owner advised my hon. Friend wrongly.

    Roads, Dorset (Reconstruction)
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complete reconstruction of the roads between Gallows Hill and Worgret Heath and between Bere Regis and Wool, Dorset, is becoming necessary owing to the use of these roads by tanks operating from Bovington Camp; and whether he will support the application of the Dorset County Council for financial assistance out of public funds for the reconstruction of these roads which in their present state, are causing great delay and inconvenience to the public.
    Mr. Bellenger: If an application for assistance is received by my Department through the Ministry of Transport it will be sympathetically considered.
    Mr. Harrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this cannot be accepted as a precedent for dealing with other similar cases?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should like to deal only with this particular case at the moment.

    Singapore (Complaints)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to improve living conditions in Ayer Raja Camp, Singapore, detailed complaints concerning which have been forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Maldon.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say roughly how long the inquiry will take?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know. I have asked for a quick reply.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been making representations about Singapore since last May,

    1743
    and is it not time that we got some of these things improved?
    Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend must not think that his representations do not result in some improvement being made.

    Greece (Field-Marshal Montgomery's Statement)
    Mr. Pirarinasked the Secretary of State for War whether it was with his authority that Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery stated in Trieste, that the function of maintaining order in Greece belonged to the Greek Government and police and that British troops were not there to fight the Greeks; and whether he will immediately withdraw these troops.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.
    Mr. Piratin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are two parts to this Question? Is he further aware that Field-Marshal Montgomery did make the statement, and in that case is he prepared to say whether he agreed to the statement and whether it was delivered by his authority or not?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. The answer is still "No."

    Palestine (Leave and Amenities)
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Secretary of State for War what provision is made for leave for troops serving in Palestine.
    Mr. Bellenger: Troops in Palestine are eligible for one period of 30 days leave in the United Kingdom during their overseas tour. This leave may be granted after 12 months overseas service provided that the soldier will have at least four months' service on return from leave before becoming due to depart for repatriation or release. Troops are also eligible for 28 days' local leave a year, to be taken in not more than four periods of not less than seven days. Free travel for this leave is admissible up to 100 miles from the soldier's station or to the nearest suitable destination if in the opinion of the commander-in-chief there is none within 100 miles
    Mr. Wells: In view of the conditions under which these troops are operating, could my right hon. Friend arrange that they will get 30 days' annual leave at home?
    Mr. Bellenger: I admit that the troops in Palestine are carrying on under very difficult conditions indeed and I am doing all I can to assist in providing them with full leave.
    Major Legge-Bourke: With regard to the leave which they have in the Middle East, and in view of the suspension of the services on the Palestine railway, is any arrangement being made for these men to have their leave outside Palestine?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think I had better have notice of that question.
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War what are the labour and supply difficulties impeding the Government's plans to improve accommodation and entertainment facilities for troops stationed in Palestine: whether he has now examined this question; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bellenger: There is in Palestine a shortage of skilled civil labour available for the Army, and experienced Royal Engineer personnel for supervisory duties are also short. Supply difficulties have now been largely overcome, except for sewage pumps and certain cooking equipment, the production of which in this country is delayed. With regard to entertainment I am examining recent reports and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

    Tinned Food Stores
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the quantities of tinned food, held either by his Department or by N.A.A.F.I., in or within five miles of the Cheddar Gorge; how much of this has been allowed to remain so long as to become unfit for human consumption; and what is being done with this unfit food.
    Mr. Bellenger: The only Army or N.A.A.F.I. tinned food stored within five miles of Cheddar Gorge is at Langford. The stores are in both cases in constant issue, and there is none that is unfit for human consumption. The Army stocks at the moment amount to 41 tons and N.A.A.F.I. merely hold normal trading stocks.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say within five and a quarter miles or some other small distance that there is not a large amount of food being wasted in that area?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have not measured it myself, but I think I had better stick to five miles.
    Mr. Bossom: This situation is very remarkable. Could not the Minister investigate the matter and find out if there is not a large amount of food there?

    Troopship "Empress of Scotland" (Incident)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement regarding the condition? on the s.s. "Empress of Scotland" arising from which, some 300 Servicemen walked off the liner and refused to embark; and, in view of previous incidents of this kind, if he will give an assurance that the accommodation for transporting Servicemen, particularly on long journeys, will afford reasonable space and amenities.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary or State for War if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which the troopship "Empress of Scotland" sailed for the Far East on 10th December; what was the nature of the accommodation; what was the ration scale issued; why the latrines were badly sited, and what steps were taken to deal with the men's grievances.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the answer is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the matter will be thoroughly investigated and that steps will be taken to ensure that reasonable amenities are provided for the soldiers? Is he aware that one of the grievances was that the amenities for the officers and nurses on the upper, decks were quite suitable, but they were not suitable for the soldiers down below?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have made a close investigation and I am satisfied in my own mind that the majority of the troops in this ship were satisfied with the conditions when she was due 10 sail.
    Mr. Churmer: In view of the fact that there have been a number of there demonstrations in the last 12 months, does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that someone in authority should make a complete inspection of messing, living and sleeping arrangements before the troops embark and ensure that there is no reason for them to complain?
    Mr. Bellenger: I agree with my hon. Friend and that is done on every occasion before a ship sails.
    Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the considerable interest that this Question and the supplementaries have aroused, whether he could not make a statement at the end of Questions even in a shortened form so that the House would have the full information?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is as the House wishes. I am at its service.
    Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister quite satisfied that the administration arrangements are in order and, particularly, is he aware that the Army Welfare Department appears to have no jurisdiction over the welfare of the troops from the moment they step on board ship, and is not this a loophole?
    Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps we should clear up the position as to whether I am to answer the Question at the end of Questions. I am quite willing to do so if the House wishes.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the Minister.
    Later—
    Mr. Bellenger: The following is the answer to Questions 25 and 27 which I proposed to circulate:
    The troopship "Empress of Scotland" was scheduled to sail at 8 a.m. on 10th December for the Far East with Army and R.A.F. drafts and men returning from leave. At about 8.15 on the evening before, some men walked off the ship without having made any complaint in the normal manner at the final inspection which had just started. In spite of this act of ill-discipline, their subsequent complaints were investigated by the troopship's inspection officer, and some slight adjustments were made to the berthing. The men went on board once more. Owing to fog, the vessel was unable to sail until the evening of 10th December, and during the day men walked off on two further occasions, the last time being just before the ship sailed. I might add that only a small proportion of the men were involved in these acts of indiscipline.
    The troopdeck accommodation in the ship is for 1,906 passengers, which represents a considerable improvement on the

    1747
    scales in force during the peak of troop movements, when the ship was rated for 4,432 troopdeck passengers. The actual number embarked, including the men who walked off, was 1,794. The rations issued were in accordance with the approved scales. The menus for the first two meals issued on board were very good and the following are the details:
    Mid-day (9th December).

    Pea soup.

    Roast beef

    Gravy.

    Brown potatoes.

    Cabbage.

    Rice and raisin pudding.

    Bread.

    Evening Meal (9th December).

    Lamb and vegetable stew.

    Boiled potatoes.

    Bread, butter, jam.

    Tea.

    Some of the latrines are not conveniently sited, but this arises from the constructional difficulties inherent in the conversion of a passenger liner into a troopship carrying large numbers.
    Apart from the immediate investigation of the complaints which I have mentioned, a court of inquiry was assembled on 11th December at which the complaints and the facts were more fully investigated.
    At present, until postwar troopships designed as such, are available, we must continue to use converted vessels. The amenities in these, however, have been much improved and the number of passengers much reduced, since the days of active operations during the war.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not very obvious that conditions must be very bad when men take such action? Does it not mean that, after 600 men had left, there would be much better accommodation?
    Mr. Churchill: What would have happened had it been in Soviet Russia?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think the hon. Member exaggerates a little. It was not 600 men who walked off. I think the idea was a natural inclination of some of the men to try to remain in this country over Christmas.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that after the 1914–18 war there were instances of this kind, which were proved to be
    1748
    due to certain political influences from abroad, will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully into the matter and see whether the same influences, which were Communist after the 1914–18 war, were not the instigators in this incident?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know the political complexion, neither do I inquire, of the troops I have to look after, but I would very much doubt whether there were very great Communist influences in this matter. At any rate, the greater number, whatever their political complexions, sailed quite peacefully.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of what my right hon. Friend said, will he say why a statement was issued from Western Command Headquarters admitting that certain conditions were unsatisfactory in this troopship? In view of complaints coming from other theatres about unhealthy conditions on troopships, will he take immediate steps to improve the standard?
    Mr. Bellenger: There is a limit to what I can do in the way of improving conditions in troopships. But I can assure my hon. Friend that considerable improvements have been made, and are being made, within the limits of labour and material to do this work. I can also assure him that the inspection of troopships is very strict indeed, and I can see no reason why men who were to sail on this ship to the Far East should walk off when they have to go back to the Far East in any case.
    Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "walking off" the ships? Were there no checks?
    Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps that was not an entirely correct term. They clambered off the ship by getting down the safety nets.
    Mr. Nally: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is all the difference in the world between reading out a menu, and the way in which that food is actually served to the men? Can we have an assurance that in troopships special steps will be taken to see that the catering staffs axe adequate, and that the food listed is served in a way that makes it eatable?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think it is reasonable to assume that if 1,500 men did not complain of their food, it was all right.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that troopship conditions are so much better than they used to be, he is satisfied with the training these men have received at the hands of commanding officers? Are we not up against the fact that in wartime very young commanding officers are an excellent thing, but in peacetime there has to be experience in training troops?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. In this case it was not a question of complete units going under their commanding officers, when, perhaps, these incidents might not have occurred. It was a case of reinforcement drafts and men returning from leave. I have no reason to complain of the training the commanding officers are giving to men in general.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State not think that part of the trouble was due to the fact that too big a proportion of available accommodation was allocated to officers?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I would not agree with that, and I would urge the House not to make too much of this. I am quite sure in my own mind that there was really no serious grievance amongst these men, and I believe they are now on their way back to their units.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it permissible, now that supplementary questions have been finished, to ask if it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to make accusations against the Communist Party about troubles which took place after the last war, before there was a Communist Party in existence? [Laughter.]
    Earl Winterton: This seems to be no laughing matter. I have stated what must be in the knowledge of every hon. Member who was in the House at that time that there was such Communist agitation after the last war. What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was to say that there was no such foreign Communist agitation which in any way got hold of these men.

    Families, Africa
    Mr. Digbyasked the Secretary of State for War how many wives of soldiers are still waiting to join their husbands in East and Central Africa; and what steps he is taking to make additional suitable accommodation available there for soldiers' families.
    Mr. Bellenger: There are 30 families, whose applications have been sanctioned, now awaiting passages and they are due to sail at the end of this month Suitable accommodation may be hired for married quarters but there is little available, and surplus hutting may be adapted for use as temporary quarters. We cannot, however, meet all the requirements at once but plans for new construction are being drawn up.
    Mr. Digby: With regard to the difficulty of accommodation, is the Minister aware that local contractors are advertising an offer to build houses in six weeks for £600, and why cannot the Army get some of this accommodation?
    Mr. Bellenger: That seems prima facie very satisfactory, and I will look into the point.

    Military Medal Gratuity
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will confer upon recipients of the Military Medal in the four years' war the grant of an additional 6d. per day and of an additional 1s. per day in the case of men disabled in winning the decoration, which has been granted to winners of the Military Medal in the war of 1939–45.
    Mr. Bellenger: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26th November to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), of which I am sending him a copy. The arrangements for those awarded the Military Medal in the late war are that they may receive an addition to their pension of 6d. a day or a gratuity of £20 if they leave the Army without a pension. There is no provision for 1s. a day if they are disabled in winning the decoration.

    Inspections (Notice)
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the Army Council to send officers to inspect the commands without notice that the inspection is to take place.
    Mr. Bellenger: Inspections of troops and of administrative services in commands are carried out at intervals by senior officers on behalf of the Army Council. Owing to the scope of these inspections, the distances and time involved, and the necessity for arranging

    1751
    accommodation in advance, it is not possible for them to be made without previous notice. Within commands, formation commanders frequently visit units and carry out informal inspections without notice.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that this practice of giving notice of intention to inspect results in precisely the same cleaning up and window dressing as occurs when it is known that one of his right hon. Friends is expected in the factories?
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot speak for civil Departments; I have enough to do speaking for the War Office.

    Education
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be in a position to announce his plan of education for the postwar Army.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 15th October. The final plans for Army education are now before the Army Council and I shall make a further statement about them immediately the details have been settled early in the New Year.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State aware that the delay in regard to this matter has now lasted for more than 12 months and that he is losing the best men for the job, and is this kind of delay regarded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory at the War Office?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I ask what is the reason for this delay, because the right hon. Gentleman has already lost the best men?
    Mr. Bellenger: There has not been any delay. What has been happening is that the Army has been running down and is now beginning slowly to be built up again. I have to make plans for the new Army; those plans have been in course of consideration for some time, and I hope very soon now to be able to announce something on the subject.

    Regular Soldiers (Retention)
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for War how many men in the Army on Regular engagements have terminated, or are terminating, their service.
    Mr. Bellenger: I presume the Question is intended to refer to regular soldiers whose period of Colour service has expired but who are still held to serve until they are due for release under the Age and Service Scheme or because they are retained under the "Military Necessity clause." No figures are available but I can say that there are very few, if any, such men still serving.

    Pay Corps, Edinburgh (Leave)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War why personnel of the R.A.P.C, Edinburgh, are being refused Christmas leave to travel to their homes in Newport; and why they have been informed that, if further applications are made, the 24 hours' leave on Christmas Day will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Bellenger: Nothing is known at the Army Pay Office in Edinburgh of any such refusal or statement. Men at this office who desire to spend Christmas at home are being given 48 hours' leave either before or after Christmas Day itself, making a period of three days in all.
    Mr. Freeman: If I give my right hon. Friend evidence that these men have been refused leave, will he make inquiries and also assure the House that they will not be victimised if their names and addresses are given?
    Mr. Bellenger: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I will certainly look into the matter. With regard to the second point, we never victimise any man whose name is sent to us in connection with an M.P.'s correspondence.

    Civilian Drivers (Offences)
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that a civilian driving a War Office vehicle cannot be prosecuted by the police if exceeding the speed limit or committing other offences on the road, what arrangements are made by his Department to ensure that these individuals are subject to the same military discipline as uniformed drivers of vehicles.
    Mr. Bellenger: Civilian drivers employed by the War Department are required to conform to Army regulations applicable to the driving of military vehicles, but they are also subject to

    1753
    prosecution by the police for any speed or traffic offences to the same extent as other civilian drivers.
    Sir G. Fox: Is any action taken against these civilian drivers when their misdemeanours are brought to the notice of the Army authorities?
    Mr. Bellenger: Generally speaking, I should think so, but I will look into any particular case if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has one in mind.

    Motor Accidents (Liability)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Secretary of State for Wax why in view of the fact that a private owner of a motor-car has an obligation to see that all persons driving his motor-car are insured, his Department does not accept a similar liability for any vehicles, so that persons who suffer accident from such vehicles, when driven other than on military duty, may obtain damages.
    Mr. Bellenger: Cases of accidents occurring on or after 1st July, 1946, involving service vehicles driven off duty, are covered by the statement made on that date by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    Young Soldiers (Marriage Allowance)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War when he will be able to relieve the anxiety of the wives of men under 21 years of age who have been called up or will be in the near future, with regard to the non-payment of marriage allowances, as the grants from the War Grants Committee are quite inadequate to enable them to meet household expenses.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd December.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has held up a decision in this very urgent matter and who is the nigger in the woodpile—is it the Treasury?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Never.
    Mr. Bellenger: I understand from my right hon. Friend that there are no niggers at the Treasury.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In any review which the right hon. Gentleman makes in this matter, will he bear in mind also the position of the wives of officers where an allowance is withheld if the husband is not 25 years of age?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I have already made that review and I hope that it may be possible shortly to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. George Wallace: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department reached agreement on the matter in principle?
    Mr. Bellenger: We have certainly gone a good distance towards it.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many wives of serving soldiers under 21 who have now to pledge part of their homes in order to obtain the wherewithal to live?
    Mr. Bellenger
    Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have proof in my own constituency. Is he further aware that the mass of the people of this country think that it is disgusting that a person who is called up should not have his liabilities met by the Government?
    Mr. Bellenger: The position is not quite as my hon. Friend presents it, but I agree that sympathetic consideration ought to be given to this matter and, indeed, it is being given.

    Compassionate Release
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for War what is the minimum age and service which entitles a man to release on compassionate grounds.
    Mr. Bellenger: There is no minimum age or period for which an officer or soldier must have served before he is entitled to release on compassionate grounds. I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer given by my predecessor on 16th July to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and to my reply last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. W. D. Griffiths). I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of these replies.

    Closed Road, Norfolk
    Mr. Dyeasked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken

    1755
    to reopen the road from Watton to Thetford through the battle training area; and how he intends to inform the public when the road is open and when closed to entail the least inconvenience to the road users.
    Mr. Bellenger: Arrangements have been made to inform the local Press and the police of the times when the road will be opened, so that inconvenience to road users is avoided.
    Mr. Dye: Can my right hon. Friend say when it will be opened?
    Mr. Bellenger: I thought it had been opened by now, but as my hon. Friend knows, I have done my best to see that the road is opened.

    Demobilisation Delays, Middle East
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for War what disciplinary action was recently taken at L Camp, R.E.M.E., M.E.F., against demonstrators who protested about the slow-down in demobilisation.
    Mr. Bellenger: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 3rd December, disturbances took place at several units in the Middle East. Certain courts martial are pending and I am therefore not yet in a position to make a final statement.

    Parades, Loughton
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at No. 1 A.A. Workshop Company, R.E.M.E., Loughton Hall Camp, Loughton, Essex, the men are paraded three times a day for roll-calls; that men with less than six months' service have to be in camp at 11 p.m. and that lights-out is at 10.35 p.m.; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to such parades, etc.
    Mr. Bellenger: As all the men in this unit do not work in the workshops on fixed tasks, parades are held at 8 a.m. and 12 noon in order that men can be detailed to their various duties. The third parade at 5.15 p.m. has recently been instituted as a temporary measure because some men have been leaving the workshops before the proper time and have been leaving camp bounds before the end of working hours without permission.
    1756
    Young soldiers with under six months' service have to be in camp by 11 p.m. unless they have a pass, which is easily obtained by any man of good conduct. These passes allow men to stay out of camp till reveille if they wish. Many men of the unit go to bed at 10 p.m. and wish to sleep; therefore lights-out is at 10.15 p.m. because it is considered that men who wish to sleep should be considered before those who wish to stay out late.
    These rules are in accordance with the recently declared policy on the way of life of the soldier. "Request Hours" are held by the commanding officer regularly each week and most of the points raised in this Question have been brought to his notice by young men of the unit. I do not think that there is any reason for me to interfere.
    Mr. Shurmer: Does the sergeant take them glasses of milk?

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Currency Conversion
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War at what rate prisoners of war are permitted to change marks into sterling; and how this compares with the official rate.
    Mr. Bellenger: Prisoners of war do not have occasion to change marks into sterling but my hon. Friend may be referring to the reverse procedure. Remittances to Germany and the payment of credit balances on repatriation are changed at the rate of 15 Reichmarks to the pound.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend explain why this is inflicted on these people? Why should not they be allowed exchange at 40 marks to the £, which is the normal rate?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. Forty marks to the pound is not the normal rate. That is a purely concessional rate for occupation troops. Fifteen marks to the £ was arranged in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

    Complaints
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War to whom a prisoner of war detained in this country, can appeal if he is not satisfied with the way in which complaints made to the commandant of the camp have been dealt with.
    Mr. Bellenger: A complaint may be made by any prisoner of war under Article 42 of the Geneva Convention. Such complaints are to be addressed to the commandant of the prisoner of war camp who is obliged to forward them to the War Office with such comments as he considers necessary.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks this arrangement reasonable? Is he aware that we find it necessary to allow persons serving in our own Armed Forces to refer to Members of Parliament, and surely it is doubly necessary that prisoners of war should be allowed to do likewise?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that the analogy is quite correct. Prisoners of war are protected under certain conventions, and these international agreements certainly do protect German prisoners of war in this country.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Geneva Convention no longer functions, that we are no longer at war with Germany because there is no Government with which to be at war, and, therefore, we are at peace with Germany, so what about it?
    Mr. Bellenger: That was not quite the point raised by my hon. Friend in his Question. I think that I can say to the House generally that prisoners of war in this country have been very fairly treated, and they admit it.
    Mr. Stephen: If the commandant of a camp does not pass on complaints, what happens?
    Mr. Bellenger: He must do so, and it any hon. Member knows of any case where that is not being done, and will bring it to my notice, I will attend to it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend give a reason why there is any objection to prisoners of war writing to Members of Parliament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's last answer make it all the more necessary that there should be some independent means of discovering what is going on?
    Mr. Bellenger: I personally have no objection, but there are other considerations in this connection. There are certain undesirable elements in this country who would be glad to get in touch with German prisoners.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Can my right hon. Friend say what channels are open to him to find out whether a local commandant does or does not forward any complaints of prisoners of war?
    Mr. Bellenger: In addition to other safeguards, there are visitors under the Geneva Convention constantly visiting these camps, and they would soon let us know if such were the case.

    Christmas Rations
    Mr. Attewellasked the Secretary of State for War why it is impossible to grant extra rations for the Christmas period to German prisoners of war in this country.
    Mr. Bellenger: The food situation in this country has permitted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food to make only very limited additions to the rations of the people of this country at this time. In these circumstances it is not considered either desirable or possible to increase the rations of prisoners of war who are adequately fed. I would add that no extra rations are given to British troops for Christmas.
    Mr. Attewell: Is the Minister aware that these men are prisoners, that we are responsible for them, that they are working on the land, and. therefore, we are responsible for their feeding?
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend will not permit extra rations, will he make quite sure that the commandants do not arbitrarily stop parcels sent to prisoners as is mentioned in a Question later on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Bellenger: The point is not that I will not, but that I cannot.

  ARMS STANDARDISATION
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for War on what authority his Department, through its usual publicity channel, informed a U.S. news agency, at the end of October, that British Empire and U.S. political and military chiefs had agreed in principle to standardise land, air and naval weapons and munitions to U.S. sizes and patterns and that the Defence Minister designate would give the decision practical effect as soon as he took office.
  Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend is misinformed. My Department issued no such statement.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Associated Press on 30th October sent a series of despatches to the United States containing this and much other information, and informed the editor that they had received it from the Public Relations Officer of the War Office?
  Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. That is not my information. I understand that the Associated Press cabled the story to the United States of America as from authoritative British military sources. That is certainly not the War Office.
  Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say whether anybody but an enemy of these two Empires would gain from a refusal to standardise?
  Mr. Zilliacus: The Associated Press informed their editor—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Order You are a lot of yahoos!
  Mr. Bellenger: It the Associated Press informed the editor in the sense mentioned by my hon. Friend, it is entirely incorrect.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the American people that the bulk of the people in this country are delighted if the arrangements have been made?

  NEW TOWN, CRAWLEY
  Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will inform the House what procedure was adopted by his Department to consult the local authorities who appeared to be concerned before making an order designating an area of land at Crawley for development as a new town.
  Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he took in conformity with Clause I of the New Towns Act, 1946, to consult with the local authorities concerned before choosing Crawley as the site of a satellite town.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The first formal consultation with the local authorities,
  1760
  who appeared to me to be concerned in the proposal for a new town at Crawley, took place in the Ministry on 10th July, when I met representatives of three county councils and three rural district councils. Further consultation took place at Crawley between some of my officers and representatives of the same six local authorities on 7th October, after the draft of the order designating the area had been published.
  Colonel Clarke: May I ask the Minister whether he was able to lay before those authorities anything more than the barest outlines of the scheme, and also whether they welcomed them, or whether they pointed out the grave difficulties to do with water supply, great numbers of railway and road crossings, the presence of a trunk road, the sterilization of much agricultural land, and other things of that sort?
  Mr. Silkin: I was able to put before the authorities the proposal to build a new town in their area, and all the authorities to whom I spoke welcomed the proposals and did not put before me the difficulties which the hon. and gallant Member now mentions.
  Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman says that the authorities welcomed the proposals, would be tell the House why it was that, without exception, they all opposed them at the inquiry? Is he aware that, so far from welcoming the proposals, from all the information that is available, the authorities pointed out the utter impracticability of the scheme?
  Mr. Silkin: Since I was present at the consultation and the noble Lord was not, I am in the better position to say, and they did welcome the proposals at the consultation.
  Earl Winterton: As there is a difference of opinion between the local authorities and the right hon. Gentleman —I suppose he would not suggest that they are less truthful than he is—would he consider publishing the report of the consultation? There is a very serious difference of opinion as to what occurred.
  Mr. Silkin: I am not aware that there is any difference of opinion, but I am perfectly willing to publish the report of the proceedings.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Does the Minister realise that many hon Members of this House, whatever they may think of his particular answers, are very gratified that the Lord President has allowed him this one little ewe lamb by way of an oral answer and hope that he may one day achieve another?
  Mr. Silkin: I have a great many more ewe lambs following on the Paper if I am allowed to answer them.
  Colonel Clarke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has not answered one part of my supplementary question. It was, whether he had been able to lay before the authorities anything more than the barest outline of the scheme?
  Mr. Silkin: I put before the authorities the proposal to build a new town in their area, and I gave them an indication of the area that would be covered.

  WAR DECORATIONS (CIVILIAN AIR CREWS)
  Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that civil air pilots who are entitled to the Germany and Atlantic Star, although they have applied through the appropriate Department, have not been given permission to wear the ribbon; and what steps he is taking to alter this ruling.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The details of the scheme for the award of these Campaign Stars to members of civilian air crews who were engaged on transport and ferrying duties, have presented some difficulties, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expects that arrangements will be completed during the next two or three weeks.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pilots were given details of how they could apply for the ribbons some nine months ago, and does he not realize it is about time the matter was settled? The war has been over 18 months.
  Mr. Morrison: We are trying to get it settled, but these matters are somewhat difficult.

  CHILD CARE TRAINING
  Mrs. Nicholasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to implement the Interim Report of the Care of Children Committee on Training in Child Care, which was presented last March.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As soon as the Interim Report was received, Inter-Departmental consultations took place and a plan was worked out to meet the recommendation of the Curtis Committee for a Central Training Council to promote basic training in child care for house mothers. This plan has required reconsideration in the light of the recommendation in the final Report that the functions of the training council should be extended to cover more advanced training for other classes of persons who are concerned with the care of homeless children. There will be no delay in preparing and giving effect to this revised plan, but while a long-term plan for the training of staff will no doubt be advantageous, it will not meet the immediate difficulty caused by the acute shortage of staff in children's homes. When an attempt was made last summer to start, in accordance with the suggestion in the Interim Report, a course of training for senior staff, it was found that the homes were unable to spare any members of their staff for the purpose.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Savings, Scotland
    Sir William Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) it he will state from 1939 the total amount of savings in Scotland through the Post Office Savings Bank;
    (2) if he will state from 1939 onwards, the total amount of Scottish Savings Certificates, bonds and loans; and the cost per cent. of the collection of these.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. Darling: Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the large number of figures which he is providing give some indication of the scale of Scottish savings

    1763
    as against previous years—year by year? Are they rising or falling?
    Mr. Dalton: All these indications are given in detail in the answer that I pro-

    The figures given below cover the period from 21st November m each year, beginning with the 21st November, 1939, to the 20th November in the subsequent year, both days inclusive. Since 1939, this period has been adopted by the Scottish Savings Committee as its "Savings Campaign Year" and all statistics have been calculated by reference to it

    Net Increases in Post Office Savings Bank Balances (Deposits less Withdrawals) in Scotland.

    £

    Year ending 20th November, 1940

    …

    …

    …

    3,208,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1941

    …

    …

    …

    7,950,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1942

    …

    …

    …

    8,953,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1943

    …

    …

    …

    11,507,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1944

    …

    …

    …

    11,685,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1945

    …

    …

    …

    9,443,000

    Year ending 20th November, 1946

    …

    …

    …

    4,354,150

    £57,300,150

    Total Subscriptions in Scotland of National Savings Certificates, 3 per cent. and 2½ per cent. Defence Bonds, and "Tap" Loans.

    —

    National Savings Certificates.

    3 per cent. and 2½ per cent. Defence Bonds.

    2½ per cent. National War Bonds.

    3 per cent. Savings Bonds.

    1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds.

    Year ending 20th November,

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1940

    16,597,198

    18,841,343

    23,292,200

    —

    —

    1941

    19,444,441

    20,290,225

    53,241,309

    35,401,555

    —

    1942

    20,342,654

    15,642,271

    30,396,657

    43,132,910

    —

    1943

    26,186,195

    14,710,515

    46,735,093

    38,246,669

    —

    1944

    23,131,377

    14,813,080

    41,182,754

    32,615,240

    151,750

    1945

    17,383,911

    17,586,195

    23,602,820

    78,684,879

    918,049

    1946

    13,572,707

    27,685,150

    7,061,225

    13,849,960

    —

    136,658,483

    129,568,779

    225,512,058

    241,931,213

    1,069,799

    Total … £734,740,332.

    Net Increases in Balances (Deposits less Withdrawals) in Scottish Trustee Savings Hanks.

    Year ending 20th November, 1940

    …

    …

    …

    5,753,097

    Year ending 20th November, 1941

    …

    …

    …

    13,421,878

    Year ending 20th November, 1942

    …

    …

    …

    14,519,058

    Year ending 20th November, 1943

    …

    …

    …

    19,532,514

    Year ending 20th November, 1944

    …

    …

    …

    21,007,554

    Year ending 20th November, 1945

    …

    …

    …

    19,617,218

    Year ending 20th November, 1946

    …

    …

    …

    16,478,486

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    £110,329,805

    The annual expenses of the Scottish Savings Committee for each financial year ending 31st March as shown in the Committee's Appropriation Accounts are as follows:—

    £

    1939/40

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    17,208

    1940/41

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    35,772

    1941/42

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    45,904

    1942/43

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    52,745

    1943/44

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    55,138

    1944/45

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    58,871

    1945/46

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    53,860

    These expenses have not been expressed as a percentage of Savings Certificates Bonds and loans collected as an estimate of costs of collection should allow for the cost of posters and leaflets provided by the National Savings Committee and for services rendered by the Post Office and the Trustee Savings Banks for which separate figures cannot be given.

    pose to circulate. Scotland is holding on moderately well; it might do better.
    Following is the reply:

    Cost-of-Living Subsidy (Exports)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the domestic cost-of-living subsidy is being exported in the form of a cheapening of the labour content in our exports at the present time.
    Mr. Dalton: None at all, so long as exporters get the full market price for their sales.
    Mr. Erroll: Has that policy been made clear to exporters—that the must charge profiteering prices abroad in order to recoup money taken by the Government from the taxpayer?
    Mr. Dalton: I said, "the full market price." It was not I who used the term "profiteering."

    Egypt (Swiss Francs)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the British Government are compelled to make Swiss francs available to the Egyptian Government.
    Mr. Dalton: Under the arrangements set out in Cmd. 6792 an agreed total of hard currencies, including Swiss francs, equivalent to 12 million Egyptian pounds, is placed at the disposal of the Egyptian authorities for all purposes for the year to 31st March, 1947.
    Mr. Erroll: Is there any control over the use which the Egyptian Government make of those hard currencies? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Egyptians are given more generous allowances of Swiss francs for tourist purposes in Switzerland than British citizens?
    Mr. Dalton: It is because the Egyptians are not subject to all the difficulties to which we are subject, and in particular that, in terms of sterling balances, the Egyptians regard themselves as creditors and ourselves as debtors.
    Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that we are debtors because we spent so much money defending Egypt?
    Mr. Dalton: I would not deny that

    American Loan
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present day value of the 3,150,000,000 dollars remain-
    1766
    ing of the dollar credit in terms of U.S. prices prevailing in December, 1945, and at the present time.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Chancellor tell the House how long he thinks this loan will sustain itself in carrying on our transactions with the United States? When will it peter out?
    Mr. Dalton: Not for quite a long time. The answer which I am proposing to circulate indicates that in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. We have to decide which American index of prices we select, and my answer gives particulars of various alternative prices. I conclude by saying that it would be misleading to assume that the present prices give any guide to average prices over the whole term of the credit. It must not be taken for granted that American prices will hold their present level over the next three or four years, or even that the average will be much higher than December, 1945
    Following is the answer:
    This Question can only be answered by reference to index numbers, and it is a matter of opinion which index is the most suitable to use. Taking December, 1945, as 100, American retail prices had, up till October, 1946, increased by 14 per cent., while the American export price index had increased by 13 per cent. to September, 1946.
    On the other hand, the United States Bureau, of Labour Statistics Wholesale Price Index has moved as follows:

    December, 1945

    …

    100

    March, 1946

    …

    102

    June, 1946

    …

    105

    September, 1946

    …

    116

    End-November, 1946

    …

    130

    On this basis the present day value of the 3,150 million dollars remaining of the dollar credit would be approximately 23 per cent. less than at December, 1945, i.e., it would be approximately 2,430 million dollars But it would be misleading to assume that the present prices give any guide to average prices over the whole term of the credit. It must not be taken for granted that American prices will hold their present level over the next three or four years, or even that the average will be much higher than December, 1945.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to differentiate in accounting between dollar receipts received from current transactions and from the U.S. loan, respectively, in accordance with the provision of Article 6 of the Loan Agreement.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This question would only arise if our drawings from the American credit exceeded current requirements.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that answer mean that, under Article 6, His Majesty's Government are not bound to finance current transactions from current dollar credits, and that they can use the American loan for that purpose?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, Article 6 is part of the agreement. The question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put to me would only arise if the drawings that we are currently making from the credit exceeded our own requirements, and that is not so at present. Therefore, there is nothing to subdivide between the two heads.

    Canadian Dollars (Grain Purchase)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated and actual expenditure of Canadian dollars expended up to the last available date on the acquisition and movement of grain to this country during the present crop year.
    Mr. Dalton: The estimate for the present crop year is 200 million Canadian dollars. Actual expenditure to 1st December was 82 million.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor say, in view of the added expenditure which is being incurred in respect of shipment through Pacific ports, by how much actual expenditure this year is now expected to be in excess of estimate?
    Mr. Dalton: The crop year begins on 1st August, and it is not possible to say at present. We have only travelled a short part of the year and, owing to a number of causes, the deliveries may be spread over the year in a way that we cannot estimate at the moment. I should be happy to give a reply to that question
    1768
    a few months later, when we shall be in a better position to say. The answer I have given shows the position up to date.

    World Gold Production
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net increase of the world's monetary stock of gold since 1939; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to make any representations to the International Monetary Fund to ensure adequate distribution of gold to meet the increased world requirements of this commodity.
    Mr. Dalton: World production since 1939 is estimated at 210 million fine ounces. The mechanism of the International Monetary Fund is designed to ease difficulties caused by the maldistribution of gold.

    Motor Taxation
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the changed attitude of the British motor industry towards the cubic capacity tax, which will replace the horse-power tax on 1st January next, he will postpone this tax pending further consultations with motor manufacturers and other interests concerned.
    Mr. Dalton: No Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the important motor manufacturers, by whom he was influenced to impose the cubic capacity tax, now want to scrap it?
    Mr. Dalton: I cannot undertake to keep pace with the changing views of the motor manufacturers. We had a very long discussion on this. It took up more time than it was strictly entitled to do on the merits of the case, and, in fact, I have no power, without further legislation, to alter this date. I think we had better stick to what we have decided.

    Christmas Gifts (Income Tax)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of employers desire to make gifts to their employees at this time of the year, if he will consider exempting from Income Tax all gifts up to a sum of £5.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir

    Indonesian Operations (Cost)
    Mr. Stephenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of operations in Indonesia after the close of the war with Japan; and how much of such expenditure will be recovered from the Netherlands Government.
    Mr. Dalton: About £15 million. I cannot yet give a reply to the second part of this question.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Statistics
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the numbers of non-industrial civil servants distinguishing men and women in the several grades, namely, administrative,

    NON-INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS—WHOLE TIME: ANALYSED BY STAFF GROUPS.

    Staff Group.

    1st April, 1939.

    1st July 1945.

    1st October, 1946

    Men

    Women.

    Men

    Women.

    Men

    Women.

    Administrative

    2,068

    52

    3,860

    928

    3,442

    556

    Executive

    18,276

    1,031

    38,844

    12,224

    34,324

    9,550

    Clerical and Sub-Clerical

    77,540

    35,313

    90,553

    161,772

    127,921

    137,073

    Typing

    64

    15,273

    33

    37,415

    70

    10,259

    Professional, Technical and Scientific.

    10,906

    135

    29,496

    2,409

    38,253

    2,819

    Minor and Manipulative

    127,420

    35,192

    92,215

    77,439

    124,998

    65,880

    Technical Ancillary Staff

    24,151

    1,171

    53,881

    12,883

    45,035

    7,285

    Inspectorate

    5,259

    528

    4,359

    744

    5,155

    731

    Messengers, Porters, etc.

    13,669

    5,707

    33,851

    14,075

    30,850

    13,021

    Total

    279,353

    94,948

    347,092

    319,889

    410,048

    267,180

    Part-time staff cannot be analysed in this way as similarly detailed figures for part-time staff are not held centrally.

    The numbers of part-time staff were:

    1st April, 1939

    …

    …

    50,595

    1st July, 1945

    …

    …

    96,729

    1st October, 1946

    …

    …

    72,722

    Prosecutions
    Mr. Cooperasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of civil servants of all ranks and grades who have been brought before the courts in Great Britain for offences in any way connected with their employment during the last three years.
    Mr. Dalton: This information could be obtained only at the expense of a disproportionate amount of time and labour, especially in Departments with large regional and local staffs.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that careful analysis of newspaper
    executive, clerical, typing, technical and scientific and minor and manipulative in June 1939, June 1945 and September 1946, or the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Dalton: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the great short age of labour in most industries, will the Chancellor take steps to reduce the number of these non-producers employed by Government Departments?
    Mr. Dalton: It has already been stated that the Government are giving careful attention just now to the desirability of reducing staffs in the aggregate.
    Following is the reply:
    reports during the last few years shows a rather serious increase in the number of convictions? Is he further aware that the judges in these cases have made unfavourable comments on the fact that men who already have existing criminal records have been engaged by the Civil Service, and would be undertake to look into this rather serious matter?
    Mr. Dalton: The one thing I have declined to do is to ask all the staffs in all the Departments to undertake an elaborate piece of research. We want to reduce the staff; we do not want to put upon them a lot of needless research in-

    1771
    quiries. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases, I will look into them, but a general snoop into past records would in my view be a waste of time of officials.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the implication contained in this Question, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that, so far as the established Civil Service is concerned, there is little or no ground for it?
    Mr. Dalton: I would say that is undoubtedly so, and it is up to my hon. Friend to produce evidence.
    Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend look into the system of recruitment—that is the important point—to prevent this sort of thing happening? The established civil servants are most anxious that this should be cleared up.
    Mr. Dalton: That is a completely different matter; recruitment does not arise on this Question.

    Gratuities
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary to the Treasury under what circumstances His Majesty's Government allow gratuities to State servants.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to retirement gratuities payable to civil servants under the Superannuation Acts and the gratuities payable to established women civil servants who resign on marriage. I will, with permission, furnish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not what I was referring to at all?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Arising out of the Question and not the answer, will it be lawful to tip railway porters when the Transport Bill becomes an Act?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The answer is, "Wait and see."
    Mr. Speaker: It is a purely hypothetical question.
    Following are the details:
    Retirement Gratuities.
    Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, authorises the payment of a gratuity at the rate of one month's pay for each
    1772
    year of service to established civil servants who have to retire through infirmity of mind or body before they have completed the minimum qualifying period of ten years for pension.
    Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, authorises the payment of a retiring gratuity at the rate of one week's pay for each year of service to an individual who has been in unestablished employment in the Civil Service, provided that:

    (a) the employment is one to which he was required to devote his whole time, and

    (b) the remuneration for the employment was paid entirely out of moneys provided by Parliament, and

    (c) he has served in the employment for not less than seven years, if he is removed in consequence of the abolition of his employment, or for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of the Department by which economy can be effected, or for not less than fifteen years if his retirement is caused from infirmity of mind or body, permanently incapacitating him from the duties of his employment.

    In a few Departments arrangements exist under which gratuities of small amount may be paid in cases of need which do not qualify for an award under the Superannuation Acts. One example is the Postmaster-General's Special Fund.
    Marriage Gratuities.
    Marriage gratuities are payable to established women civil servants who, after not less than six years' service, resign their appointments on marriage. The gratuities are at the rate of one month's pay for each year of the service subject to a maximum of twelve months' pay.

  POLISH FORCES (HIGHER EDUCATION)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of Polish Armed Forces personnel receiving higher education in Britain as a whole, and London in particular; the number in the Polish University; and what increases in these numbers are expected.
  Mr. Dalton: Approximately 2,800, of whom 1,200 are in London, including 650 at the Polish University College. The total will diminish next year.
  Mr. Piratin: Is the Chancellor aware that many will join with me in being pleased to hear that the total will be diminished next year? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that as these Polish ex-Servicemen are able to attend a university, it prevents British ex-Servicemen from doing so.
  Mr. Dalton: No, it does not, and, anyhow, many of the Polish ex-Servicemen are very brave soldiers who fought on our side during the war. I am astonished to find racial prejudice in this matter.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask my right hon Friend who is paying the upkeep and the fees of the Polish soldiers?
  Mr. Dalton: The Treasury, with pride.

  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the long delays still being experienced by members of the public in obtaining acknowledgments and replies to their communications to the War Damage Commission and in getting individual cases dealt with; and if he will take steps to bring about an early improvement in these respects
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Intake of claims has doubled this year and more than 10,000 claims are now being received and paid each week. Despite this great volume of work, small claims are, normally, still paid in two or three weeks, and all claims on average in four to five weeks, of receipt. The Commission is always ready to look into any case where undue delay is alleged.
  Mr. Bower: If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars of a very bad case I have received, in which great delay was experienced and several communications completely ignored, will he please look into it?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, certainly, but it is not the normal practice of the Commission to answer letters of this type. The best answer to a claim is to send a cheque, and that is what is being done as soon as it is possible. I would add that the largest number of delays is caused by the fact that
  1774
  people will not fill in all the forms and returns with the details for which they are asked.

  GLUE (IMPORTS)
  Mr. Errollasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy regarding the importation of glue.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Licences to import glue and gelatine are granted freely. The quantities licensed for import during the past three months show a marked increase on the figures for the previous months. Actual arrivals in the United Kingdom, however, have not so far been large.
  Mr. Erroll: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he is insisting on exportation of glue at low prices, and encouraging the importation of glue at high prices at the present time?
  Mr. Belcher: It the hon. Member will put that question down, I will be glad to look into the matter.

  WHEAT SUPPLIES
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Food whether he has any statement to make on the allocation of United States wheat and flour to the United Kingdom.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): As I warned the House on 6th December, recent difficulties, especially in North American transport, have gravely affected the supply of wheat for this country. The United States Government has now given us permission to buy and export 68,000 tons of wheat, 36,000 tons of wheat flour and a small amount of coarse grains between now and 31st January. They have also promised us rail priority in the movement across the United States of some additional quantities of Canadian wheat Together with our existing supplies these quantities should—if there are no further delays in transport—just suffice to avert the very grave emergency which we foresaw for the end of January. I should like to add that although these supplies are by no means so large as those which we wished to purchase in the United States in January, at the same time they represent a major effort on the part of the United States Government to meet us,

  1775
  in face of the very real difficulties which the United States Government faces today.
  Mr. Eden: In expressing our gratification at the effort which the United States Government have made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the Canadian wheat, to which he also referred in his answer? Can he tell us why it is, according to a written answer he gave to this House last week, that Canadian wheat imports to this country are down 400,000 tons in the four months July to October, as compared with the four months March to June? That is to say, they are down since the harvest as compared with before the harvest, despite the fact that the harvest has been a good one. Can he tell us why that is so?
  Mr. Strachey: Yes, that is indeed the main cause of our present short-term difficulty. The Canadian export of wheat all through this autumn was very much lower than we, and I am sure the Canadian Government, would have wished. That was not caused by any absence of wheat, but by their difficulties in moving that wheat across the Great Lakes. They were tied up by a series of strikes, by rail movements which were tied up by various difficulties of available cars, and also by rail movements to the Pacific coast. It is precisely that inability on the part of the Canadian Government to deliver wheat during this autumn in sufficient quantities to the ports which has been our main difficulty.
  Mr. Grimston: Is not one of the reasons why there is a shortage of box cars which has led to these difficulties due to the fact that such a high proportion of wheat was shipped by the Pacific coast? Why was that?
  Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We would have preferred as high a proportion as possible to be shipped from the Atlantic coast. It was only when it became apparent that the Canadian authorities were not moving sufficient quantities from the lakehead down to the Atlantic coast that we had to use the Pacific coast to the maximum degree. That was not something which we or the Canadian authorities wished to do.
  Mr. Eden: Can the Minister say at what stage His Majesty's Government become
  1776
  responsible for the transportation of this Canadian wheat? Could he assure us that the question of price does not enter into this matter?
  Mr. Strachey: The answer to the first part of the question is, "at the port." After its movement within Canada to the Atlantic or Pacific port, in either case we become responsible for it when it gets on the ship. In regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, does he mean so far as we are concerned?
  Mr. Eden: What I have in mind is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, our agreement with the Canadian Government is at a price lower than world prices. I understand that a certain amount of Canadian wheat is going to other countries at higher prices than that in our agreement. I would like to be sure that the Minister does not feel it is a question of price why our deliveries are not larger.
  Mr. Strachey: The amount of wheat which has come off the farms is amply sufficient to fulfil the Canadian contract to us. I do not, at first sight, see why the price at which the wheat is sold affects the movement across Canada, which is arranged by the Canadian Wheat Board in conjunction with the Canadian railways and other Canadian authorities.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not self evident that the trouble here is transport—shipping? Has that not demonstrated to the Government how essential it is that we should nationalise shipping?
  Mr. Spence: What steps have been taken to deal with this problem of transportation, which is not a new one? Unless this problem of transport is dealt with, we shall not get the wheat to meet our needs.
  Mr. Strachey: That is essentially a question which can only be answered by the Canadian authorities, not by me. I cannot run the transport system of Canada— [Interruption.]—nor do I run the transport system of this country—but as the House may well imagine, we have not failed to represent to the Canadian authorities the very great importance of the smooth movement of wheat to us.
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).
  Mr. Kirkwood: He never answered mine.
  Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentle man speaks for Wall Street, any way
  Mr. Churchill: What I wanted to ask was whether the question of the price which we pay for Canadian wheat has in any way diminished the flow of that wheat to this country?
  Mr. Strachey: If I have not given an absolutely clear-cut answer, it is because it must be a matter of opinion. No one can answer that question authoritatively. For my part, I cannot see why the price of 1 dollar, 55, which is being paid for that wheat, should in any way prevent its movement. It might have been said that at that price, farmers might not deliver a sufficient quantity from their farms, but that they have done—quite a sufficient quantity. At first sight I do not see why it should affect the movement.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Was it not precisely because the Government foresaw these transport difficulties before last July, that they decided to introduce bread rationing?
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: We are getting off the original question now.

  BRITISH CONVOY (RUSSIAN PRESS ARTICLE)
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a recent statement in the official Russian journal "Red Fleet" concerning a British convoy to Archangel in June, 1942, and whether he has any statement to make.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes, Sir. My noble Friend has read the account published in "The Times" with considerable feeling. This account appears to impugn, not merely the naval tactics of the convoy, but also the courage of the British and American seamen who took part in it. I think Members will wish to have the facts as to the convoy in question and the Admiralty has prepared an account, which also deals with the particular charges made in the" Red Fleet" article; as this account is
  1778
  somewhat long, I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would add that, as the responsibility for organisation and protection of the Northern convoys was undertaken by the Admiralty, since our Russian Allies had not the means to carry out this task themselves, the conclusions reached by the Admiralty as to the conduct of these operations should be accepted as authoritative. This particular convoy, carried out in the most critical period of the war at sea, was admittedly one of the least fortunate Not all operations of war are successful, but we have a right to expect that the efforts of the Royal Navy in the common cause should not be decried. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear. hear."]
  I think it right to remind the House once again what were in fact the achievements of our Northern convoys Between 1941 and 1945, 75 convoys crossed the Northern seas to and from Russia. In these, £308 million worth of military equipment and £120 million worth or other material was sent from Britain to Russia. The equipment included over 5,000 tanks, over 7,000 aircraft, and more than 450 million rounds of ammunition. All of these were in addition to the great quantities of material delivered on American account. Over the whole period 92.6 per cent. of the material despatched was safely delivered to the Soviet Government.
  In all, 40 convoys were run to Russia during the war, some without loss, and some, like this one, at a very considerable cost, but the work was never interrupted. As M. Maisky said:
  "The Russian convoys are a Northern Saga of heroism, bravery, and endurance. This Saga will live for ever, not only in the hearts of your people, but also in the hearts of the Soviet people, who rightly see in it one of the most striking expression of collaboration between the Allied Governments, without which our common victory would have been impossible."
  Mr. Thomas: May I thank the hon. Gentleman and ask him if he will take steps to see that his answer receives the greatest possible publicity, not only in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, but among those thousands of men who are now demobilised from these Services, so that they may have the reply to the "Red Fleet," in this monstrous attack upon their courage?
  Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir. I hope the answer will receive the maximum possible publicity in this country; also, I hope that the editor of the "Red Fleet" will give it as much publicity as he gave the original statement.
  Captain Marsden: Will the Minister add to his statement the number of British men from the Navy, Air Force and Merchant Navy who lost their lives in taking these much-needed supplies to our hard-pressed Ally, Russia?
  Mr. Churchill: And also, in that account, will the Minister give the number of men who lost their hands and feet through frostbite and who are in a frightful condition of deprivation for the rest of their lives?
  Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I think it may be of interest to the House to know that our shipping losses included 57 ships sunk out of the 755 that sailed, and many men were lost in them.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider broadcasting the details of this statement, so that it shall be made known all over the world and not only in this country?
  Mr. Dugdale: Certainly.
  Mr. Thurtle: Has my hon. Friend any hope that this statement which he has just made to the House in vindication of the honour of British seamen, is likely to get wide publicity in Russia?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is a question which, quite obviously, I am not competent to answer. I can only say that I hope it will.
  Following is the Account referred to in the answer:
  Over a period of 3½ years the operations of sending supplies to Russia by sea through Arctic waters, bordered on one side by ice and the other by an enemy controlled coastline, can only be described as outstandingly successful. Out of 775 ships laden with supplies for Russia which sailed in one or other of the many convoys, 718 or 92.6 per cent. arrived safely. This, in spite of the fact that enemy submarines, shore based aircraft and surface ships could, and did, attack at almost any point along the 2,000 miles of route and our own ships were operating at long distances from their bases. Ice was always a hazard, and during many months of
  1780
  the year so restricted the sea room that diversion to evade or mislead the enemy was virtually impossible; the enemy must know our route within narrow limits, and the convoy had to be fought through.
  The particular convoy of 37 ships was run in especially hazardous conditions since extended daylight at this time of year favoured attack by surface forces, and the Germans had four heavy units available in their Northern bases. Nevertheless, the importance of getting war supplies through to our Allies was held to justify the risk, and in any event there was a returning convoy to be brought home at the same time. Like every other convoy, this one had to pass through waters where enemy submarines were known to be in wait and aircraft on reconnaissance. The Admiralty fully realised these dangers, and in this operation the escort, which included cruisers, was stronger than on any previous occasion, and the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, was at sea with a supporting force which included in its responsibility the safety of the home-bound convoy. In its early stages attacks by aircraft and submarine were successfully fought off with only regligible casualties, but when the Eastbound convoy was south of Spitz-bergen these attacks were intensified and certain ships were disabled. Further, reconnaissance which had been hampered by weather conditions, now reported that the enemy heavy units had left their bases, and attack on one or both the convoys by these ships became reasonably certain.
  It would have been inviting disaster to deprive the main portion of the convoy of its escorts to "stand by" the disabled ships or to desert the ships, leaving their crews to the mercy of the Arctic. The only course, therefore, was to take off the crews and sink the ships. For several hours, the Eastbound convoy proceeded on its way, but when it had reached a position due North of the North Cape an attack by enemy surface ships seemed imminent. By this time, the convoy was too far to the Eastward for the Commander-in-Chief's supporting force to give it close support, so the Admiralty ordered the convoy to scatter on the night of July 4th, and the cruisers and destroyers to withdraw in order to form a balanced striking force to divert the enemy. This is the recognised form of defence in such extreme circumstances.
  In the event, the action of the escort and the scattering of the convoy achieved its primary object, and the enemy heavy ships withdrew, and thereby the convoy avoided annihilation. Subsequently, the "Tirpitz" and "Scheer" were reported at sea by a Russian submarine which attacked and later this report was confirmed by reconnaissance and by one of our own submarines, with the "Hipper" added to the force, but the withdrawal cannot be attributed to damage sustained in the attack by the Russian submarine since no damage was inflicted. Unfortunately, although the convoy avoided annihilation, it suffered severely, almost as severely as some of the convoys which were fought through to Malta.

STANDING COMMITTEE (VOTE)
Sir Peter Macdonald: Regarding Business, may I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the defeat of the Government in Committee upstairs today, on a major issue regarding the supply of liquor in civic restauarants, what are the intentions
1782
of the Government regarding the Civic Restaurants Bill?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is the first I have heard about it.
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Sir, that this is a matter concerning a Standing Committee upstairs, of whose proceedings the House can have no official knowledge until the Committee report back to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. In fact, I was about to interrupt the hon. Member who put the question, before the answer was given. Whatever may have appeared in the Press, we know nothing officially of what has happened in Committee until it is reported to the House.
Captain Crookshank: Though we do not officially know anything about it, it is very interesting, is it not?
Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps it would not be suitable for me to make any comment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put.
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Transport Facilities (Members, etc.)
be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 135.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Edwards John (Blackburn)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Edwards. N. (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, F.

Alpass, J. H.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Anderson, A (Motherwell)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Attewall, H. C.

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

Mainwaring, W H.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Fairhurst, F.

Mallalieu, J. P. W

Austin, H. L.

Farthing, W J.

Mann, Mrs. J

Awbery, S. S

Field, Captain W J

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Ayles, W. H

Foot, M. M.

Marquand, H. A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Forman, J C.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Bacon, Miss A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mathers, G

Balfour, A

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mellish, R. J.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J

Gallacher, W.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Barstow, P G.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Moody, A S.

Barton, C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Bechervaise, A. E

Glanville, J. E (Consett)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Belcher, J. W

Gooch, E. G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Benson, G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Mort, D. L.

Bing, G. H. C.

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Moyle, A.

Binns, J.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Nally, W.

Blenkinsop, A.

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

Naylor, T. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Grenfell, D. R.

Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, H.)

Boardman, H.

Grey, C F.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)

Bottomley, A. G.

Grierson, E.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Oldfield, W. H

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Orbach, M.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Palmer, A. M F

Bramall, Major E. A.

Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.

Parker, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gunter, R. J.

Parkin, B. T.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Guy, W. H.

Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)

Brown, George (Belper)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Pearson, A

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hall, W G.

Peart, Capt. T. F

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Perrins, W

Buchanan, G.

Hardy, E. A.

Piratin, P

Burden, T. W.

Harris, H Wilson

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Harrison, J.

Popplewell, E.

Callaghan, James

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Carmichael, James

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, M. Philips

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Chamberlain, R. A

Hicks, G.

Pryde, D. J.

Champion, A. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Randall, H E.

Chater, D.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Ranger, J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

House, G.

Rankin, J.

Clitherow, Dr. R

Hoy, J.

Rees-Williams, D R

Cluse, W. S.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Reeves, J.

Cobb, F A

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Cocks, F. S.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Richards, R.

Coldrick, W.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Collins, V. J.

Irving, W. J.

Robens, A.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

Jay, D. P. T.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Corlett, Dr. J

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Keenan, W.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J A

Daggar, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Scollan, T

Daines, P.

Kinley, J.

Segal Dr. S.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Kirby, B. V.

Sharp, Granville

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Kirkwood, D.

Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Shurmer, P.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Levy, B. W.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skinnard, F. W.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lindsay, K. M (Comb'd Eng, Univ.)

Smith C (Colchester)

Deer, G.

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Delargy, Captain H. J

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Smith, H N (Nottingham. S.)

Diamond, J.

Logan, D. G

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Dobbie, W.

Longden, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Dodds, N. N

McAdam, W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Driberg, T. E. N.

McAllister, G

Sparks, J. A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McEntee, V. La T.

Stamford, W

Dumpleton, C. W.

McGhee, H. G.

Stephen, C

Durbin, E. F. M.

Mack, J. D.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Dye, S.

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Stokes, R. R.

Edelman, M.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Strachey, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McKinlay, A S.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Stross, Dr. B.

Turner-Samuels, M.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Stubbs, A. E.

Usborne, Henry

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Swingler, S.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Symonds, A. L.

Viant, S. P.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wadsworth, G.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Walker, G. H.

William, W. R. (Heston)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wise, Major F. J

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Warbey, W. N.

Woods, G. S.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Watkins, T. E.

Wyatt, W.

Thurtle, E.

Watson, W. M.

Yates, V. F.

Tiffany, S.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Timmons, J.

Weitzman, D.

Zilliacus, K.

Titterington, M. F.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Tolley, L.

West, D. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Mr. Simmons and

Mr. Hannan.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Grant, Lady

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Gridlay, Sir A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimston, R. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Barlow, Sir J.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Osborne, C.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Pickthorn, K.

Beechman, N. A.

Haughton, S. G.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bennett, Sir P.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Boothby, R.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bower, N.

Hollis, M. C.

Renton, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Hope, Lord J.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Howard, Hon. A.

Ropner, Col. L.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Scott, Lord W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Butcher, H. W.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Carson, E.

Keeling, E. H.

Snadden, W. M.

Challen, C.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Spence, H. R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

Lambert, Hon. G.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Sutcliffe, H.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Linstead, H. N.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Teeling, William

Crowder, Capt. John E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. of Wight)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Davidson, Viscountess

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Digby, S. W.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Touche, G. C.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Turton, R. H.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)

MacLeod, Capt. J.

Walker-Smith, D.

Drayson, G. B.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Drewe, C.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Duthie, W. S.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fox, Sir G.

Maude, J. C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Medlicott, F.

York, C.

Gage, C.

Mellor, Sir J.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Molson, A. H. E.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Glyn, Sir R.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Major Conant and

Major Ramsay.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRANSPORT BILL
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [16th December], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the
  1786
  Question, to add, "upon this day six months."—[Sir David Maxwell Fyfe.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: It has been considered a convenient course that on this, the second day of this Debate, I should invite the

  1787
  attention of the House to certain aspects of the compensation proposed for persons who are dispossessed by this Bill. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be following me, and may be able to explain a number of things which are, as yet, gravely dark.
  The people whom we are considering in regard to this subject of compensation are those whose property and livelihood the Government are asking us, in this Bill, to take from them by force. They are people who do not want to part with their property; they have what to them appear sound and just reasons why they should be left in possession of it. They are guilty of no crime, they can point with modest pride to services to the community both in peace and war which are the equal of the services rendered by their fellow citizens. They are a very numerous body. There are more than a million railway stockholders, and 50,000 road transport operators who will be directly affected by this Bill. The number indirectly affected it is not possible to calculate. Every beneficiary of a trust, a pension fund, a superannuation scheme or the like, which holds railway stocks, is indirectly affected by what we do on this subject in this House. Very few of the total of persons affected have committed the crime of being moderately well off or rich, so far as anyone can be today. There are different levels of income among them, as there are on both sides of this House, and it is a fairly safe assumption that a great proportion of the people affected have incomes much lower than any hon. Member of this House. Of course, they have dependants and charges upon them, just as we have. Therefore, I say that it is our bounden duty to consider carefully what we are about on this subject, because it would be a dreadful thing if we in Parliament should be guilty of an injustice towards this section of the people, whose interests, after all, together with the interests of other people, we are sent here to protect. I think this question transcends in importance even that of the large number of people who are affected by this Bill.
  In past days, the State, in these commercial matters, confined its actions to seeing that people behaved decently towards each other, and the State worked
  1788
  through the law, in the last resort, to enforce contracts freely entered into or to exact damages for breach of those contracts. Now it is the declared policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite to abandon the role of referee, and join actively in the game. What a pity it would be if, in this now role, the referee should show himself guilty of conduct for which, in his proper role, he would send an ordinary player off the field. The trouble is that, with the referee himself playing, there is no longer anybody to whom one can appeal for fair play against him. He makes the rules to suit himself, and they are always changing.
  The Bank of England has been paid for in one way; Cable and Wireless in another; the coalmines in yet another, and this Bill adds to the confusion by containing four different compensatory devices to be applied according to whether railways, road transport undertakings, the undertakings of local authorities or privately owned railway wagons are being taken. The absence of any coherent principle is, in itself, an alarming prospect not only to those engaged in the industry directly affected by this Bill, but to those whose industries are the next "cribs" to be "cracked." It removes all power to predict. There used to be a general optimistic feeling, "Oh, well, we do not know the details but, surely, we can rely on the Government to be fair." Those who have had that feeling have received a rude shock from this Bill. It the Government intend to proceed on the policy of taking away the property of the public, they will need to clear their minds on the principles of compensation.
  The present chaos of compensatory devices lets nobody know where he stands or what he can expect. It breeds lack of confidence, and inhibits progress and production. As an instance of this lack of intelligible principle, I take the treatment which it is proposed to mete out to the owners of railway wagons. Under Clause 32 they are to get the original cost of the wagons less a heavy depreciation—what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D Maxwell Fyfe) yesterday called "scrapheap price". Besides being unjust, this is quite different from the basis proposed in Clause 48 for road vehicles, which is the cost of replacement with adjustments for age and condition of the vehicle. It may

  1789
  be argued that there is some difference between a vehicle which runs on rails and one which runs on the roads, which varies the canons of justice to be applied to them. Personally, I do not see the difference.
  But this difference of treatment does not arise from any difference in the vehicles themselves. It arises, I think, simply from lack of attention to the problem. The Government have legislated already for the acquisition of railway wagons. During this year under the Coal Mines Act, a large number of privately owned railway wagons were acquired, and toy Section 13 (4) of that Act, the price to be paid for these wagons is to be the open market value at the date of vesting, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, as if the Coal Mines Act had not been passed. So that we have two different values put on railway wagons. We might have a concern such as an iron company owning wagons for the transport of coal. These wagons have been taken over at one price under the Coal Mines Act. We may then have the same interchangeable wagons used for the purpose of carrying iron ore and so on, and the company will get another and worse price under this Measure. Where is the logic and consistency in that state of affairs? This lack of principle in the Government is very disturbing. The fact that, even within the borders of the Bill which we are now considering, there are four different systems of compensation does not increase our confidence. All these systems have only one principle in common, and that is that they all ignore the real value of the assets.
  Throughout all these methods there is a tendency to shirk arbitration. Where it is allowed, the court of arbitration is severely limited. In the case of the railways there is no arbitration at all. This avoidance of independent arbitration, so far as I can see, rests on no principle at all, unless it be the principle enunciated yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport that inquiries are dangerous.
  Road transport undertakings are to be valued on a complicated system which is described in Clause 48 and in the Seventh Schedule. It is full of technicalities. An arbitration tribunal is provided for, but, as I say, its powers to do justice are severely limited by the text of the Bill. All I would say at the moment of
  1790
  these Clauses and the Schedule is that as they are so technical and full of difficulty, they will require very close and detailed examination in Committee, but for the purposes of the Second Reading I think it will be sufficient if I indicate to the House how these provisions work out and what will be their effect on the people concerned, so that hon. Members may see, through the technical jargon which is perforce employed, the real impact of what we are doing here upon the human beings affected by this Bill.
  I propose to give two examples. Of the 57,000 "A" and "B" licence holders in the road transport world, 11 only operate over 200 vehicles I take as my first case one of these. He has 250 vehicles. It is a family business. The present owner's grandfather started with two horses, and his father and himself have lived frugal and hardworking lives. They have "ploughed back" into the business every penny of profits as they earned them. They have not had any capital from outside invested in the business, and all their savings through three generations are locked up in the business. The business has flourished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Indeed, why not? Through these three generations, the business has grown to a size where its profits are estimated, for the purposes of the Bill, at £19,000 a year, less tax, with all that that means in wealth, growth of employment, public service and a steady yield of taxation to the country throughout the years. All the vehicles of this business were put at the disposal of the Government during the war. That business has been valued in accordance with the terms of the Bill, and the result is that the present owner will receive for his vehicles at the most £25,000. and for his other property £30,000. Taking his compensation for cessation of business at the maximum, which is five years— although the owner himself is gloomy enough to think only of three years—he will get £95,000 for that. The total is £150,000. Stock bearing 2½ per cent. interest on that sum will give him a figure of some £3,750 a year. The loss of yearly income is £15,250 per year. That man is 63 years of age.
  I take another case. There is an operator now aged 50, who has been in business for 20 years. He started with one vehicle and now has seven. This he has achieved in the same way, by modest

  1791
  living and "ploughing back" all his profits as he could. His average profits are £1,747 a year. I am told he will receive for his vehicles £3,400, for his other property £1,500, and on three years' purchase for cessation of business he will get £4,875. That is a total of £9,775. At 2½ per cent. the yield on that is £244 a year.
  Mr. S. N. Evans: Why take the figure of three years when the Bill specifically presents possibilities of five years, and when we can confidently anticipate five years, if the organisation is going out of being?
  Mr. Morrison: That is not at all clear. My first example, though it was given to me at three years, was raised by me to five, because I thought that in a business of such stability I could not fairly argue that less than the maximum of five years' purchase of profits would be given. But in this last case I see no reason to be certain that more than three years can be given. Anyhow, the difference between three years and five years is so little that it makes very little difference to the income which the man is getting. It may swell the total by a figure that looks significant, but at 2½ per cent. it does not add very much to the annual amount. He gets £244 a year instead of his profit of £1,747; that is a loss to him per year of £1,503— six-sevenths of his income gone. I want the House to see what they are being asked to do. It is important that we should know, and not be befogged by the jargon in the Bill. The circumstances of the man of whom I am now speaking, left with £244 a year, are that he is married, with a family; his son, recently demobilised to carry on the business, will have no business to come to. The father has insurance premiums, I am told, of £300 a year, which he was quite entitled to take out with his income of £1,747. He will have to yield those up at a loss to himself. He is left, at 50 years of age, to support his family on £244 a year. What a reward for an honest life of self-denial and toil! That cannot be called compensation, whatever else it is called.
  It may be that a small business which is the life's work of a man is almost incapable of being compensated for in terms of money if it is taken away. But that is a very good reason for not taking it away, for keeping one's hands off it. For all the trappings of arbitration in this part
  1792
  of the Bill, it is clear that its passage will bring griveous hardship into thousands of innocent lives. If this be the progress which the Minister of Transport promised us, there will be many who would give the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite the five years for which he asks, but in a sense somewhat different from his desire. I think the error which produces this injustice lies in the limitation to five years' purchase of profits as compensation. It may be that when a man voluntarily sells his business, a sum of five years' purchase is reasonable enough. But such a man, doing it voluntarily, is probably wanting to retire, and certainly has some other plans for his own future. This has no relation at all to the man who is being forcibly dispossessed. I say, quite frankly, if these men cannot be dealt with more fairly, we should keep our hands off them altogether.
  I now turn to the railways. Here I wish to mark a novel and, in my view, malignant departure from what has always been considered fair in this country in matters of compensation. In other cases of Government acquisition, there has always been some element of independent arbitration. This House has never before been asked in a public Bill to combine the roles of purchaser and valuer. The dangers of such a double role are obvious, and previous Parliaments have been too scrupulous to try to combine them. The acquisition of property by the State is no new thing, but hitherto we have contented ourselves in Parliament with declaring that it was necessary in the public interest that the property should be acquired.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not the Government who are acting as valuers in this case but the Stock Exchange?
  Mr. Morrison: I am coming to that. The Stock Exchange Council themselves have indignantly repudiated that suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the goodness to follow my argument, he will find that I will not omit to deal with the error which is obviously in his mind. As I say, hitherto, in acquiring property for the State, we have contented ourselves by saying that we must have the property; but we have let the price be fairly determined by some independent person or tribunal. In that attitude, I say we have

  1793
  risen no higher than the common morality of those who sent us here. But I think that in this Bill the Government are asking us to fall below that standard. The price of railways is set out in the Bill—and this is my answer to the hon. Gentleman—by reference to known Stock Exchange prices at defined dates. Thus we, the purchasers, are asked, for the first time, to be the valuers of what we are acquiring compulsorily. The other side—the railways— is not to be given a chance to state its own case before an independent or any tribunal.
  We are not merely asked to be the valuers of this property ourselves—and here I follow out the hon. Gentleman's interruption—but there is suggested to us a basis on which we should proceed to this invidious task. That basis is, in my view, wholly irrational and unjust. The basis is the listed price of the Stock Exchange of the small number—in proportion to the total holding—of railway securities which happened to change hands on six days recently. That is what we are asked to take as the price. I urge the Government to abandon this inequitable basis, for it can be clearly demonstrated to be quite unfair, and it is widely believed to be unjust. The Trades Union Congress themselves, as quoted yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend, disdained it; and in this admirable pamphlet called "On the Way to Greater Service," which is produced by the Railway Clerks' Association, on page 15 is quoted the opinion of Mr. Harold Wilson, who sets out the various ways of paying for these railways. Among these is "Stock Exchange valuation," and the conclusion is "Would not be a sound basis for the purchase of the railways."
  Major Cecil Poole: Is it not a fact that when the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member took over the shares of Imperial Airways, they took a valuation, not on an average of six days but on one specific day? True, they gave half-a-crown more than the actual market value on that day, which one might have expected. Is not that a fact?
  Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot confirm the hon. and gallant Gentleman's recollection. I shall certainly look it up, but I shall be surprised if there was not, in that case, some reference to arbitration.
  Major Poole: No.
  Mr. Morrison: Or some agreement between the parties. I will come to that general principle later. At any rate, there is this basis, which we are asked to adopt in our new role as valuers, condemned by the T.U.C., condemned by the Railway Clerks' Association, condemned by the Stock Exchange Council, and condemned by, I think, everyone who has really studied it. I now come to some of the reasons why I consider this to be a wholly irrational and unfair basis on which to value the railways of this country—these huge concerns comprising not only the rails, rolling stock and all sorts of things, but huge workshops, hotels, ships and aeroplanes. I want to give the reasons why I consider that Stock Exchange prices are not a fair basis for valuation.
  The first is that the proportion of shares which change hands, to those which do not, is, in the case of these securities, negligible as a pointer to the value of the whole holding. Railway stock is largely held in trusts of one sort or another. I see, for example, that eight London hospitals have some £700,000 of this stock in their funds. These stocks are held, of course, in expectation of a steady yield of income. The small parcels of shares which change hands and come on the Stock Exchange market are often the result of sales forced by some domestic necessity such as death, the winding-up of an estate, or some sudden need for cash. One cannot estimate even the market price of the entire holding by such fortuitous sales. I say that if the Government were to go into the market for the entire holding of these shares they would soon find the price stiffening abruptly against them. Anyone who has tried—I am told, I have never tried myself—to buy even a control in a concern, far less the whole of it, knows that as soon as the demand for the shares which he creates exceeds the willing or forced supply, the price at once stiffens. So I say, that even on the market price criterion, these transactions during six days are quite unrepresentative of the value of the shares as a whole. It is, therefore, unjust for this House to force the sale of the whole at this unrepresentative price.
  In the second place, the market price of shares which happen to be on issue on any day or series of days is affected by considerations which have nothing to do either with the value of the assets, or the earning power of the concern. Let me

  1795
  give an example. Among these many factors, which have nothing to do with the real value of the shares, is the price of competing securities of other kinds For example, the price and the yield of the stock of a municipality will affect the mind of an investor, and the amount he is willing to pay for competing railway stock, even though there is not the remotest connection between the town in question and the railway's real financial position. All these things affect share prices; they are no criterion, I submit, of the real value of the business itself. Indeed, the truth is that the stock market is a market of its own. It is distinct from the market in goods and services for which ordinary commercial concerns cater. It is actuated by hopes and fears, intelligent and unwise; it is swayed by rumours and gossip; there is in it, also, a certain element of sheer speculation, such as actuates other men who sit down and burn the midnight oil filling in coupons for a football pool. There is no monopoly of speculation in any section of the public.
  Railway stocks, in this connection, have been surrounded for some time with an atmosphere of adverse speculation due to fears of Government action. Those who took a gloomy view of their prospects have had their worst fears amply confirmed by this Bill. But speculation, be it hopeful or the reverse, is not valuation of assets. There should be valuation of the railways' assets, and arbitration before an independent tribunal. The only precedent which I can discover— and this is in further reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) who asked about Imperial Airways—for the attempt to value a concern by Stock Exchange prices is the case of Short Brothers, a firm which was taken over during the war under Defence Regulation 78 That may be what was in the hon. and gallant Member's mind.
  Major C. Poole: No.
  Mr. Morrison: The Regulation provided that the price to be paid should be one which, in the opinion of the Treasury, was not less than the value of the shares as between a willing buyer and a willing seller The Treasury adopted the Stock Exchange price at the date of acquisition, and that price was 29s. 3d.; but there was a provision for arbitration,
  1796
  and the arbitrator found, viewing that undertaking as a whole, that the shares were worth 41s. 9d. per share. As there were 750,000 of those shares the difference to the company was in the neighbourhood of £450,000. That illustrates, I think, the fallacy of taking a small amount of shares that pass in the ordinary way of business, and saying that it is representative of the value as a whole. There is a fourth factor which affects the price of shares so as to make it no criterion of the real value of the concern. Here my argument has a wider bearing than this Bill. That factor is the financial policy of the directors of a company. The extent to which they distribute the profits of the company in dividends increases the yield of the shares, and, therefore, their price. If they are prudent, and plough back into re-equipment the bulk of their profits, their shares will have a smaller yield and a lower price in the market, than if they squander their profits on high dividends. It is precisely here that this novel and illusory method of valuing business is so harmful to the public interest at this time. If we are to win the battle of production, there is a high task of reconstruction and re-equipment to be undertaken. Why, at this of all times, encourage directors to pay high dividends in order to try to get fair prices under nationalisation? The industries of steel and electricity have been mentioned as being next on the chopping block.
  Mr. Kirkwood: And high time, too.
  Mr. Morrison: There is no doubt that the re-equipment and expansion of these industries will be vital to our recovery as an industrial nation. While these industries are ploughing back millions, in order to achieve this end, their dividends are modest, and their shares are lower in the market than if they were to expend this money on the greatest possible dividends. Thus, while sanctioning this unjust and irrational method of compensating the railways, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making it as difficult as he can for directors to do what the national interest demands. In addition to the natural desire to satisfy shareholders, there is the fear that, unless the share price is pushed up on the market, advantage will be taken of their very virtues to give them a raw deal, if and when those industries are nationalised.

  1797
  The argument for holding back profits from the shareholders has been based on the argument of the future of the company, but if the company is to have no future, and it is to be acquired as the railways are being acquired, this argument loses much of its force for it imposes a lower degree of compensation than would be attracted by a less strict financial policy in the company. I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very seriously, if I may, to look at this aspect of the case, because its repercussions, in my view, extend far beyond the transport industry; and those who would desire to see this country march again to prosperity have to watch the effect on the public mind of a method of this sort. So much for the method we are asked to take. I do not intend to say any more about it.
  But having valued the railways we have to pay for them. I hope the Chancellor will say something today to help us through this part of the Bill, for as it reads it is very far from clear. We know that the dispossessed are not to get cash but stock. We are told it is to be called British Transport Stock, and that it is to. be issued at some undisclosed future date. But we are told very little else about it. I presume it will be redeemable stock, because otherwise Clause 94 makes nonsense. It says the Treasury may guarantee the principal as well as the interest of this stock, but if there is no date of redemption there is no principal to guarantee. Consequently, if Clause 94 is to be given any meaning, I presume that this will be redeemable stock. If so, I should like to ask on what terms and at what date will it be redeemed. We are told in Clause 93 (2), that
  "The British transport stock which is to be created and issued under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section in satisfaction of a claim to compensation of any amount shall be such stock as is, in the opinion of the Treasury, equal in value at the date of the issue to that amount, regard being had to the market value of government securities at that date."
  "Regard being had to the value of Government securities at that date "— we are completely away now from any regard to the value of the property that is being acquired—and the time when we shall calculate what is actually to be paid will not be the time when the undertaking is purchased, but will be after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a further undisclosed period for
  1798
  rigging the market in Government securities, in the absence of some further information from the Chancellor today, the recipients of this stock are being promised for their property no more than a pig in a poke. What sort of animal it will turn out to be when the bag is opened remains to be seen.
  Returning to my main argument, which is the effect on the people concerned, I am assuming that the yield of this stock will be 2½ per cent. I have to assume that that is so. In round figures, the effect will be this. In 1945 the total yield of the four main line railways in interest and dividends was £41,499,262. The annual interest on the British Transport Stock which they will receive will be £22,694,593. The recipients then will lose of their income on the whole, £18,804,669. There are, of course, different reductions in different stocks, which I think is very unjust in itself, but the average overall reduction of income for the holders of these stocks—trustee stocks, a great number of them—is 45.3 per cent., very nearly half the income on the whole. This is a grave slice of the income of many a humble home It is also a big slice of the resources of trusts, and I think it should further make hon. Gentlemen opposite question whether this bitter fruit can possibly grow from a sound tree. All the railway shareholders will puffer, but it is a further vice of this method of compensation that they do not suffer equally. By this "hit or miss" method of valuation, grave inequalities are introduced as between the different classes of stockholders. They are all in the tumbril together, but comparing one with another some get a first-class ride as opposed to a third-class ride in that gloomy vehicle. I will give some examples.
  Southern Railways 5 per cent. deferred ordinary stock, which has paid its dividends constantly—with, I think, one slight diminution one year—as a result of rumours and fears was depressed into the 70's. If we take 75, the return was about £6 13s 6d. per cent. The Government's terms for this stock are £77 12s. 6d., which at 2½ per cent. will give a yield of £1 18S. 6d. per cent.; three-quarters of the yield is taken away and the holders are left to whistle for it. Take the holder of £1,000 of London Midland and Scottish 4 per cent. debenture stock. The present income on that is £40 Under

  1799
  this Bill he will get £1,180, which at 2½ per cent. gives him £29 10s., a loss of 26 per cent. of his income. On the other hand, £1,000 of L.M.S. 4 per cent. first preference stock has a present yield of £40, the holder gets £850, which at 2½ per cent. brings in £21 5s., a loss of 46 per cent. of his income. Here are these three good stocks; the holder of one loses 75 per cent., the second 26 per cent., and the third 46 per cent. Surely, if nothing else will, this should demonstrate the inequalities which flow from taking six days' Stock Exchange prices as the datum line for a transaction of this magnitude. The deprivation is not merely general on all stockholders, but is very unfair as between the different classes. The deprivation will, I repeat, fall heavily on a peculiarly defenceless class of people, on widows elderly spinsters and young children, to whom the reduction will make all the difference between narrow comfort and absolute want. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the big ones?"] An hon. Member asks what about the big ones. Would he, in order to injure some of the big ones, inflict a lot of injury on an undoubtedly large number of innocent small people? His interruption means nothing else.
  I can well imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer contending that the substitution of Government guaranteed stock justifies a lower yield. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport said yesterday that the Government should use their credit, but I await with interest, I must say, his justification of such a large, savage cut as this overall average of 45.3 per cent. I also await his explanation of the disparity between the different stockholders. I think he must be conscious in using the argument about the peculiar validity of Government credit, of the grim spectre of the London Transport 3 per cent. stock, 1967–72. This stock was guaranteed, as to principal and interest, by the Government under the Finance Act of 1934. The Council of the Stock Exchange, whose function as a guardian of the investing public, by the way, has been recognised by the Government in the new Companies Bill, say on this question:
  "This matter has already been the subject of question and answer in Parliament, and the Council desire to state their view that whatever legalistic argument may be brought forward to justify the present proposal, the
  1800
  broad effect upon the public mind will be one of the repudiation of a British Government guarantee."
  These are very serious words, and they will not be answered by saying that the holders of this stock will do not so badly, even if that can be shown. There has hitherto been an implicit reliance on the letter as well as the spirit of a British Government guarantee of a stock. A legalistic interpretation will not appeal to people who used to believe that the Government meant what they said. This is causing great embarrassment to those in the City who, from patriotic and other motives, are doing their best to help the right hon. Gentleman with his problems. I beg him to reconsider this matter because it is casting a shadow over the whole national credit, in the maintenance of which we in this House are all deeply, concerned.
  To sum up, I say the following things about these terms for the railways. I say, first, that Parliament should not be asked in a public Bill to be purchaser and valuer at the same time. In the second place, I say that Parliament should not be asked to value these great properties upon such an irrational and unjust method as the Stock Exchange prices, for the reasons which I have given, reasons, I would remind the House, not only of private hardship but of public interest. I say, thirdly, that the Government should return to the hitherto unvarying practice of submitting to independent arbitration the ascertainment of a just price. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport claimed yesterday that the method proposed in the Bill is simple, easy and fair. Simple and easy it may be, but it is not fair, and mere simplicity and ease should not make us sacrifice fairness. I say that the terms offered to the road hauliers in this Bill are harsh and unconscionable. The State, which should protect them, has become predatory, and is devouring them. Apart from the injury to our trade and agriculture which I apprehend from this throttling of our transport system, I say that the terms of compensation offered to those who have hitherto carried on this public service are so illusory and unjust that the Bill should be withdrawn or rejected.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Daltan): This is the second day of a

  1801
  Debate full of interest, sometimes of fire and sometimes of reason, but always full of interest, on what is generally regarded as a very important Socialist Measure. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport yesterday laid out in great detail and, I think the majority of the House thought, very effectively, the broad case for the Bill. [Laughter.] I said the majority. Majorities and minorities will often differ, but I speak in this case for the judgment of what I believe to be the majority. The purpose of the Bill, as he explained, is to provide, for the first time in our history, a unified system of inland transport in all its forms, to provide a more efficient and economical service than we have had in the past, and to provide also an essential instrument in any national economic planning that can be worthy of the name in the future. With the general case I shall not deal today, because I understand it is for the convenience of the House that I should devote myself to the financial side of the Measure and, in particular, the terms of transfer of these private undertakings into public hands. I shall therefore concentrate my observations on that side of the case.
  Many interesting speeches were made yesterday but, following my right hon. Friend, none more interesting than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), who made a maiden speech full of interest and not untouched by political drama. My hon. Friend represents now a constituency in which, as he told us, more than 60 per cent, of the male population are actually engaged in transport. They are not stockholders; they are workers in the industry. My hon. Friend himself has spent 20 years, not as a stockholder-though he may own shares as well, I do not know-but as a worker in the industry. He can, therefore, speak with first-hand knowledge of it and its problems, and he has recently been returned to this House by a very substantial majority after a fight in which, as he has told us, the nationalisation of transport was the principal issue, this having been declared by the Government, before he was elected, to be one of the key Measures which they were introducing this Session. Therefore, my hon. Friend placed the nationalisation of transport in the forefront of his election campaign. So did his Conservative opponent, and the consequence was that my
  1802
  hon. Friend was elected to the House, and his Conservative opponent made a contribution to the Treasury.
  Therefore, we can say for this Bill that we have not only a mandate given to us by the electors at the General Election, but a mandate which has been fortified by a whole series of by-elections, in which we have not lost one of the Labour seats that we won at the General Election, and fortified most recently by the victory of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe. [An HON. MEMBER: "In a pocket borough."] That is a very disrespectful way to speak of a constituency which once returned a lady Conservative Member, a certain Mrs. Runge.
  Quite an agitation seems to have been stirred up in the outer world, outside this quiet House, on behalf of the railway stockholders, and I propose mainly, although I shall speak also of road hauliers, to deal with the railway stockholders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) opened, as it were, a wide field of detailed debate regarding the railway stockholders, and therefore, I propose to deal at greater length with their case than with the others. We are selecting market values on certain dates -I will go into details about the dates in a moment-as the principle of compensation for the railways, and I shall seek to defend this decision, covering both the principle and also the practical application to this particular case. It is true that, from time to time, different bases of compensation have been adopted when private property has been taken into public ownership. That was true even before this Government was returned at the General Election. If we look back to various Measures of socialisation proposed by the Conservative Party-and there have been some-no one single principle has been consistently applied They, too, like us, have sought to apply common sense, practical considerations, and in view of the obvious fact that circumstances vary from one industry to another, from one service to another, and in general from one case to another, they have varied their methods, as we, quite frankly, have varied ours, and reserve the right in future to vary them again. The only element in common in all cases is that what is done should be broadly

  1803
  reasonable and fair and in the public interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are all agreed on that. I am carrying the Opposition with me so far, and I hope we shall not part company prematurely. When this plan was first announced, there was a chorus of approval in the Press for our decision to base compensation for the railways upon market values. That was before there was any artificial stimulation of concerted opinion. The first thoughts of the various gentlemen who are experts on these matters, and who so faithfully serve the various important organs of opinion, were quite favourable. On 79th November, the day after the announcement, the "Daily Telegraph" said:
  "The method appears to be fair. … The quarrel is not with the way in which compensation will be paid, but with the policies which make compensation necessary "—
  in other words, the Socialist intention on the part of the Government. But the "Daily Telegraph" was quite content the day after the announcement. Before quoting what "The Times" said, I want to remind the House of the surprising phrase used by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who said it was a novel and illusory method to look to Stock Exchange quotations. "The Times," on the other hand, said, on the morning after the announcement:
  "On the whole, it is not surprising to find that this Government has been forced back to the orthodox conception "—
  not the novel and illusory conception—
  "of the Stock Exchange valuation of the undertakings."
  Then we come to—[An HON. MEMBER: "The 'Daily Worker.'"]— no, a higher authority than the "Daily Worker," the "Financial Times." No Debate on these subjects is ever complete without a citation from this high and spirited authority. What did it say on the morning after the night before? It said:
  "The market is the place where all differences of that sort are valued in arriving at daily quotations …"
  And the day after, still pursuing the topic, it said:
  "The investor is doing no worse, in terms of capital values, than if he had chosen to sell his stock in the market around current prices."
  It went on to say—and I beg the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) not to miss this one—
  1804
  "That the terms of compensation for the railway and other transport concerns to be nationalised are fair, if not generous, seemed to be the most general view among Members of all Parties."
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: Although I am not a particularly careful reader of the newspaper to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring, I have noticed that from time to time it has complained against him that, in fact, he is skinning the unfortunate railway stockholder; and will he deal with the point of interest rather than the principal?
  Mr. Dalton: I was only anxious that the House should know, in forming its unbiased judgment on this matter, what was the expert opinion published in this newspaper 24 hours after the terms were announced:
  "That the terms of compensation are fair, if not generous, seemed to be the most general view among Members of all parties."
  I hope they have not abandoned that view in the interim.
  Mr. Bracken: It said a lot more which the right hon. Gentleman ought to quote.
  Mr. Dalton: I will deal with the other things it said, but these were its first uninfluenced, unbiased views, before there had been a huddle somewhere or other outside. It is said that we have not gone to arbitration, and that we ought to have done so. We have gone to the independent arbitration of the Stock Exchange quotations, a perfectly proper procedure in this case, and I shall defend the Stock Exchange against the attacks that have been made upon it. Why should we cry down this ancient institution? Why should we say that these important quotations, which appear on the tape, and to which the newspapers, shrunken though they are in size, give many columns, mean so little? The "Financial Times" particularly gives columns of Stock Exchange quotations for every sort and kind of shares from day to day. Surely, this must have some fundamental importance in our economic life; otherwise, not so much space would be devoted to it. I am surprised at the modesty of the Stock Exchange Council, and I shall take occasion so to say to my good friend the chairman, whom I see from time to time. I am surprised at their modesty. What do they say? Much of what they say is, of course, in the nature

  1805
  of a truism; much of it is not to be disputed; but the general tone is most surprising. In their memorandum, they say:
  "The Stock Exchange may be likened to a scientific recording instrument which registers, not indeed its own actions and opinions, but those of private and institutional investors all over the country, and indeed, all over the world."
  This is, surely, a good basis for arbitration, and a good basis on which to found a view as to what any particular share is worth.
  Mr. Bracken: Read on.
  Mr. Dalton: I have the following passage and I will read it, for I am not seeking to conceal it from the House. They go on to say:
  "These actions are the result of hope, of fear, of guesswork, intelligent or otherwise, of good or bad investment policy, and many other considerations."
  All that is quite true.
  Mr. Bracken: Read on.
  Mr. Dalton: There is a limit. I shall not quote more from the right hon. Gentleman's newspaper; I have given it a good deal of advertisement.
  Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman read paragraph 2, which is very short?
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I shall not read the next paragraph. I intend to comment on the thing as a whole. I have quoted what I have because so far I entirely agree with what they say, but they should not say, in view of this, that really Stock Exchange quotations mean nothing, that they are all a kind of mumbo-jumbo, and that the Stock Exchange itself really is not a very useful institution—because that is the underlying idea. To say that sort of thing is to put very dangerous ideas into the heads of some of my hon. Friends, and it might mean that one of these days some new proposal for streamlining the City might be brought forward, and who knows what might happen next?
  I prefer to treat the operations on the Stock Exchange, in a perfectly cold approach, as the operation of what we often used to hear in the past described as the law of supply and demand. It used often to be said that that was the tribunal to which we must go. Quantities of books have been written and speeches made saying that the higgling of the
  1806
  market was the thing that determined the price or this or that raw material or finished article. Indeed, to illustrate the principle, the higgling of the market gives one a value. which is just good enough both for buyer and seller. It is the point at which purchases and sales are equated. The higgling of the market gives a value just good enough for the two sides to the bargain to close and complete the bargain, the one to buy and the other to sell. It will be recalled that on one occasion an employer offered a barrel of beer to his workers; they drank it, and he asked them how they liked it. They replied, "Well, governor, it was just right." He asked them, "What do you mean, just right?" They said, "Well, if it had been a bit better, you would not have given it to us, and if it had been a bit worse, we could not have drunk it." That, briefly, is the philosophy of the Stock Exchange. It is to that philosophy that we have appealed in this Bill. These prices are just right; they are just right in terms of certain quotations taken on certain days, which I will particularise in a moment.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is now putting forward the case that Stock Exchange prices reflect all the hopes and fears influencing buyers and sellers. Included in those hopes and fears is their anticipation of justice or injustice from a nationalising Government. Supposing that the market took an adverse view about the prospects of justice from this Government, is it not begging the whole question to assume that the terms are just, when the prices are based on their anticipation that the Government will be unjust?
  Mr. Dalton: In such a case the prices would be much lower than, in fact, they are. I shall defend in a moment the prices selected. For a moment, may I look back into the past history of British railways, because it throws some light on the present position. During the war, the Government paid the four big railways a fixed annual rental of £38 million, and took the net earnings into the Exchequer; and on that basis the net revenue of the railways rose to £40 or £41 million. That, therefore, is about the size of what was thought possible in time of war—£38 million or £40 million—but it is clear that these wartime conditions will not continue. Indeed, already there is a rapid deterioration, because no longer is there

  1807
  the great quantity of uniformed personnel to be carried on the railways, or the same quantity of munitions of war being carried under conditions of high pressure. Therefore, both passenger revenue and freight revenue are falling off fast. This year it may be there will be a deficit, but I do not want to develop that point now. My point is that the wartime rental is too high for peace. That was right for the war years but was too high for peace time. It could not be counted upon now.
  Moreover, what would happen if we did not nationalise the railways, and if we had in power a Government that really believed in decontrol, which not only spoke of it in general terms but were prepared to practise it and to open all the windows for the full blast of competition to play upon the sheltered railway system —sheltered for many years by legislative and administrative action—and let it really feel the full blast of competition from road transport? I venture to say that within a few years the whole railway system would be totally bankrupt. It could not stand up against conditions of free and unfettered competition. I use that phrase because my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe said that it was exactly the phrase used by the Conservative candidate who forfeited his deposit at Rotherhithe. That candidate said, no doubt with the full authority of what is the equivalent of Transport House in the Conservative Party—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Central Office."]—the Central Office, Lord Woolton's office—that he stood for free and unfettered competition in regard to transport. It is a truism that if we had totally free and unfettered competition the railways would be bankrupt in a very short time and there would be nothing to pay.
  Mr. Bracken: Why?
  Mr. Dalton: Because under free and unfettered competition, the roads, operating without restriction of any kind, would take away from the railways increasingly, as they did during the interwar period until the Government intervened, all the most remunerative traffic, particularly in regard to—
  Sir Arnold Gridley: What then becomes of the Government's policy of full employment and the great expansion of industry? Are the Government
  1808
  going to abandon that policy altogether? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] We are all anxious to promote an expansionist policy and on this side of the House we have done nothing to hinder the Government's bringing that about.
  Mr. Dalton: I am afraid I have not made my argument clear to the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). I was discussing what would happen to the railways if there were free and unfettered competition, as desired by this Conservative candidate. All prewar experience shows that before long the railways would be on the rocks. In any case, even if we assume, for example, and for the sake of argument, that conditions would not be quite so parlous as that, I say that the railways certainly could not hope to sustain an annual profit anything like that which was guaranteed to them by the Government in the war years and before the war. They certainly could not.
  Sir Arthur Salter: Is not the Chancellor assuming in his argument that we go back to the position before 1933, when the railways were grossly and unfairly handicapped by the fact that they had to maintain their permanent ways at their own cost while the community paid the cost of the roads? If conditions corresponding to those under which the railways are working were imposed on the roads, such as were imposed by the Act and revised taxation of that year, would the Chancellor still say that the railways would have no chance of maintaining their competitive position?
  Mr. Dalton: I say that if we had a Government that really believed in decontrol, such a Government would repeal that Act. That is part of my case. It would be a very foolish thing to do, but a Government which really believed in what the Conservative candidate at Rotherhithe said, would certainly have to repeal that Act.
  Apart altogether from that point, and coming down to more practical likelihoods, I say that even if there were the same degree of limitation imposed upon road transport in the interests of rail as was done before the war, still we could not hope that the railways would maintain those revenues. It is contrary to all reasonable expectations. Let us look at

  1809
  the railway system now. It is in very poor shape. Partly that is due to the strain of six years war; partly, but not wholly. Those dingy railway stations, those miserable, unprepossessing restaurants, all the out-of-date apparatus for sleeping and eating, make one ashamed as an Englishman when one is travelling abroad and sees how well the thing is done in Continental Europe, Western Europe, in Sweden and France. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Russia."] We must get our geography right. I said "Western Europe." Still more do we feel that if we go to America and Canada. One feels very much ashamed in Canada of this branch of private enterprise in the old country. That is one reason why the tourist traffic is not so easily attracted here. The railways are in very poor physical shape.
  Sir John Mellor rose—
  Mr. Dalton: I must go on. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that I must develop my argument. If he is still anxious to intervene later, I will give way. But I hope he will let me finish this section of what I am putting before the House. I am saying that this railway system of ours is a very poor bag of physical assets. The permanent way is badly worn. The rolling stock is in a state of great dilapidation. The railways are a disgrace to the country. The rail- ' way stations and their equipment are a, disgrace to the country. [Interruption.] We are talking about the values of these things and I am saying that they are a pretty poor bag of physical asserts. It cannot be supposed that the Stock Exchange is seriously undervaluing it, at present terms. Let us consider what it is proposed should be done. It is proposed to issue Transport Stock based upon the Stock Exchange valuation. In reply to the question put by the right hon. Member about redeemable stock, I say that, of course it will be a dated stock. That can be clearly stated now.
  Mr. Bracken: On what terms?
  Mr. Dalton: That I am not prepared to say now. It is not reasonable to divulge them, it being in the general interest that we should leave a certain amount for discussion. It certainly should not be an irredeemable stock. I accept the argument that it should not be an irredeemable
  1810
  stock but that it should be dated. The exact terms upon which it will be issued depend upon the conditions in the market when the time comes to make the issue.
  Mr. Assheton: Will it be within the century?
  Mr. Dalton: I would expect it to be within this century. For the purpose of calculation it is assumed that it will be a 2½ per cent, stock issued at par. On that basis, the right hon. Gentleman was completely correct. The stockholders of the big four railways—I will deal with the L.P.T.B. separately later—will have a total drop in income, upon certain assumptions which I will examine in a moment. The drop will be from £40 million to £22¾ million a year. This drop measures two things. It measures a very great advantage which the Minister will have when he is dealing with the balance sheet of the nationalised railway system. It means that he will have to pay out to the holders of the new stock £17¼ million a year less than is now being paid out to railway stockholders. That will be a valuable element in his balance sheet. It will enable him to make provision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Robbery."] I am going to argue that it is not robbery, but let us get the arithmetic right and go on to the morals afterwards. On the arithmetic, my right hon. Friend will record on this transaction a surplus of £17¼ million a year. That sum will be available for the improvement of the service to give us a better and more efficient transport system, and will be available, according to a number of possible decisions which my right hon. Friend might take.
  Why will there be that drop? The answer is extraordinarily simple. It is because risk is being eliminated from the whole mass of this transport stock. It is because, as my right hon. Friend has said, the credit of the Government is being placed behind the whole of this thing. It is for that reason that a smaller income is derived from an equal capital holding. The capital investment will no longer be subject to the danger which, in many cases, has been very real, a drop not by so much per cent., but by 100 per cent, in what was being received by some of these unfortunate people who have invested in railway stocks. That danger is entirely removed. There is an estimated income of £22¾ million without risk, as com-

  1811
  pared with £40 million per annum for a collection of stocks, many of which are highly speculative and are full of risk. It is sometimes argued that all these railway securities are owned by trustees, most of whom are poor people. That does not correspond with a great deal of exactitude with the facts of the case. We have endeavoured to make calculations. It would mean a very elaborate piece of statistical research to get an exact answer to the question I have been asking my officials to investigate, namely, "What proportion of this total is held by trustees, as distinct from that which is held by ordinary private individuals, holding without the limitations of any trust?" But I can say that of the total stocks, some 29 per cent., by present values, are trustee securities in England and Wales. The Scots have rather a different trustee list, but I will not complicate the discussion by going into that, although I am a little surprised that their trustee list seems to be a little less "safety first" than ours.
  As I say, I am advised that some 29 per cent. of the total stocks, at present value, are trustee stocks held in England and Wales. A great quantity of the railway stocks are very far from being trustee stocks. All these people are to get something under our proposals, even the unfortunate people who invested, in 1926, in the London and North-Eastern Railway Company, deferred ordinary stock 20 years ago, and who have never had a penny dividend from that day to this. These are among the railway stocks we are taking over. The L.N.E.R. preferred ordinary stocks have paid nothing since 1931. The company was so much upset at the defeat of the Labour Government in that year that they have paid no dividend since. The London Midland and Scottish ordinary shares passed their dividend for a number of years from 1932 to to 1935. They paid nothing in 1938 and, in between, they paid 1½ per cent. and 1¼ per cent., a very poor return to the widows who invested in them years ago. Let us take Southern deferred ordinary stock. The Southern have been a good deal better, but even they have missed their dividend several times, for the four years running from 1931 to 1935, and again in 1938, and they have never paid more than 2 per cent. since 1929. So one might go on.
  1812
  A lot of these railway stocks are not trustee stocks at all; they are a highly speculative and unremunerative investment. The people who have these stocks will get something for them, first-class giltedged Government guaranteed stock, according to the value which the stock holds at the dates in question. This drop in income which I have been describing is inevitable once the principle is accepted that this new stock is to be Government guaranteed and, therefore, secure against failure of interest. The truth is that in the jargon of the City, it is much too good a stock for the taste of some of those who will receive it. It will bring in an assured minimum income, whereas some would prefer greater risk and prospect of something more. But they are not debarred from making their choice effective, because the stock will be freely negotiable. The special reason which, in the case of the coal mines stock, made it necessary to impose some limitation on negotiability does not apply here. The transport stock will be freely negotiable; it will be bought and sold. Trustees may buy and sell with complete freedom within the trustee list itself, and also within any further latitude of investment given to them by the particular trust under which they hold. As the House knows, a great number of trusts are not limited to the trustee lists. It is exceedingly common for greater latitude to be given.
  May I say one further word in this context? Much is said about the hardships which may be caused to elderly people of small means. As I have said, the trustees have latitude to purchase within the trustee lists, plus any further legal allowance they may have outside that, but those whose funds are not within the trusts will be free to buy not only other securities, but a great variety of annuities which are now on sale. If that be the case elderly persons, or persons without dependants in whom they are not much interested, can assure themselves a substantial increase of income by transferring to some form of Government or other annuities. There is a great variety of possibilities open to those who initially received this transport stock.
  Let me say a word or two about the London Passenger Transport Board's guaranteed stock. Much has been made of this case. It is said that in bringing this stock within the scheme, on the same

  1813
  basis as other transport stock, the Government have acted with special turpitude. I gave an answer the other day which was carefully considered, and about which I had taken the best legal advice open to me. Summarising that answer, it was that the guarantee of interest was a guarantee against default by the London Passenger Transport Board itself. Had the Board defaulted in respect of the interest on the stock, it would have been the plain duty of the Government to make good that default. Had the date been reached, without any such change as we are introducing now, at which the principal was due to be paid, then it would also have been the duty of the Government to make that good had the Board failed. But the Board is passing out of existence; its assets are being transferred to this new nationalised body. The answer I gave the other day went on to say that the guarantee is not applicable once the Board has passed out of existence.
  Mr. Bracken: Who is putting the Board out of existence?
  Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government, with the assent of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Bracken: With the assent of a Socialist majority.
  Mr. Dalton: I am quite satisfied with the answer I gave, as a matter of law. It is not disputed that it is correct from the point of view of law. All that can be done, whether by the Stock Exchange Council or others, is to use the epithet "legalistic." What is meant by a legalistic argument? It is a legal argument that you do not like but that you cannot refute. It cannot be refuted, because it is sound law.
  I now pass to the second branch of my defence of this arrangement, which is that those who hold this 3 per cent. London Passenger Transport Board's stock are being well and justly treated under the terms of acquisition. It is not unnatural, taking these quotations, that that should be the result. The Government guarantee is naturally reflected in the Stock Exchange quotation Those familiar with the arithmetic of the Stock Exchange will be able to work out the yield to redemption which can be obtained from this new arrangement, and they will find—I have had the figures worked out
  1814
  with as much exactitude as I can command, and I will give the figures—that the holders of this stock are being well treated not only legally but equitably as well. The stock will be taken over at 107⅞, that being the market value on the basis of the Bill. Assuming that the market was valuing this guaranteed stock against a background of a 2½ per cent, rate on direct Government securities, the comparative yield to redemption of the two stocks will be as follows. When allowance has been made for the loss of capital that a holder of £100 of 3 per cent, guaranteed stock, bought at 107⅞ would suffer when the stock is redeemed in 1967, the yield to redemption on that will be £2 9S. 9d. On the other hand, the yield on 107⅞ of transport stock, assuming 2½ per cent, interest, is £2 13s. 11d. as against £2 9s. 9d. I do not know why the Stock Exchange Council did not work that out, and tell the people this in their pretentious manifesto. They had less excuse for missing the point because the "Economist" had worked it all out on 23rd November in their issue of that date, in which the figures were given, column after column. They worked it out I am sure, quite accurately and with great industry. It will be seen at the bottom of the page of the "Economist" of 23rd November that on the L.P.T.B. stock, except the "C" stock, they will get a bonus on yield to redemption varying in the amount I have given—
  Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman asked why this had not been worked out. Without the date on which the Government propose to give this 2½ per cent. stock to the holder, it is impossible to work out that calculation.
  Mr. Dalton: The "Economist" has it. It can be worked out. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is not making a good excuse for the Stock Exchange Council. The arithmetic can be gone over. It would take a long time, but I am satisfied that the combined arithmetical skill of the "Economist" and the arithmeticians of the Treasury has established this result. It can be worked out at leisure when these figures are quoted in HANSARD. On the 3 per cent, guaranteed stock, the difference of yield to redemption is £2 13s. 11d. as against £2 9s. 9d., and, therefore, these people are getting a bonus and far from having anything to

  1815
  complain about should pass a vote of thanks to His Majesty's Government.
  Sir A. Salter: Surely the anwer is this. For the London Transport "C" stock, the Chancellor has recalculated the value of the holder's rights by allowing for the effect of redemption at a known date. He then compares the resulting figure, which is less than what the holder now actually receives, with the annual income that the holder will in future receive from the interest on the capital sum given him in compensation. In the latter case, he has not allowed for any change resulting from redemption, because there is, at present, no known redemption date.
  Mr. Dalton: I do not think it would be reasonable to take more time on that now. People can write to the papers about it, and we can have a further discussion on that. The whole point that I am seeking to make is that holders of L.P.T.B. Stock have had quite a fair deal and have nothing to complain about. Behind the whole of this difficulty, as some see it, of reduced income from this guaranteed stock, lies the fact of the cheap money policy. The fact that national credit has improved since the last General Election, and the fact, of course, that the Government can now borrow more cheaply, both on long term and short term, has had a bearing on it. I want to be sure that the Opposition are not opposed to the cheap money policy. I do not know if they are, and if either of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would care to get up and say they are opposed to the reduction of interest rates—
  Mr. Bracken: In accepting that invitation, may I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his cheap money policy is a direct invitation to President Peron of the Argentine and many other of our foreign debtors? Nearly £3,000 million is owed to Great Britain, and this cheap money policy from a cheap Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting the best possible example of default to our foreign debtors.
  Mr. Dalton: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he opposed it. I understand, therefore, that he does oppose it. He thinks it is a mistake.
  Mr. Bracken: I think it is rigged.
  Mr. David Renton: As the right hon. Gentleman has given this challenge may I say—I think I am quot-
  1816
  ing "The Times" in doing so—that there comes a point when cheap money produces so little income that it becomes an encouragement to speculation, and it is at that point that he should be wary about any cheap money policy.
  Mr. Drayson: Does the Chancellor not agree that there are other virtues, such as that of having money of good quality, and money which is convertible?
  Mr. Dalton: I agree on that. I am anxious to get that, of course. Our money is both cheap and of good quality and everything in excess is bad. In reply to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), it will be a matter for debate how far, at any given time, it would be wise to press a policy of this kind. I maintain that we have not reached a point yet at which the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.I am anxious to insist that this cheap money policy is largely responsible for the levels of compensation adopted in this Bill, and to the extent to which shareholders will get less, it is because it is riskless income.
  As to a cheap Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman will know that in 1920–21 we had a very dear Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Austen Chamberlain, and at that time the rate of interest on the National Debt was 4.8 per cent. It is now a fraction over 2 per cent., and I think it is very much in the national interest that we should have brought it down over this period. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in this office—I do not ask him to take responsibility for anything I have done —set me a good example in his day, and Sir Kingsley Wood before him, in pursuing this policy. I have merely carried through the good work they began. One after the other my predecessors succeeded in bringing down the rate of interest from 4.8 per cent, at the end of World War No. 1 to something a little over 2 per cent, at the end of World War No. 2. Had we not done so, the position would have been a charge for interest on the internal. National Debt alone of £1,100 million a year as against £500 million, or thereabouts, which it is now. That would have been equivalent to another 5s. in the £ on Income Tax. What would those poor fellows paying 19s. in the £ do then? This lowering of the interest rates has

  1817
  been of great benefit to all sections, including those whose taxation has been kept so modest and low as it is now. This cheap money policy has been in the background in the determination of these terms, and I make no apologies.
  I want to justify, particularly, the date selected for taking the market prices. I think that I can reveal, without impropriety, to the House that when we considered this, our first inclination, having decided the principle of market value, was to choose the pre-Election period when a lot of people thought that there would not be a Labour Government, and some of us were not quite sure how big our majority would be. At any rate there was no reason to suppose that the taking over of the railway companies entered into anybody's mental picture. We thought at the beginning that it would be fair to all concerned to take the six months prior to the Election to establish what these prices were to be. When the Election was over, gradually the national credit improved and as prices rose and everything got better, we did not want to be unfair to these people. We said, "Let us see whether these poor people would do better if we took the period just before the King's Speech in which this Socialist Measure was announced and let us give them whichever is best." We wanted to give them the benefit of every doubt within the bounds of the prices laid down. So we said, "Let us see which is the highest quota of compensation and let us choose the one that is best for them."
  That is just what the Bill says. It says that in making these lists we have to take whichever is the higher—six months before the Election or six days before the King's Speech. It was found that in most cases the latter was the higher, which is not surprising in view of the development of the cheap money policy in the interval. In fact, we have given as the basis of compensation a market value which gives a higher price than any comparable period which could have been chosen for a long time past. We have taken it at the peak. We have treated the stockholders extremely generously on the question of the selection of the dates of the market quotation.
  Mr. Molson: The Chancellor has made a most important statement. He said that he really did not want to be completely unfair, and that
  1818
  he did not want the fear of nationalisation to depress the basis of compensation. Does he remember a Labour Party Conference in December, 1944, when the executive was defeated on this question of nationalisation and there was an immediate fall in the price of railway stocks? In view of what the Chancellor has said, would he, without giving a definite answer now, consider whether it would be fair to go back to the period immediately before that resolution was carried in favour of general nationalisation, when the level of railway stocks dropped?
  Mr. Dalton: We have had so many resolutions passed on this subject at Labour Party Conferences that I do not remember this particular one.
  Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at it?
  Mr. Dalton: I will certainly look it up. I hope I did not state the case for the platform before it was defeated. If I did, I certainly would have remembered it. I think that that will be interesting history. Quite apart from that, we have treated the railway stockholders extremely fairly in the selection of dates. Indeed, I can imagine some hard doctrinal people thinking that we have treated them almost too well.
  Alternative suggestions have been made, and I wish to dispose of two of these, or at any rate to put arguments against them. As contrasted with the market value, one is the maintenance of existing income, and the other is the net maintainable revenue multiplied by a number of years' purchase. The existing income basis was the method adopted in the case of the Bank of England, but I was as specific as words can be in moving the Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill on 29th October, 1945, when I said:
  "I desire to emphasise that, though these terms of compensation are fair and appropriate in this particular case, they are not to be regarded as a precedent for any subsequent measure of nationalisation. The terms of compensation must vary from one, instance to another, according to the merits of each case."
  I went on to say:
  "From the financial point of view"—
  and I invite particular attention to this—
  "—the Bank of Engand is by far the best of all the propositions which we intend to nationalise in this Parliament. Some of the others are a bit depreciated; they show marks

  1819
  of private un enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1945; Vol. 415, col. 47 and 48.]
  The Bank of England was a very well-kept concern and its stock was substantially a gilt-edged security. It was a very different kettle of fish from the railways. On the other hand, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the principle of the maintenance of income is accepted. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who touched upon this matter in passing, would propose that we should compensate on the basis of sustaining income, as distinct from the market value of the capital of the shareholders. I do not know whether he considers that a reasonable proposition.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think a fair valuation for the purpose of compensation for the State acquisition of property, should have regard to the real value of the assets which are being purchased. There are several well-known methods of doing that, such as by the obtainable revenue, or the valuation of the actual cost of the property, and whichever is appropriate in the case of the railways should be followed. My real grievance is against compensating without having regard to these things, and without arbitration.
  Mr. Dalton: I understood that, but I wanted the views of the right hon. Gentleman as to the proposal made in some quarters. It would mean that 76 per cent, more than the Stock Exchange prices in the Bill would have to be paid for sustaining the income of these railway shares. It would mean that £1,600 million would have to be paid instead of the £900 million that we propose, in round figures, to pay. This is for the "Big Four" railways alone, and that is substantially more than the total capital expenditure undertaken on the railways. The estimate of the "Economist" on 23rd November is just under £1,200 million. I do not think that any serious student of the actual figures could maintain that we should treat the railways as well as the Bank of England stockholders. The cases are too different.
  A word now on the other alternative, namely, the net maintainable revenue. We have adopted this in the cases of coal, and of Cable and Wireless, but in practice it is almost impossible to apply
  1820
  it to the railways, having regard to the character of the assets and other considerations. I have already touched upon the difficulty of defining the word "maintainability" in railways. Assumptions would have to be made in regard to the policy which would be adopted other than nationalisation. How far are we going to open the window of competition with the roads? I have given reasons why we could not open the window completely. If we did, the railways would be completely blown away. If it were only opened a little way, they would be blown sideways. We have, therefore, to have a precise definition of what is the alternative to nationalisation, and if it is very free competition—well, maintainability descends rapidly towards zero. Seriously, I do not think that you can, without making artificial and unreal assumptions, as to what the alternatives to nationalisation would be—although this Government are not going to pursue any of them— get a basis for an estimate of the net maintainable revenue.
  Mr. Bracken: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it would be unfair to compensate the railway stockholders on the basis of the Bank of England compensation, but he knows perfectly well that, whereas the Bank of England has only got one big customer, and was, therefore very much at the mercy of the Government, there are, in fact, hundreds and thousands of customers of the railways. Therefore, I suggest to him that, as the Bank of England is very much dependent on the Government, he should extend the same terms to the railway shareholders, who are not.
  Mr. Dalton: I will take note of that. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking officially for the Opposition. If he does not deny it, I will accept that he is speaking for the Front Opposition Bench, because a Front Bench is one and indivisible whether it is the Government's or the Opposition's.
  Mr. Bracken: I hope the Government's Front Bench is.
  Mr. Dalton: Yes, we are. I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I beg leave to publicise where it suits us the fact that a proposal is made from the Opposition Front Bench to pay the railways £1,600 million for property valued

  1821
  on the Stock Exchange at £900 million. With regard to the other methods of working out the net maintainable revenue, we must find some way of putting some sort of valuation on the physical assets which are going to contribute to the net maintainable revenue.
  It is really exceedingly difficult when one comes down to such things as permanent ways, stations and so on, which have baffled all sorts of attempts at valuation, including those of local rating authorities, for many years. The railways do stand in a class apart, and by their very nature are not suitable either for the assessment of a net maintainable revenue, in default of nationalisation, or for a valuation of this great miscellany of assets. I would add the one further argument that in any case if this could be done it would take a long time and leave a lengthy period of uncertainty as to what was going to happen, which the stockholders would not want. In addition, it would require a very large number of professional and technical staffs; hordes of technicians would have to be taken over from other work to be employed on this rather artificial and speculative valuation, and very likely at the end of the day it would be put where we are putting it now without very much difference. The "Financial Times" of 20th November said:
  "Undoubtedly the new method will cut out the long delays inseparable from procedure on Coal Act lines,"
  and I agree, not for the first time, with that pink paper.
  Let me try to console anybody who thinks that the railway stockholders are being ill-treated, by putting the compensation terms in another form. My right hon. Friend did touch upon this in his speech yesterday, but I think it is worth while referring to it again. Let us take the total compensation contemplated for the railways under this Bill—£908 million. If the net maintainable revenue were put at £40 million—although I think that is too high and could not be maintained anyway—that would represent 22.7 years' purchase. That would mean that the risk on all the railway's capital on this basis would be measured by an interest rate of about 4½ per cent., including all the speculative junior stocks, and if we were to break that up it means that—on the basis of 22.7 years' purchase—on the senior half of the capital we should put the yield
  1822
  at 3 per cent., which is not much above the Government gilt-edged level, and a risk of 6 per cent, on the junior half. Having regard to the very doubtful net revenue prospects in the future I think this is very generous. Let me quote one other figure. If we take the average net railway revenue of 1935–37 it will be found that the compensation we propose represents about 25 years' purchase, so really it cannot be said that they are being skinned alive, as the right hon. Gentleman so picturesquely put it. Many an eel would be happy if that were its fate.
  I am anxious not to delay the House too long, but I should like to deal very briefly with the other forms of compensation. The terms of compensation for road haulage, I venture to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, are really very equitable. It is true that they are on a different footing, but that is in view of the different nature of the assets which are to be taken into public ownership. Very few of these road hauliers are companies with shares quoted on the Stock Exchange. What is proposed for the road hauliers is that compensation shall consist of two parts: first, replacement value at the date of the transfer, less depreciation on a certain scale laid down in the Bill, plus between two and five times the annual net profit lost to the undertaking. That is really quite good, because many such a concern will have a depreciation fund set aside which will be invested and bringing in much more than 2½ per cent. What they get is replacement value less depreciation—which a worthwhile concern will have already provided for—plus between two and five times the actual net profit lost. This will be discussed in Committee at length, but I think that the terms are not outrageous.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: But is it not a fact that all they will actually receive in the average case, is half the replacement value, and one-tenth of the previous income?
  Mr. Dalton: I should be very happy to discuss that at length later on, but if they have a large amount written off in a depreciation fund, good luck to them. They are well away, and it will be bringing in quite a lot from investments. I do not think, when one looks into this in the light of particular instances, that they are being unfairly treated With regard to the other classes, the local

  1823
  authority undertakings and privately owned wagons, I will not dwell on them at great length but will merely say that in each case regard is had to the particular circumstances. For the local authorities the basis is, if clause 27 be examined, that -the Transport Commission asumes liability for the interest and sinking fund charges for the net debt—whatever is left outstanding.
  The simple justification for the net debt basis here is that we have one public authority taking over from another. This has nothing to do with private concerns but concerns a local authority whose assets are being transferred to another public authority. When that is so, the obvious basis, which is always subject to further discussion in committee, is for the transferee authority to make itself responsible for the liabilities of the transferor on the net debt basis and the transferor—that is the local authority— should not seek cash payments beyond the outstanding net liabilities. One of my hon. Friends raised that point yesterday and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be ready to consider arguments on the subject later on. But so far, I am of the opinion that it is a fair scheme. With regard to privately owned wagons other than those owned by the railway companies, under Clause 32 the compensation for prewar wagons is to be the 1939 cost less depreciation as laid down in the Clause. Somewhat the same arguments apply there as to road haulage.
  I have restricted my remarks to the compensation aspect of this Bill, and I would conclude by saying that from a wider point of view the Bill far transcends in importance any similar Measure that we have yet had in this Parliament. It is a very important Socialist Measure. We quite agree with the Opposition about that. In introducing it, we are carrying out the pledges we made to the electors, and we are carrying them out with speed and decision. This is a new thing in British political history—speed and decision. [An HON. MEMBER: "Streamlined legislation."] Yes, it is streamlined too. We are scrapping the old, miserable, out-of-date methods for the modern and streamlined article. [Interruption.] These are only automatic reactions such as can always be procured cheaply. We cannot do everything at
  1824
  once, but we are none the less proceeding with speed and decision to carry out our pledges.
  We like to think of this aspect also. There have been many men—railwaymen and transport workers—who, through long years, have believed in this Measure and have made their contribution to prepare for carrying it out. Many friends of mine and of hon Members on this side of the House—and, I hope, of those on the other—members of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway Clerks Association, the A.S.L.E. and F. and others, including members of the Transport Workers Union and their wives, will be very happy when they see this Bill brought in. Just as last Session we sent a signal from Westminster to the miners, today we send a signal to the railway workers, and to many of the road transport workers that, as with the miners, so now, they will serve not private employers any more, but the nation This shall not be the last such message sent to a body of organised British workers from this House of Commons, and when we go to our electors at the end of our term we shall say to them, "We have fought the good fight, we have kept the faith, we have kept our word to you."
  Mr. Bracken: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question? Has he considered carefully the signal he is sending to our debtors abroad? Does he agree, in fact, that it would be fair for the Argentine Government to compensate stockholders on the basis which he is proposing now—that is, Stock Exchange quotations?
  Mr. Dalton: I do not know whether it is in Order for me to answer, but if you permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of the most fortunate and successful international commercial negotiations that has taken place for a long, long time is the recent Anglo-Argentine agreement. The negotiations were conducted with great skill and ability by a delegation, led by a high official of the Treasury, at Buenos Aires. They resulted in an agreement in which all these matters have been settled, including a rate of only ½ per cent.—cheap money—on the outstanding sterling balance of the Argentine, and under which this long, troubled railway negotiation, which has baffled all our predecessors, is at last well in train.

  1825
  I hope, for a satisfactory settlement. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be delighted at what we have done.
  6.1 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: The House has listened with great interest to the Chancellor's reply to a very able speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). There are one or two very small points upon which I hope that there may be an answer later in the Debate. In the first place, I hope the Chancellor will forgive me when I say, in reference to his remarks just now, the forgoing of dividends by the ordinary shareholders and some of the preference shareholders was in order that the direction of the railways could see that the tracks and the equipment generally were kept in proper condition. If the shareholders had not made that sacrifice—rather, it was made for them— it would not have been possible for the railways to play the part they did in helping to win the war.
  There is another point. I ought at this juncture, for the sake of hon. Gentlemen who have not known me long, to say that I have been in this House a good many years. I think I am the only survivor of the 1921 negotiations in connection with the then Railways Bill. I am a director of a railway, and I am interested, and, therefore, I want to declare that interest so that every hon. Member will know exactly where I stand. I have always felt very proud to belong to the railway service of this country. It has rendered wonderful service. It is now coming, apparently, to the end of its existence as private enterprise, but I feel that no Chancellor ought lightly to scoff at those who preferred to put their money into organisations of national benefit rather than into greyhound racing or investments which are perhaps not so important. I inherited funds invested in the railways from my grandfather, who was the first collaborator with Stephenson in making the London and Birmingham Railway. They have never been offered on the Stock Exchange. They have been held intact, and naturally I have never bought or sold a share whilst a director. For all those who had faith in what were considered to be a gilt-edged investment. I beg the Government, in spite of the very clever speech the Chancellor has just made, to realise that it
  1826
  would give far more satisfaction it the matter could be referred to arbitration, as was done in the 1921 Act, quite simply and without any great delay to selected dates. There was a tribunal of three persons, and the business was put through without much delay, and it should be done in that way, as there is no doubt that the proposals of His Majesty's Government are not between a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is force majeure. It is seizing something. Whatever may be in the minds of the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Government—they may say to themselves that they are perfectly satisfied that it is a fair "do"—there are no stock holders in the railway who will ever believe it was a fair or just thing or in accordance with the practice of this House. Therefore, I beg the Government, apart from everything else, not to close their minds to the possibility of extending arbitration for these shares.
  In regard to trustee securities, a great many of us are in the position today of wondering where we are going to find the money to maintain children at school and to pay what is necessary We have believed all along that the income derived from these funds was safe and sound and, therefore, we could make our plans accordingly. The Government's action in this matter will be a great blow to British credit, and I am sure it is not the wish of the Chancellor to eliminate the rentier altogether. The Chancellor must realise that action of this sort is like throwing a stone into a pond—the ripples go a long distance. This is not the moment to destroy confidence and credit in what has, I hope, always been a creditable investment.
  There is one other matter in regard to the Stock Exchange about which I would like to say a word. It is absolutely clear that the Stock Exchange cannot be looked upon as the best means of assessing the assets and everything else of the railway, quite apart from what they say themselves, and having listened most carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. On the whole the railways, in the 22 years since the 1921 Act, have been able to manage their affairs well. They have put by reserves and are quite able now to carry out the programme that they want for new rolling stock, rails, sleepers and so on, but they cannot get the articles. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Transport know

  1827
  well that it is not because the railways have not the funds with which to do it, but because we are short of labour and material and simply cannot get on with it. We have been twitted about dark stations, and the Minister of Transport specified Euston. The penalty of being a pioneer is that one has not got up-to-date things, but, surely, we ought to be proud of the fact that it was British engineers and British courage which made the railway systems of this country and of Europe—
  Mr. Sparks: What about the railwaymen? Did not they have anything to do with it?
  Sir R. Glyn: I was coming to that. The hon. Member has not been very long in this House. If he had been longer, he would know that all the years during which I have had to do with railway negotiations, I have had the happiest relations with his hon. Friends. I would like to say publicly now that we are coming to the end of the system that we have known, that I have never yet known any railway union representative to go back on what he has said to me or to any of the officers—never. I do not believe any of them had any doubt about the officers of the railways, or about those of us who were in the House when negotiations took place, and I regret that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) should not be one of the first to stand up for what I believe to be the finest labour negotiating machinery that exists, which has been set up gradually between the unions and the management of the railways. I am sure the House will permit me to say that there is one officer of the British railways, Mr. Derbyshire, who has been one of the greatest friends that the trades union movement have had, and one in whom they have the utmost confidence. It is not a matter to go into now, but I hope that at some juncture the Minister may show that the railwaymen themselves are to have as good a system for negotiations as they have now when the State is their employer and when there is no appeal from the management; because it seems to me to be a very difficult position. It is no use talking about a conference, as is talked about in the Bill, unless that is something very real and effective.
  1828
  I hope the Minister of Labour, who I see is sitting on the Front Bench, will forgive me for saying that one of the differences between nationalisation and private enterprise is the political pressure that is put on to increase overhead charges. That is why I am so fearful of this scheme. Any good railwayman knows that all the responsible leaders of the trades unions know what can be done and what cannot be done. Their greatest dangers are those people who split away from the union to form another one. No railway, no great industrial organisation, can function unless it recognises the great unions that belong to the industry and those associated with it. That is the view I have always had, all the years I have been in the House, but where the difficulty arises is that, through political pressure, more and more is squeezed out for the benefit of individuals who, in their heart of hearts, know that the industry cannot afford it. The future alone can tell how it will work out, but the railways exist for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of the traders and the people, and it is by the joint effort of management and labour that service has been rendered in the past. I pray it may be continued in the future, because there is too much at stake.
  Nobody has mentioned the fact that during the war we were under Government control and that the Treasury netted something like £100 million over and above the rental that the railways obtained. That ought to be borne in mind, because that never went to the benefit of the shareholders but was put aside, and went back into the maw of the Treasury. Now the shareholders are having the cuts mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester, and it seems to me that something ought to be given back to the shareholders over and above what they have had in the way of that rent.
  My last point is this: The Stock Exchange prices merely represent the result of supply and demand at a particular time, and in the case of the railway shares the prices have for years been depressed by factors not connected at all with the management of the railways. I have been long enough in this House to know that the greatest menace we have had to good operating of the railways has been the fact that we have always had to come to Parliament whenever we had a private Bill,

  1829
  and on that Bill any conceivable thing could be talked about which dealt with the railways. It was because Parliament was so fearful of the danger of a railway monopoly that it hedged about the management of the railways with all these rules and conditions about coming to Parliament. That is to be swept away, and there is one thing I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain when he replies. During the Committee stage of the 1921 Act we had long discussions as to the form in which the accounts should be presented to Parliament. In Clause 98 of the present Bill all that is to be swept away. It has been stated that the accounts, which shows how much the different sections of the undertaking make, can all be put into one common pool. If that is done, it will be quite impossible for Parliament to have any check or understanding of how the transport system of the country is working unless the revenue from the various sections of the industry is quite clearly defined. I think it is a retrograde thing to go back on what was decided by the 1921 Act, and not allow Parliament to see in detail how each part of the revenue is obtained. That may be a Committee point perhaps, but I choose to think it is a point of principle.
  Road transport, ships, hotels, all those ancillary services have to be discussed in Committee, and they all play a part so interrelated one with the other that it is very difficult to separate them now. The Minister of Transport said yesterday that he thought we had been backward in not providing hotels for third-class passengers. We have not been allowed to do so. Ten years ago we should not have called ourselves the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company or the London and North Eastern Railway Company, but transport companies, We have been transport undertakings. You cannot run a railway without road services, you have to deliver your parcels. It is a great transport undertaking, and all the arrangements made between the railways and the roads, and with shipping and hotels, are all linked together. I beg the House to realise that if we are to have a successful transport system, which we all want— unification, as it is called—there must not be political pressure. That must not happen because it has been the political pressure of this House which has held back the development of the railways, prevented them from cooperating with the
  1830
  roads and from having their vehicles, prevented the shutting down of unremunerative stations, prevented the delivery of parcels and goods, prevented adequate communication between the north and south over the Thames, as an hon. Gentleman opposite said. We must have freedom, and we could have had it, if the House of Commons had been more forward-looking in the way in which they allowed us to deal with our Bills when we came before the House.
  I do not believe in nationalisation. I believe we shall not get the same results with the same success. If the Bill goes through as at present arranged, the undertakings pass to the Government on 1st January, 1948. There is plenty of time for an inquiry and there is ample time for arbitration about this great changeover of undertakings, which have played so great a part in the building up of our country, so that those who put their money into them, and risked their funds in them, do not go away with the feeling that they have had a raw deal. It is quite unnecessary. The scheme of the Government, plus arbitration, may make this transfer something that we can all believe is better than it might otherwise have been. I only hope that partisan political pressure will never be allowed to interfere with the future development of transport in this country.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Champion: It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of following an old and respected Member of this House. He was a railway director, and I was a railway signalman. I have had the privilege of being on the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen and of meeting the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and his colleagues around the negotiating table. He said, quite rightly, that we are coming to the end of a phase. The railway directors were hard bargainers, but I would also say they were honourable men. They kept their word when they had given it, but I must say they never erred on the side of generosity. The hon. Member also said that the sacrifices of shareholders in the past had made it possible to keep a high standard of efficiency in the industry. That is not so. The railways have failed, because, in the past, they did not plough sufficient of the profits back into the industry and did not take sufficiently energetic measures to meet the

  1831
  growing road transport competition. My experience taught me that the only way the director thought of meeting growing road transport competition was that of cutting the wages of railwaymen. It was also my experience that the workers in road and railway undertakings were caught between the upper and nether millstones of road and rail competition.
  The right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said yesterday that the road hauliers' industry had been built up on the pluck and courage of the men who had put their small capital into road haulage undertakings. The road haulage industry was built not so much on the pluck and courage of the people who put their money into it, as upon the shocking conditions the men who worked in the industry suffered during the growth of the industry. It was largely sweated labour of the worst possible kind. It was so bad, in fact, that even a Conservative Government had to do something about it eventually and we had an Act which did something about those shocking conditions. The railway undertakings did not take the energetic steps they might have taken, but rather engaged in agitations, first for "Fair play for the railways," then for "A square deal for the railways." They exploited every avenue open to them to further their agitations in that connection. If, instead, they had applied their minds rather to meeting the growing competition, it would have been very much better for the railways. We have never seen in the railways the exploitation of their best answer to the growing road competition, their advantage of speed.
  Lord Monkswell, before the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931,
  "pointed out that as long ago as 1848 the Great Western Railway ran a train from Paddington to Didcot, a distance of 53 miles, in 47½ minutes, or, in other words, at the rate of 67 miles per hour while the fastest booked train on any British railway today runs at 62 miles an hour, and the average of the best runs is not more than 55 miles an hour."
  From 1848 to 1946, nearly 100 years in railway progress, we have lost in speed rather than gained. The railways also failed to exploit the invention of automatic train control. That is a failure for which they will always have to answer. They should have exploited greater speed, coupled with automatic train control devices which were available to them. As a
  1832
  result of their failure to meet the growing road transport competition, they also failed to attract the new capital they so badly needed. I think today it can be said that the failure to attract new capital did, in fact, cause the railways to get into the position in which they now are. Sir Ralph Wedgwood said that during the period between the two wars
  "railways were suffering from a creeping paralysis due to a lack of credit."
  He blamed high labour costs and not their failure to compete with road transport. He said that before a railway tribunal when the companies were trying to cut the wages of 100,000 men from 40s. a week to 38s. a week.
  Road-rail competition was conducted, not on efficiency, but rather on the backs of the workers, The capital required for the reorganisation of the railways today is much too vast for these railway undertakings to raise, in spite of promises they have made to us. They have talked in terms of great expenditure they are proposing to make, but the simple fact is that between the wars they failed to raise the capital vitally necessary if they were to institute a large measure of technical reorganisation. Towards the end of that period, the only way in which they could raise the capital was by going to the State and they got £26 million as a result, at an interest rate of 2½ per cent. when others had to pay much more. That was virtually a subsidy by the State.
  Much has been said in the course of the Debate about compensation. It is said that the stockholders are not getting fair play, and that the value of their stocks is not being properly met by these Stock Exchange value arrangements. I cannot help noticing that some of the stockholders who bought stocks just before the war will receive a considerable capital appreciation as a result of the wartime agreement. They will also be receiving rates of interest upon stocks upon which they never previously received anything. The Chancellor has already given some examples of that today. I see that Southern Deferred, for example, could have been bought at the beginning of 1939, before the war started, for £11 10s. The holders of that stock are now to be compensated by the country to the tune of £24. G.W.R. Ordinary, which could have been purchased in the beginning of 1939 for £25, will cost the

  1833
  nation £59 1s. 3d. L.M.S. Ordinary will have gone up from £11 7s. 6d. to £29 10s. L.N.E.R. Deferred Ordinary, which have not paid anything for years and years, have gone up from £2 8s. 9d. to £3 12s. 6d., and the State—the people— will have to pay those amounts for the stock.
  The growth of railways undoubtedly was marred by some of the very worst features of an expanding capitalist system, and there went into railway capital much money which in fact is represented by no assets. Landowners received very much more than they should have received. Lawyers battened upon the rapid growth of the railway systems and partly as a result of that we have in this country the highest capitalisation per route mile in the world. The capitalisation figure per route mile in this country is £56,000, as against £31,000 in France, £24,000 in Germany and £14,000 in the United States of America.
  We are today to compensate for some of the blunders made in this period, when railways were expanding. It is also noticeable that during the whole period no attempt has been made towards the redemption of the capital, no amortisation has, in fact, been provided for. In this connection it should be known that in the period since the coming into operation of the Railways Act, 1921, no less than £880 million has been paid in the form of interest and returns upon the shares, that is, virtually the whole of the capital has been repaid in the period since 1921.
  Sir John Mellor: When the hon. Member speaks about amortisation of capital, is he referring to the Debentures, because, if so, will he agree that nearly all the Debentures are irredeemable, and, therefore, no amortisation would apply?
  Mr. Champion: I hold that an effort should have been made to pay off all this capital in the past, as could have been done had the same procedure been followed as has had to be followed in the case of municipal transport, etc.
  Sir J. Mellor: To what part of the capital is the hon. Member referring?
  Mr. Champion: I was referring to the whole of the capital. I believe that under a proper system of amortisation we could, in fact, have redeemed the capital, and
  1834
  the railways would have belonged to the nation long ago.
  I believe that this industry will have to look more and more towards specialisation of function. The final Report of the Royal Commission on Transport said:
  "No doubt, if a state of affairs could be reached whereby every passenger travelled and every ounce of goods was consigned by the most economical route and form of transport, many of our present transport difficulties would disappear."
  "Overlapping and unnecessary services would be eliminated."
  That is perhaps a counsel of perfection, but I believe it is a state towards which we ought to strive. I do not think that the country can afford, in the circumstances of today, other than to strive towards that perfection. I believe that the case for nationalisation is really the case for a specialisation of function as between railway, road and waterway. The "Economist" said recently, quite rightly, that what was really needed was to
  "severely prune the volume of physical capital that now has to be maintained in order to keep in being two complete competing and under-employed transport systems."
  In the difficult years that lie ahead, this country cannot afford to maintain two complete and under-used transport systems, we cannot afford to waste the manpower. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said recently that we had passed out of a period in which unemployment was the dominant factor in our national and economic thinking, into a period where production was the main thing to be thought of. I believe he was right. I believe we have reached a point where the importance of production makes it vitally necessary that we shall not waste manpower and capital equipment, that we shall not, in fact, devote manpower to two competing transport systems running side by side, and that we shall not divert manpower into the industry making two kinds of capital equipment which merely compete one with the other.
  I believe that this specialisation of function is absolutely necessary. My experience is that one can find competing transport running wastefully side by side— branch railway lines, road haulage undertakings and passenger road transport. The loss in manpower is intolerable.

  1835
  Various suggestions have been made. The Road-Rail Agreement, the suggestion by the road and rail interests that they can, in fact, get over this difficulty of the non-coordination of road transport and rail services, seems to me to be something in the nature of a death-bed repentance, something like:
  "When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be."
  I am of the opinion that if the "devil" was permitted to get well he would certainly not be a saint, and we should have a reversion to the same sort of stupidity as we had between the two wars. The Agreement is very loosely worded, and is one with no sanctions in it and cannot possibly apply.
  I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) that Clause 67 should be looked at again, and possibly strengthened, because it does not seem to be sufficiently strong on the side of insuring that area schemes would, in fact, enforce public ownership of road transport. I believe that the Bill should be strengthened on the side of the coordinating provisions. Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I regard it as a great stride forward, and I am sure that the railwaymen I represent elsewhere—not here, where I represent a constituency—welcome this Bill, and wish the Minister well in his task of getting it through this House.
  6.37 p.m.
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) addressed the House with the great authority of a railway director. He told the House quite frankly that he was a railway director. I will tell the House what my interest is in connection with this Bill. In several trusts I hold a number of railway securities, and for some years I have been a member of the Executive of a body called the Railway Stockholders' Union, which looks after the interests of those who hold railway securities. The able and clever speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be remembered for one thing above all else, that is, his laudation of the Stock Exchange—all that he said about the Stock Exchange and Stock Exchange prices being so fair as a basis of compensation. I could not help thinking, when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say, "Suppose the South
  1836
  African Government wanted to nationalise the South African gold mines," would they think it reasonable to pay compensation, on the basis of the present day prices of such holdings as "Ofsits," "Freddies" or "Western Holdings." which stand at immense premiums over their nominal values, and most of which have never yet paid any dividends, and the possibility of whose dividends in the future is somewhat remote? Stock Exchange prices, in cases of that sort, would be utterly unreasonable, and could never be adopted. Yet we are told that in the case of this great railway industry, the best criterion of compensation is the prices on the Stock Exchange.
  Railway securities have been particularly liable to fluctuation in the last few years. Several hon. Members have referred to the fact, as did the Chancellor, that in the 'thirties, several of the junior stocks, and in some cases the ordinary stock, received reduced or no dividends. But why should such a short-term view be taken?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon stated that he and his family had held certain railway securities for generations and that they had never come On the market. I think there are large numbers of people still in this country with regard to whom that could be said. Yet in every speech which has been made on this question of Stock Exchange values as the proper basis for compensation, we have been told about the prices during the last four, five or, at the most, ten years. People have forgotten to look back to what the prices were, say, ten years before the war. Why should we not take a long-term view instead of merely referring to prices in times of depression? In my view, what has kept railway securities grossly depressed—I am talking now about the junior securities—has been, first, the competition of road transport and, second, the fear of nationalisation.
  As regards the competition of road transport, everybody knows that if the railways had been left to themselves, a solution would have been reached. Already they have made an agreement with the road transport interests and that severe competition obviously would have been much less in the future. I can see no reason why, if the railways had been left to themselves, and had not been

  1837
  nationalised, and bearing in mind the road-rail agreement, they should not have earned enough revenue to pay a reasonable dividend even on some of their most junior securities. It has already been stated in this Debate that there are close on a million stockholders in the four main line railways. The average holding is about £800 at actual Stock Exchange value, or £1,200 in nominal capital. Despite what some hon Members opposite seem to think, the vast majority of holdings are under £500 and it is the case that a large number of those holdings belong to comparatively poor people.
  Reference has been made to the enormous reductions in income on some of these stocks as a result of the Government system of compensation. For example, if we take a security like Southern Railway preferred ordinary stock, that is not a speculative ordinary stock. Except for one year during the depression in the early thirties, that stock has always paid its full 5 per cent. Today, because of the fear of nationalisation and the special circumstances which have depressed railway stocks, that 5 per cent. stock stands only at somewhere about 75. Taking £100 of that stock and the income that it received in 1945 at £5 per cent., under the new proposals of compensation it will receive only £1 18s. 9d. per cent. These matters were brought out very clearly in the admirable and closely reasoned speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison).
  There are two arguments put forward by those who favour the present compensation proposals. It is said that if a fair price in cash is paid, one is not concerned with the subsequent income of the recipients. That was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies). That might be all right, provided that the Government were to pay cash, which is not the fact in this case, and provided either that the stockholder was a willing seller, or that there had been an independent valuation. My answer to that argument is that there is no provision in this Bill for payment in cash. The price, in my view, is not fair. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today that the Government stock which is to be issued is to be redeemable stock. That brings a small grain of comfort, but the Chancellor did
  1838
  not say what the terms of redemption were to be, or for how long that stock was to run before redemption. Suppose it is a long-dated stock, obviously there is any amount of time for it to fall far below its par value between the date of issue and the date of redemption.
  Again, it is said that one cannot burden the new nationalised railways with interest charges which they will not be able to earn. Why will they not be able to earn roughly the rental that is now being paid under the control agreement? Surely, the whole argument for nationalisation is that it will bring much greater efficiency. As far as I can see, there is no other argument for nationalisation. It has been used over and over again by hon. Members opposite. We are told, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the railways are a disgrace. I was sorry to hear him use that term. We were told about the inefficiency of railway men. Obviously the argument is that if the railways are nationalised they will be more efficiently run. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] If they are to be much more efficiently run, surely that will mean a greater earning power. Otherwise, the railways will not be more efficient. If they have a greater earning power, they will be able to pay, at least roughly, what is now the rental under the Control Agreement.
  Major C. Poole: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, under the control agreement which operated during the war, the rates which the Government paid for the conveyance of Government traffic bore no relation at all to the actual rates which would have been chargeable if those goods had been carried for an ordinary private consumer? In many cases they were approximately 75 per cent. higher than would have been the case for goods conveyed between a civilian customer and a civilian consumer.
  Sir H. O'Neill: As a result of that, among other things, the railways made just under £200 million profit during the war, over and above the written agreement, every penny of which was taken by the Government and not one penny of which went to the stockholders. Of course, if the railways are to earn under nationalisation, a reasonable revenue then, no doubt, rates and fares will have to be adjusted. After all, we live in a time of inflation. Costs are going up on all sides

  1839
  and wages are rising. Is transport to be the only commodity which is not to charge higher rates? Of course, there will have to be higher rates unless the new nationalised railways are to go bankrupt and be unable to pay their way. If we have a proper system of rates and fares adjustment, and proper arrangements between road and rail, the nationalised railways certainly ought to be able to earn an income sufficient to pay out of revenue, which would enable far more equitable compensation to be paid to the stockholders than is contemplated under the present arrangement.
  It may be said that it is very easy to criticise, but what should we have as the alternative to the present proposed system of compensation? The alternative methods of compensation which have been discussed have been three, as far as I am aware—first, methods based on the standard revenue under the Act of 1921; secondly, to replace the cost of railway property and equipment, and, thirdly, the capitalisation of net maintainable revenue. I imagine that the Government have probably considered all these possible methods of compensation. They appear to have discarded them all. They have decided upon a method based on the Stock Exchange values, which the Railway Clerks Association, in their publication, declared to be quite unsuitable.
  I suggest to the House and the Government that there is a fourth method of compensation which I have not yet seen discussed anywhere, at any rate, in detail. That is a method of compensation by means of a terminable annuity. It has been calculated that, with an annual payment spread over 40 years, of an amount roughly equivalent to the rental now being paid to the railways, under the control agreement, a reduced, but nevertheless reasonable, income would be available to the stockholders, and, at the end of the 40-year period, by means of the sinking fund included in the annunity, the stock created would be redeemed and the railways would belong to the State, free from all obligations and free of all charges, except those incurred for future development. That, I maintain, is a possible basis of compensation which is worthy of consideration by the Government, and such a basis would have sound precedent behind it. That is a basis which was adopted by the Government in financing the Irish land purchase
  1840
  scheme which was carried through towards the last years of the 1800's and the early years of the 1900's. Under that scheme, the landowners were paid out in Government stock, the interest on and redemption of which was covered by a terminable annuity collected from the former tenant farmers, who are now in process of themselves becoming the owners of their land, free of all rent, at the end of the annuity period. That, I suggest, would have been a system which might have been well worth consideration by the Government, and I hope that, even now, it will have some kind of consideration from those in authority, because, speaking as a holder of railway stocks, on behalf of several trusts, I most strongly feel that the loss of income which innocent people are going to suffer is a thing that really cannot be justified.
  Of course, I agree that, in the case of the junior stockholders, when they are going to get Government security, they will obviously have to face some loss of income. But the loss of income which is proposed under this scheme is quite unwarranted. In my view, it is most drastic, most harsh and quite indefensible. The present Prime Minister addressed a meeting of the Railway Stockholders Union in January, 1937. He was then, of course, leader of the Labour Party and in a responsible position. I happened to be at that gathering, and I have before me a report of the words which he used in speaking to the railway stockholders. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, advocating nationalisation, and he used these words:
  "And so I believe you will find when, in due course, you cease to be railway stockholders, that the community will make a very fair bargain with you, and it is all to your interest that that should happen."
  A little further on, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I think you will find that a Labour Government will give you proper compensation."
  Well, I think that it is manifest that, at any rate, a very large proportion of the people of this country do not consider that proper compensation is being paid. I leave it to any fair-minded person, either in this House or elsewhere, to decide in his conscience whether or not that pledge, given by the present Prime Minister in 1937, has or has not been redeemed.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Listening to the speeches from the Front Bench opposite in this Debate, I have had a feeling that the right hon. Gentlemen on that bench may be divided into two classes. On the one hand, there are those who advocated railway nationalisation in the past, and, on the other, those who are today directors of the railway companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) has the distinction of falling into both classes at once. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) falls, I think, into neither class, and, perhaps, that is why he was selected to speak in this Debate. I must say that I found rather unconvincing the synthetic ferocity with which he attacked the Government's Bill. I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer at all to the great constitutional principle and the great attack upon British liberty about which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke in one of his weekly interventions last week. I thought we were going to hear about this great constitutional principle which weighed so heavily on the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, but, apparently, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby does not agree with him on that point, because he did not mention it at all.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also seemed to think that, in nationalising the railways, the present Government were pursuing some novel and doctrinaire idea of the Labour Party which is not accepted by authorities on this subject generally. The evidence is against him on that point. As we all know, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley signed a manifesto some years ago called "The Next Five Years," which recommended the nationalisation of transport. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who was in his place earlier today, told us recently that in the changed economic conditions of the day, the Government must play an ever-increasing part in the economic life of the nation; and, of course, as we all know, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) advocated railway nationalisation in 1918. It is true that he was then, I believe, speaking as a
  1842
  Liberal. But the House may be interested to know that Mr. Gladstone was speaking as a Tory when he moved the Second Reading of a Bill for Government purchase of the railways on 8th July, 1844. That Bill was passed and it gave the Government a power to purchase the railways which, I believe, it still legally possesses today.
  The next eminent authority I would like to quote is the chairman of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, in 1937. Mr. William Whitelaw. He said in the "News Chronicle" on 29th December, 1937, that he advocated nationalisation of the railways. He went on:
  "After purchasing the railways, the Government should set up a body to control both road and rail transport. This public body might be ran something like the London Passenger Transport Board or the Port of London authority."
  Then he added:
  "One of the principal obstacles to overcome is the deep-rooted political prejudice against the word 'nationalisation.' But this is not a political problem. There is no doubt in my mind that State ownership would result in rationalisation and improvement which would reduce the costs of both passenger and industrial transport."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford told us that he had changed his views because of the advent of road transport. I thought that was a very thin explanation, particularly because, as I hope to show briefly, road transport has come steadily into a virtual private monopoly with the railways during the last 15 years.
  Before showing that, I would like to say that we on these benches hold the basic conviction that great public services and great concentrations of economic power like the transport services of this country should be not in private hands, but in the hands of an authority responsible to a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament. We hold that is the only democratic system. When hon. Members opposite talk about political interference and so forth, I think that is a very dangerous argument. It neglects the essential principle of the Constitution of this country, which is that power should be in the hands of an authority responsible to a Minister and so to Parliament. If hon. Members opposite do not understand that, I can only say that they have not yet understood why they lost the last General Election.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely how he thinks Parliament can democratise the Railway Transport Executive?
  Mr. Jay: The essential principle is that railways should be in the hands of an authority responsible to a Minister in the same way as the Armed Forces of the Crown, or the Post Office, or the Treasury or any other great public service. If the noble Lord does not understand how that works, he does not understand either the constitution of the country or why his party lost the last General Election. I would add that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), I fought a by-election, not quite so recently as he did, but fairly recently, on this issue. In my constituency there is a very large number of transport workers, and there are few subjects about which they feel so keenly as this. They are extremely keen on this Bill, and although I hate to expose hon. Members opposite to the icy blasts of public opinion, the only question I was asked during the election in regard to compensation, was why we were proposing to give any compensation at all.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: What was the answer?
  Mr. Jay: The answer was that the Labour Party has always believed in full and fair compensation. That was one of the simpler answers I had to give during the election campaign. Hon. Members may say that is rather an academic sentiment, and may ask what this question of private ownership has to do with transport. I will mention one concrete example of why it matters, and that is the story of the Severn Bridge scheme. I think we all agree that that scheme will prove of great benefit to millions of people living in South Wales and elsewhere. What happened before the war? When the scheme came forward, it was opposed by the Great Western Railway Company on the definite and explicit grounds that it would injure the profits of private stockholders in that company. That is the fact, and if the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) were here, I do not think he would deny it. That was an inevitable effect of the system; and, it is that system which we mean to change.
  1844
  The basic case for nationalisation of transport is, as many hon. Members have said, that we shall never get real efficiency, coordination and cheapness without unification. I use the word "unification," long as it is, because it is the word used in the Report of the Royal Commission on Transport in 1930. If hon. Members opposite wish to press their demand for an inquiry into reasons for nationalisation, I hope they will read this excellent and voluminous blue book right through from beginning to end, and then see whether they want another inquiry into the whole subject of transport. That Report said at the end:
  "In any case, it is clear that any plan (for unification) would necessitate a large amount of Government control, since otherwise the whole of the essential services of transport would be in the hands of a huge uncontrolled monopoly."
  That is the essential principle behind this Measure. The experience of the last 15 years has shown over and over again that competition is basically wasteful and uneconomic because it leaves us with two systems of transport with high overhead charges, wasting manpower and so on; and it has also shown, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that that competition drives down the value of railway property and of the railway ordinary stocks to levels far below what will be received in compensation under this Bill. Parliament decided, and in my opinion rightly, that that wasteful competition could not go on, and the story of those ten years is the story of limitations by Parliament of the ability of the roads to compete with the railways. By that means, we protected the value of railway stocks and limited this competition; but at the same time we allowed the country to drift into a most indefensible position of virtual private monopoly without Government control.
  I would like to mention briefly two aspects of how the road transport system came into a private monopoly jointly with the railways. The first is the Tilling combine, which I am glad has been mentioned in this Debate, because it is not so widely known as it ought to be. By the Railways Road Transport Act, 1928, the railways were given power to run road vehicles. They made very little use of that power, but what they did was to buy up controlling shares in practically all the private bus companies in the country. At the same time, two great

  1845
  private holding companies Thomas Tilling and British Electric Traction, joined in that process and bought controlling shares in the same companies. By about 1938, we had a system whereby, as far as I have been able to discover, private companies owning over 90 per cent. of all the private buses in the country were as to more than 50 per cent. owned ultimately by Thomas Tilling, B.E.T. and Scottish Motor Traction in Scotland, and as to over 40 per cent. by the railways. That combine owned nearly 100 private bus companies, and employed something between 60,000 and 100,000 men. I would like to quote from a journal which has already been mentioned on this side of the House today, namely, the "Financial News."
  Mr. Dalton: The "Financial Times."
  Mr. Jay: The Chancellor says it is the "Financial Times." Actually, I was correct; it was the "Financial News."
  Sir William Darling: A long time ago.
  Mr. Jay: On 14th October, 1944, when it was still in competition and had not been absorbed into the monopoly concern, over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) now presides, the "Financial News" said:
  "A large part of the industry has in fact come under the sway of Thomas Tilling and British Electric Traction, both of which had established their pre-eminence—with Scottish Motor Traction they were far and away the largest units—not by starting up competitive enterprises of their own, but by absorbing and developing individual businesses. The railways agreed to share their holdings with these two companies, whose interests in such undertakings were vested in the jointly owned Tilling and BET."
  The "Financial News" then added, rather uneasily, that this arrangement
  "was of course open to the criticism that it converted passenger and road transport very largely into a closed ' industry,' leaving newcomers only limited scope in the running of coach trips and the like."
  That "closed" shop—to use the expression of the newspaper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth —or closed industry, is virtually in that condition today. Today these two holding main companies hold controlling shares in companies with a capital of over £30 million; they own 100 bus companies, with far too many names for me to read to the House tonight, although I have them with
  1846
  me; and they employ something like 100,000 persons. I would add that this has proved an extremely profitable monopoly. It is a most notable example of a private monopoly combine, which is earning very high and steadily increasing monopoly profits, and which is at once, in my opinion, overcharging the public and underpaying the workers. That, very briefly, is the history of the Tilling combine.
  I would have liked to tell the story by which road goods traffic has also come virtually into a monopoly of the same kind, but there is not time to do that tonight. I would just recall the fact that it was not merely the Labour Government of 1930, but the Conservative Government of 1933 which deliberately introduced a system of licensing, which brought to an end free competition in road goods transport. I thought perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby was going to tell us that was the great constitutional principle which was so much worrying the Leader of the Opposition, but he did not do so. None the less, I think I might point out to the House that the very first sentence—a very streamlined sentence—of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, passed by a Conservative Government, says:
  "…no person shall use a goods vehicle on a road for the carriage of goods—

  (a) for hire or reward; or

  (b) for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by him,

  except under a licence."
  That principle was adopted by the Conservative Government of 1933, so hon. Members opposite cannot argue that their party has advocated anything like competition in this matter.
  Sir A. Salter: It is true, is it not, that it is specifically provided that, apart from certain offences which are not now relevant, transport carriers should be given their licences automatically, without any power on the part of the licensing authority to refuse a licence, either because they thought there were too many vehicles, or because of the radius of action?
  Mr. Jay: What I was arguing was that the principle of licensing and of limiting road competition was introduced by a Tory Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. It is

  1847
  equally true that licences will be granted under the system we are proposing today.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: May be granted.
  Mr. Jay: Will be or may be, I think, in either case. I would add that the "square deal" campaign, which is the next step in the story, was largely, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) will agree, intended by the railway companies as a prelude to an agreement on rates between the road interests and the railways. I have a pamphlet with me, published by the railway companies this summer, called "British Railways and the Future," which tells us that quite plainly. That was the situation immediately before the war. A further pamphlet issued this summer by the Road Hauliers Association and the railways on the "Co-ordination of Road and Rail Transport" also speaks plainly of their intention, under this private monopoly scheme which they put forward, of reaching agreed rates, or what they call a "correlated rate structure," between the roads and rail interests. The point I am making is that, in road goods traffic as well as road passenger traffic, we have had a steady progress towards a private monopoly arrangement between the roads and the railways. That system was obviously contemplated in the proposals made by the two interests this summer, and I think it is perfectly clear that the whole history of this story shows there are only those alternatives. If we are to have the essential unification, the only real alternatives are between a more or less tight private monopoly on the one hand and a public monopoly on the other.
  I will say very little on the subject of compensation, because I think the Chancellor has said everything there is to say. I would add only this to what he said. If the Government were in any way to pay higher prices than those which they are now proposing to pay for the railway interests, they would lose my support for this Bill. The essential principle behind this method of compensation is to use Stock Exchange prices. The defence of that is that the Stock Exchange price in this case is the only system of valuation which is at once independent and practical. It is both of those, and if we argued
  1848
  for a long time, that is the conclusion we should reach. The second point is that had it not been for this system of limitation of road competition introduced by Parliament these stocks would have been worth very much less than they are worth today. The third point, which has not yet been entirely brought out in the Debate, is that the stocks at the compensation date stood higher than they had stood at almost any time for 15 years. An hon. Member opposite invited us to go a little farther back in the story. I would like to accept that challenge, in the case of just two stocks, Great Western ordinary and L.M.S. ordinary. In the case of Great Western ordinary the compensation price is 50 1/16 In January, 1939—and I took the first working day of each year so as to be perfectly fair—the price was not 59 but 28; in January, 1935, it was 51; if the highest level it touched in 1932 is taken, because it was a depression year, the price was only 48¾. Thus the compensation price is a far higher price than that of 1939, 1935, or 1932 Take the L.M.S. ordinary. The compensation price is 29½. In January, 1939, that stock stood at 13½ in January, 1935, at 21; and the highest point it touched in 1932 was 20].
  Mr. Molson: The hon. Member is selecting individual shares. I am sure they suit his purpose. I am sure he chose them quite fairly. What I was going on was the grant value of the railways.
  Mr. Jay: If one takes almost any stock one finds that from year to year the result is almost exactly the same. I have taken, perhaps, the two most characteristic stocks in the whole list.
  Colonel Wheatley: The hon. Member is taking the sale value of the shares. Will he touch on the question of the income of the shares, which is so important?
  Mr. Jay: That is what I was coming to next. It may be said that, although the market price is perfectly fair, the income is reduced. Well, of course, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, one cannot expect—and nobody on the Stock Exchange does expect—to get the same interest on a Government guaranteed stock as one gets on a very risky ordinary share. The obvious solution for anybody not prepared to accept a reduction in income is to sell the new securities and to reinvest in a security which gives

  1849
  a comparable yield, and, perhaps, rather less risk, than the original railway stock. We are being told that that is not practicable at present, but I must say that this argument is very much exaggerated. In the first place—and I think this is the answer to what the hon. Member opposite said about terminable annuities—it is perfectly open to an individual stockholder to sell that compensation stock, and to buy a life annuity which almost certainly will give as high, and, probably, a higher income than he was getting before.
  Mr. Dalton: And no Income Tax on the capital.
  Mr. Jay: That is true. If the stockholder prefers not to do that, he can still buy a large number of British Ordinary shares which give a yield of 4 or 5 or 6 per cent. today.
  Sir H. O'Neill: My point was that the holder of terminable annuities would get his stock completely redeemed, and get the whole of it back.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Would the hon. Member be good enough to tell us what are the industrial shares on which he can get 4 or 5 or 6 per cent.?
  Mr. Jay: John Brown's, Hawker-Siddeley, or Austin Motors, to mention three. But I think that this is not the proper place for Stock Exchange tips, although I should be very pleased to renew the conversation outside. My essential point is that it is perfectly possible to use discretion to reinvest this stock. It is possible for those people who hold railway debentures to reinvest in other industrial debentures of not much lower yield, and only about half the railway debenture stocks are any longer trustee securities.
  I do think, however, that, in the final case of the railway debentures which are still trustee securities, there is some element of difficulty and hardship because of the very narrow range of stocks in which one can reinvest. But there the solution lies not in any alteration of the compensation price, but, in my opinion, in some widening of the range of trustee stock, and I was very glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in the House a few days ago that he was prepared to consider some widening of that kind. If that were done, it would go far to
  1850
  remove the only element of legitimate grievance in the field of compensation.
  Finally, I may mention briefly three points in which I should like to see some slight revision of this Bill. The first is that this Bill immediately, in its first effects, leaves the Tilling holding company, so far as I can see, still in private hands. I would ask the Minister whether he might not like to go a little further, and ensure that, when this Bill becomes law, this monstrous private monopoly no longer remains in private hands Secondly, I rather regret myself that the compensation stock is going to take the form of British Transport Stock and not of British Government stock outright, because I should like to see every vestige of private ownership, and every vestige of interest payments as a first charge on revenues, removed from this industry. Thirdly, I think the Minister has been wise in leaving considerable elasticity—and this is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University—for the authority which is going to draw up permits for the "C" licences to go outside the 40-mile limit. I think hon. Members opposite who have spoken on this, cannot have examined the Bill very carefully, because the Bill lays down various classes of vehicles to be allowed permits; in particular, firms with production units widely dispersed about the country, including those in development areas. The Minister said the intention was that any bona fide trader could receive a permit to go beyond that range. I interpret that to mean that any bona fide "C" licensee, normally carrying on business in a vehicle of this kind would be allowed to continue, and that the limitation would apply only to those who are seeking to upset the other terms of the Bill by some subterfuge depending on "C" licences. I think that if that is what the Minister intends, any legitimate grievance under that head will be met.
  That is the case, as I see it, for this Bill. The fact is that there are only three systems under which one can run transport in this country. The first is by open competition without quarter.
  Mr. Dalton: Free and unfettered.
  Mr. Jay: Yes, free and unfettered. I understand that hon. Members opposite are not advocating that. Certainly, it

  1851
  would drive the prices of railway stocks, not merely far below the compensation price, but would bring ordinary stocks somewhere near to zero. The Second possible system is some sort of private monopoly. That is what hon. Members opposite and the vested interests are really advocating, though they are ashamed to say so. The third system, which this Royal Commission led up to, and which we advocate, is the system of control by an authority responsible to a Minister who is responsible, in turn, to Parliament. That, in our opinion, is the only democratic and only efficient system. I must say that it seems to me that the inability of hon. Members opposite in this case to choose between the only two workable systems of private or public monopoly, is only one example of the dilemma which they face over the whole field of economic policy, and which is forcing them into such obvious and protracted political frustration.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: I am sure the House has enjoyed the by-election reminiscences of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) as much as I hope we shall profit from the Stock Exchange tips he was good enough to give us; but the Government should not set too much store by their by-election results, because, just as they have managed to retain a number of seats with reduced minorities, so we have managed to retain a large number of seats by greatly increased majorities.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Kilmarnock and Paddington.
  Mr. Renton: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, perhaps, chosen the right moment to depart from the House and stop muttering sweet nothings about the Stock Exchange, because I am not going to speak about the compensation. But I am very glad to see the Minister of Transport is here, because I wish to speak about the lower organisation of his transport scheme. The hon. Member for North Battersea asserted that road transport had grown into a virtual private monopoly, combined with the railways. So far as passenger transport is concerned, I agree readily that he is very nearly right; but he is not quite right, because apparently he has never spent nights of doubt and
  1852
  sorrow wondering whether he will go to Scotland by the L.M.S. or the L.N.E.R. There is still an element of competition in passenger transport. So far as goods transport is concerned—and he said that he had not time to develop his argument on that—I would remind him that any tendency towards monopoly that there might be is very practically counteracted under the present system by the fact that the "C" licence holder is free to carry his own goods in his own vehicle; and that, by the way, is as near a constitutional issue as one might expect to find. The hon. Member was complaining that we had not raised the constitutional issue. Surely, the Englishman's immemorial right to carry his own goods in his own vehicle in connection with his own business on the King's highway, is a fundamental liberty; and that is what is being undermined by this Bill.
  Mr. Jay: As I understand the system which the Minister proposes, the "C" licensee is to be permitted, in the great majority of legitimate cases, to run his own vehicles.
  Mr. Renton: He will be permitted as of right to go up to 40 miles by road; but over and above 40 miles, which may cover a large proportion of his business, he will be compelled to go to the licensing authority, and will have all the trouble and expense to justify, against the power of the State, whether he shall go on doing what he has always done. That is what he will have to do, and I suggest that it is putting too much upon him. There is a constitutional issue here.
  Mr. Sparks Mr. Sparks rose—
  Mr. Renton: I have already spent a good deal of time answering the hon. Member for North Battersea, which I had hoped might be considered a matter of courtesy, so now may I make the speech I have been waiting nearly two days to make? The Minister said yesterday that the issue before the House was whether his scheme was workable or not I agree with him that that is a principal issue, but it is not the only one. Surely, even the right hon. Gentleman is capable of evolving a scheme which would be workable for the railways and for passenger transport, but workability is not the only issue. It is equally important that we should decide whether the scheme which is proposed will work better than anything

  1853
  existing up to the moment and not only that, but better than any scheme which would normally be evolved in the ordinary course of national progress, whereby year after year the nation, with the aid of Parliament and the Government makes such improvements and changes as may be necessary, just as in normal times the motor car manufacturer produces each year a new model which is in improvement on what he made the yeas before.
  Before the Minister's scheme is accepted, I think we have to decide also whether it will be executed fairly and justly, with justice to those concerned, and with the minimum of interference in the economic and industrial life of the country. The burden of satisfying the House as to these issues, workability, fairness and so on, lies upon the Minister; and it is because we feel that he has not discharged that burden that my hon. Friends and I intend to vote against this Bill. Now I will accept the Minister's invitation to consider whether his scheme is workable. With regard to railway and road passenger transport, I agree that his scheme may quite well be workable; but I suggest that it. would be a pretty poor thing if the Minister were unable to evolve a workable scheme for those forms of transport. However, I say without hesitation, and after careful consideration of what is in the Bill, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech and in the pamphlet which he quoted yesterday as containing his Party's transport policy, that the proposals for the State operation of the road haulage of goods will not work without confusion and great expense, and will certainly not work nearly so well as the road haulage of goods has worked since the 1933 Act came into force. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that from 1931 to 1939 I was in very close and intimate touch with the transport industry, albeit as a lawyer—but sometimes a lawyer does get a very close view.
  In the earlier stages of this Debate we have had much discussion of the higher organisation of the proposed scheme; but we are still in the dark as to the form which the organisation for the road haulage of goods is to take at the lowest level —at the operating level, at which the scheme will be in touch with the consumer. We have to try to draw a mental picture and, when we do so, one thing becomes absolutely clear, and that is, that the organisation will be vast and very
  1854
  complicated. We have a right to know from the Minister whether he has worked out his scheme in practice and down to these lowest levels in fair detail; and we hope we may be given in broad outline what the scheme is to be at the lowest level.
  At the present moment there are no less than 450,000 "A," "B" and "C" vehicles; and they are based in towns, in villages, in factories, on farms, in small yards and in the larger depots of the larger hauliers. They are distributed over the country fairly evenly, ready at hand to do the infinite number and variety of jobs which they are called upon to do. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that up to 35,000 of those vehicles will come under State ownership. I think that is an under-estimate, because although the Minister is not taking over any of the "C" licence vehicles, he is taking over a great deal of the work which they now have to do. Perhaps this means of course that he will direct that work to the railways; if he does so, the question will be whether they can do the job better or not. I hope that is not so, but it seems a little bit ominous.
  Let us assume, however, that the Minister's estimate of taking over 35,000 vehicles, which are now spread over the country, is a fair estimate of what will become State property. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope for a reply from one of his colleagues at the end of the Debate, where and how he intends to base these 35,000 vehicles. Presumably he will bring them into large depots; and, if so, how far apart are those depots to be? I suggest that there will have to be one at least every 50 miles, but in many areas they will obviously have to be very much more frequently spaced. Fifty miles will be the limit only in the most sparsely populated parts of the country. I will not go into that, but it will not require a second's imagination on the part of hon. Members to imagine that they may be 50 miles apart in the sparsely populated areas, and perhaps very much shorter distances elsewhere. He will have to purchase land to accommodate these vehicles and, as most of the depots will be in or near large towns, the land which he will have to purchase will be valuable land and will be expensive to buy.
  There is the further point that the depots will require money, labour and materials

  1855
  to equip them with garages, repair and maintenance shops, offices for the organisation, canteens and, we hope, sleeping quarters for the drivers. When will this work start? Will it take precedence over housing, because if so, there are some people who will have something to say on the matter? The cost of buying the land and building and equipping these depots will be enormous, and this very great cost will add to the overhead charges for the carriage of goods. Who is to pay for this? Is the consumer to pay by increased charges?—because there is no doubt that this will impose an increase upon present costs. Will the taxpayer pay by means of subsidies? Either way, it seems to me that this road haulage of goods scheme will start off with a heavy financial handicap, which it is unreasonable to ask the people to bear at this stage of postwar reconstruction.
  Before the Minister goes much further with this Bill, I should like to ask him to tot up a balance-sheet showing the adults in this country who want the Measure, and those who do not want it. May I attempt to show how that balance-sheet would work out? Let us consider first those who may want this Bill. In the first place, 42 per cent. of the people voted for the Government at the General Election. Not all of them, by the way, voted Labour to support Socialism; many of them voted Labour without any serious consideration of the issues involved, although I agree it is their fault that they did so. I have come across some of these people who say that they voted Labour but were against Socialism; in fact, one lady thought I was being very abusive to her when I suggested she was absolutely right to vote for the Labour candidate if she believed in Socialism, and said I Don't call me a Socialist, I'm Labour!"
  Mr. Kirkwood: What did those who supported the hon. Member vote for?
  Mr. Renton: That is a very pertinent question, and the simple answer is that they voted for progress on the basis of a free society. We can assume also that the majority of trade unionists wanted this Measure, but by no means all of them; and in any case it can be assumed, quite fairly, that those in favour were included in the 42 per cent. who voted for the Government. Another class of people
  1856
  who would like this Bill are the lawyers. It is going to be a goldmine for them, with an unending vista of lucrative work before the Transport Tribunal, the licensing authorities and the Transport Arbitration Tribunals—and then, of course, there will be all the increased number of prosecutions for breaches of conditions for "A," "B" and "C" licences. Previously the vehicle examiners were concerned with 54,000 "B" vehicles; but now they will be concerned with conditions to be attached to something like 300,000 "A," "B" and "C" vehicles.
  Apart from these categories of people, I suggest that everyone in the country is against the Bill. In the first place, the executives and operators of both the railway and road haulage industries have declared themselves to be against it. Then quite a number of the one million railway shareholders will toe against it; and almost all people engaged in trade and industry, retail distribution, and farming. Through their various organisations, they have expressed grave doubts about this Bill, especially with that part which I have mentioned, the road-haulage of goods. Finally, there is that not despicable class of 48 per cent. who did not vote for the Government at the General Election. They may be presumed to be against the Bill; and who knows that their number has not risen, by now, above that figure? For these reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for whom, personally, we have great regard, not to be in any indecent haste to paint this country red. Red may not be the most attractive or popular colour in the long run. We do not mind a little of the red coming off his amiable lips; but let him show some consideration for the feelings, opinions and interests of his fellow-countrymen.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Harrison: I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to speak at this juncture. I should like to say, at the outset, that I have spent 32 years of my life in the transport industry as an employee of the L.M.S. Over those 32 years I have seen the most efficient railway managements struggling regularly to try and obtain the necessary capital with which to bring our industry into line with modern requirements, and on each occasion the urgent necessity to replace some of our old-fashioned stock

  1857
  and equipment was baulked, in the main, by the absence of capital I suggest that in their plans for economic rehabilitation and expansion the Government have no option but to take this step of nationalisation. Speaking of compensation, it is my privilege to be able to look at something other than the financial symbols which are very often discussed in this House. I can visualise, quite vividly, the present condition of some of the fixed assets of the railway companies. I can see the locomotive sheds without roofs, some of the old-fashioned engines which are running about the railways in this country, and some of the old-fashioned goods depots which have Victorian methods of loading and unloading wagons.
  We have put Questions to the Minister of Transport about the present congestion on the railways, particularly in the case of goods traffic. In some of the Midland coalfields we have recently had pits waiting for empty wagons, and we have had suggestions for the solution of these difficulties. More engines and wagons would contribute to the solution of this stoppage in the Midlands, but I seriously suggest that the chief reason for the congestion on the railways at present is the fact that many of the terminal goods sidings for the reception of these trains were built in the 19th century. They were built to contain and deal with trains consisting of 25 eight-ton wagons. That is the capacity of a good many of the terminal goods sidings. At the present time it is quite a normal load to have 90 wagons of from 12 to 15 tons to be dealt with. The position is that the railway managements of the country, owing to lack of capital over the years, are completely unable to deal with the present traffic. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Government, with their present policy of expanding industrial activity and full employment, had no alternative but to look at the railways and decide to do something about them very quickly.
  What do we find with regard to road haulage? The congestion on the roads is a most urgent and dangerous problem, and in tackling it we must remember that in this country we have the greatest density of motor vehicles of any country in the world. During the interwar years, the increase in the number of motor vehicles resulted in there being, in 1939, 69.6 vehicles per flat mile on our classified roads. In addition to that tremendous
  1858
  volume of motor traffic, there is the very unsatisfactory state of most of our main roads. The devastation of the war years and the lack of repairs have brought these roads into a very bad state. It must also be remembered that in prewar years there was only a 9.5 per cent. increase in classified road surfaces, and, at the same time, there was an increase in the number of private commercial vehicles of 55.6 per cent. Speaking some time ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that in a very few years' time, with the discontinuance of restrictions on petroleum and the provision of motor vehicles, it would be possible to predict that on our roads, reduced in quality by lack of repairs during the war years, there would be at least 12 million vehicles. I suggest that the millions of pounds needed for the repair of roads and the provision of new roads could never be found by the present organisation of the road haulage industry. If we are to provide these necessary roads and conveniences in the future, there must be a different organisation from that which there is at present.
  Mr. Osborne: Surely, the hon. Member is not suggesting that it is necessary to take over the transport of the country in order to provide adequate roads? Those roads could be provided, and transport could be left as it is.
  Mr. Harrison: When we are considering road haulage and the utilisation of roads, the factor of road costs comes into the picture. We know from past events that only a very small portion of the necessary finance for the upkeep of roads has come from the commercial users. The future development of road traffic would be impossible if there were not bigger inroads into the national Exchequer. We on this side feel that if commercial road users, whose basis of profit is the utilisation of the roads, are to continue on an ever-increasing scale, it is fair and just that the Government, who provide the roads, should have some say in the running of the vehicles on those roads.
  Mr. Osborne: That does not justify the nationalisation of the road haulage industry.
  Mr. Harrison: I am speaking now about the commercial usage of the roads. It seems to me legitimate and justifiable to expect that if the most expensive factor

  1859
  in road haulage, the roads, have to be kept up out of public funds, then of necessity the commercial activities of those vehicles should come under a nationalisation project. I suggest that the greatest indictment of road haulage in the interwar years was the tremendous growth of the "C" licence people. Road haulage started in the form of "A" and "B" traffic. Road haulage was an industry distinct and separate from the big industrial firms of this country. The strongest indictment anyone can make of the road haulage industry is to quote the fact that the "C" licence people have already nearly swept the "A" and "B" licences from the road. In 1939, there were 365,000 "C" licences, and other commercial licences numbered 148,000. I suggest that, as far as road haulage is concerned, it has failed to a considerable extent to do its job, and the introduction of the innumerable "C" licences is an indictment of that particular body and their failure to do the job they set out to do
  Now a few words about water transport. I represent a city situated in the Trent Valley. There, we have, according to the Chamberlain Report, one of the most useful waterways in this country. On a number of occasions Royal Com-missions and other influential and authoritative bodies have examined the possibilities of this waterway, which serves the biggest inland conglomeration of people and industries in this country. On every occasion the chief stumbling block has been that the waterway was under so many diverse and different authorities.
  The Bill unifies the authority of this waterway. I would remind the House that just as the internal combustion engine has revolutionised road traffic, so it will revolutionise river traffic. On no occasion in the past has this valuable method of transport been given a chance, until now. Here in the Bill, for the first time, is an opportunity of returning to the river, with the assistance of the internal combustion engine, which will provide some of the cheapest forms of traffic that this country has ever known.
  8.2 p.m.
  Major Haughton: In opening the Debate, the Minister of Transport said that he welcomed constructive criticisms and suggestions. I, being a simple-
  1860
  minded sort of person, take him at his word. I will try to make some suggestions. Every right-minded person should endeavour to contribute something to the production drive which we are all invited to urge forward. Transport is a vital factor in efficient production and distribution.
  In the course of the Debate, I have noticed hon. Members on both sides of the House going back to what Mr. Gladstone said in the 1800's. It is often said that an Irishman never gets wanned up to his subject unless he goes back to Strongbow. I will refrain from going back further than 1935, when I became a member of the North of Ireland Road Transport Board, which has already been mentioned in the Debate. I would offer some suggestions and criticisms resulting from my experience of service with that board.
  I served on the board from 1935 to the outbreak of war. The board was good enough to keep my place for me, so that I had an opportunity of seeing the conditions unfolding themselves after the war. With great reluctance I found myself compelled to give up that position because of my Membership of this great House. I understand that otherwise I should have been in the position in which other M.Ps. have been if I had remained on that board. There are some comparisons I want to draw. The Northern Ireland Road and Railway Act of 1935, and the present Transport Bill, differ in many fundamentals. I suppose that the greatest and most fundamental difference of all is the complete and absolute freedom for the "C" licence holder. Railway ownership was untouched, municipal transport undertakings were entirely left out of the scheme, and the compensation which has been discussed at such length in this House was, however, under the terms of the Act, given in cash or its equivalent. The values were not settled at the will, or by the decision of, the Government, but were decided by the High Court, which went into the various cases, a comparison which is not without significance.
  A point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He cited a rate which, he said, had advanced after the passing of that Act, by 266 per cent. I do not know the basis on which that price was built, but I noted the point particularly, because

  1861
  there is a great lesson to be learned from it. The figure was, however, based on a definite costing. Incidentally, the road board over there made an operating profit of £211,000 last year. That rate was based upon a costing. A firm such as mine, which has a fleet of its own lorries and which, I am glad to say, works in the closest collaboration and co-operation with the road board, is in a position to compare costs. I want to stress the very great importance of this question of costs.
  The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) described the "C" licence holder as if he were a vampire or a leach, sucking the very blood from transport. My regard for the "C" licence holder lies in the direction of the great contribution which he is making to agriculture and to industry. This is a matter which does not concern the Minister of Transport alone, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade, who is trying to increase our exports abroad. Transport cost is a very vital part of the total cost of any article we produce.
  The comparison between public and private transport is very marked. A private firm, running its own fleet of lorries, has a cost which consists of the drivers' wages, petrol and oil, tyres, maintenance, insurance and depreciation, but no overhead. Overheads are absent, because a business with a fleet of, say, 10, 15 or 20 lorries is more or less self-organised. The tremendous difference between that kind of transport and public transport is the question of overheads. The more efficient an organisation one tries to make public transport, with its depots all over the countryside, its innumerable telephone messages, its inspectors and so on, the more the factor of overheads becomes of overwhelming importance. As it is laid down in the Bill—Members of the Opposition have been accused by supporters of the Government of not having read the Bill— that there will be a restriction on the private lorry owner beyond a journey of so many miles, I would ask the Minister of Transport a very straight question. Is that restriction put there with the abject ultimately of bolstering up public transport? If it is, it will put a tremendous brake on industry and an unjustifiable restraint upon the energy and initiative of "C" licence holders. That is an
  1862
  important point, and this is the suggestion that I want to make.
  I think it is possible for the "C" licence holder, with absolute freedom, to work with great benefit for the commercial and agricultural community. I suggest with the greatest possible conviction that the "C" licence holder is a stimulating factor of competition in public transport. I hope the Minister will not evade that; I do not think he is the type of man to be scared of that kind of thing, and I think the acid test will be whether or not he gives freedom to the private lorry owner.
  My mind goes back to the time, early in this Parliament, when the Lord President of the Council used to chide us on this side of the House for not providing active enough opposition. He used to say that we did not set a fast enough gallop to enable the Government to show its good paces. I have found, in my experience of life, that a wise man who is prepared to give advice is generally prepared to take it, and I should like to say this, not only to the Lord President of the Council, but to the Minister of Transport: The one thing that saved the Northern Ireland Transport Board was that aspect of freedom for the "C" licence holder. Unless this aspect is considered with-sympathy, this Government will suffer. No Act of Parliament in Northern Ireland has caused so much resentment, despite everything done to allay it. as that Act, because it was found, to a degree never known before, and never anticipated, that transport is one of those things which affect every aspect of life, from that in the small cottage on the bogside to the great mill beside the river. Although that Act is now meeting with a measure of success, it is still a most unpopular Measure indeed. Men of good will should hope that transport can be made a great success, and the Government must give further thought to the condition of the "C" licence holder. If they are genuine in their contention that he can have his licence when he wants it they should be willing, from the start, to clear this Measure of these unnecessary restrictions.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Charles White: I have listened to most of this Debate during the last two days and I must say that I am rather amazed that the range of the discussion from the other side of the House has been largely limited to a

  1863
  small minority of people. We have heard little argument from the Opposition, apart from the alleged injustice to stockholders and a very small number of tradespeople. I do not think that any of us can reach a true decision about this Bill without first looking at the history of transport between the wars, and since the outbreak of the last war. We remember the early years following 1918, when there was a good deal of money about, and men were returning from the 1914–18 war with sufficient money to pay a first instalment on a bus or a lorry. Today, just as in those days, there are financial interests always ready to lend money, whether it leads small people into disaster or not. We remember that many ex-soldiers and other people invested their limited savings in financial corporations, in order to buy a bus. The instalments which they had to pay to those finance corporations— their buses were running night and day for the conveyance of passengers—were anywhere and everywhere so as to ensure the payment of their instalments at the end of the month. The position got worse and worse until the introduction of the Act which has operated since 1931. That Act was passed through this House for the purpose of removing the chaotic conditions and getting passenger transport into some reasonable form. What do we find after that? We find the process of the combines in the passenger industry squeezing out the small man and giving him no alternative but to take a miserable price for his business, with the result that, in many parts of the country today, these combines have absolute control of passenger traffic. I smile when I see buses plying in parts of my county today with the slogan "Hands off Road Transport," and I often wonder for whom that direction is intended. For many years I have gained a living in the traffic courts of this country. I am amazed in every court to see the great defenders of free competition and free enterprise objecting on every conceivable occasion to their competitor in business, and the railway companies objecting to every application. I say quite frankly that if that is the kind of free enterprise and free competition which we recommend to the electors of this country, it is hypocrisy of the first order.
  Let us go a little further. In 1934, the same Measure was applied to road
  1864
  transport. The haulier had to appear in the traffic courts for his licence because at that time the industry was in such a chaotic condition. There were no agreed rates, no stabilised rates, and wicked wages were paid to the drivers engaged in the industry. I have appeared in many cases in the traffic courts. Free enterprise and free competition are the very last words one would think about if one heard the arguments in those courts. What is more, I can say without fear of contradiction that two of the worst monopolies in this country today are the passenger transport monopoly and the goods transport monopoly. Let us see what has happened. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe)—I am very careful to say "of Liverpool" because I am proud to represent the other West Derby—in his speech from the Front Opposition Bench, appeal to the Minister for some elasticity for entry into the haulage industry. That is a remarkable thing to come from the advocate of the road transport organisation.
  Let me give two instances of what happened in a traffic court. About a week or a fortnight ago I appeared for a haulier whose licence limited him to carrying lime for the Clay Cross Company from the works to the farms in the neighbourhood. He had done that work for four years, during a difficult tame in the history of this country. There was no competition—no other hauliers carrying lime from those limeworks—and yet four hauliers of the railway company believed in free enterprise to such an extent as to try to prevent this small man, with one lorry, earning his living. I was interested in another case at Sheffield a month ago. We hear much lip service to the cause of our returned men, but here was the case of a man who had had 6½ years in the Air Force and who was objected to by four people, only one of whom had served even for a second in this war. The opposition was the Road Haulage Association and the railway company, and they successfully resisted that man's application. These are the people who talk about free enterprise.
  I do not think that anybody will argue that passenger or freight transport is up to the standard required to meet the needs of the people of this country. I happen to be

  1865
  chairman of a county council, and our biggest problem at the moment is to apply the Education Act of 1944. My constituency is one-third of the county, with less than 20 railway stations, and hardly any bus services off the main road. There are 128 villages. We have to send children over ten to a central school. In many instances these children will have to travel four miles in the morning and four miles at night. We are compelled by law to arrange transport for distances over two miles. The bus company which has a monopoly in that respect has been requested, times without number, to arrange for transport, so that we can implement our obligations as from 1st January under the Education Act. That is in danger because of the shortage of bus facilities in my part of the country. I would like to give the House another illustration as to how the countryside is served at the present time There is the village of Parwich in the Western part of my constituency. It is five miles from the nearest town. There is not a bus service anywhere near that village. When these people desire to participate in social enjoyments of one kind or another they have to walk those five miles, and what intensifies the difficulty is that the only shop in that village is a small dealer's shop where they do not get a large choice of goods. Efforts have been made for a long time to get a bus company to operate a bus from that village to the town of Ashbourne, without any success. Hon. Members opposite say to us that private enterprise is carrying out its duty to the nation and yet such difficulties as these are obtaining in that part of Derbyshire which I represent this very night.
  I am not worried very much about the compensation Clauses of this Bill. I have been a political campaigner since I first engaged in politics when I was 18, and I have never known any measure of progress ever advocated by any progressive party which had not to face from the other side of the House the cry of the "poor old widow" or the "poor old mother" I remember it as far back as the Old Age Pensions Act prior to the last war. Let us examine the position from the viewpoint of each individual. I have known of the sale of many haulage businesses since 1934 The method of ascertaining the compensation to be paid to the vehicle-owners is on the same basis as that on which the haulier has been
  1866
  assessed for Income Tax. If it is right on one side, then it is right on the other. Figures were submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Morrison) in opening the Debate this afternoon about the value of the hauliers' goodwill. I am not in a theoretical way impressed by what comes from the other side. I am impressed only by what has been the practice in this industry when a business has been sold. The practice has been to assess the value of the goodwill in respect of the vehicles which, if they were operated under an "A" licence, was equivalent to £50 per ton of unladen weight. Compared with that basis, the terms of compensation under this Bill are, to my mind, more than generous.
  I realise that there are others who wish to speak in this Debate, but I would just say this in conclusion. At the time of the General Election of last year every home, as far as was humanly possible, had a copy of the programme of the Labour Party. In "Let us Face the Future" there was no ambiguity and no uncertainty as to what we intended to do with road and rail transport. When an inquiry is asked for from the other side of the House I would reply that the greatest possible inquiry that could be instituted was carried out at the General Election, and we cannot be diverted from our duly to the people who sent us here by accepting any means of delay or trimming from the Opposition.
  Mr. Osborne: But you promised houses and food as well.
  Mr. White: Interruptions from the other side will not prevent my making my final point that we have had millions of men engaged, if not directly with transport, at least with industries dependent upon transport, and while I would not be unfair so far as compensation is concerned—although we could enter into an argument as to the rights of some stockholders—equally I would not be unfair to the rest of the people of this country by paying unreasonable compensation to satisfy a few people who have an inflated idea as to the value of their stock. No Bill has ever been presented to this House that could be accepted by everybody in its entirety, and I am not saying that the present Bill is perfect. Certain suggestions will be made to the Minister, probably in Committee, for the removal of

  1867
  what appear to some of us to be minor anomalies, but there is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the Bill so far as I am concerned, and I am trying to interpret the wishes of my constituents in advocating what is for their good. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on such a comprehensive Bill, and on the able way he placed it before the House.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: I venture to suggest that the country at large is heartily sick of the word "nationalisation." What we want to see is some demonstration of how the thing works. I believe the country will examine any scheme, whether for private enterprise or State control, provided it indicates some advantage to the consumer and some positive proof of efficiency. The Bill before the House today shows nothing except a declaration of intention. It shows no concrete advantages to the consumer or to the country as a whole. It is not a plan. The Minister did not dispel suspicion that this is a further case of improvisation. The only clear interpretation that we have received so far, is the wholehearted alarm and opposition to the Bill in the country. It comes from 60,000 hauliers, 120,000 "C" licence holders, over one million shareholders, a very vast number of traders, and many thousands of workers. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) in a most admirable speech yesterday referred to the number of the workers in his constituency who are supporting this Bill, but in my post I have received many objections to the Bill from workers in my constituency. Against this, we have the only positive advantages so far to be found and they are a certainty of 50 nice fat jobs for newly-appointed executives, and a further army of bureaucrats, Gauleiters and officials controlling the workings of the Bill. There will be more administrative obstruction and certainly more, and a general, tendency towards black market operations— [HON MEMBERS: "Oh "] Surely, with the experience and knowledge which the Minister has behind him in his Ministry, he might have evolved a better system, or something of a compromise between the law of the jungle, and the artificial restrictions of the zoo?
  It is particularly to the terms of compensation to the railway stockholders that I wish to address myself. The Minister
  1868
  said that his system was simple, easy and fair in establishing a compensation basis. I suggest that simplicity and ease are not the criterion in arriving at the rights of property-owners. Fairness is the only consideration. In general figures, £22,700,000 of income is replacing an average net revenue over 23 years of £40 million, a confiscation figure of something like £17 million. I would emphasise that the whole of this class of investor is mainly concerned with income and purchasing power. This brings me to the class of person who is most directly concerned over this—I was going to say, robbery—[Laughter].
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member should not use those words if he does not want to be laughed at.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: Yes, robbery—on a par with the robbery of the Horatio Nelson annuity. The average holding is £12,000. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Western Derby (Mr. C. White) somewhat sneered at poorer people and widows— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—and unfortunate people of that kind, but ii so happens that this Bill cynically penalises that particular class of individual—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"]. Twenty-seven and a half per cent. of the whole stocks involved in this confiscation are trustee stocks.
  The only offence these holders and their ancestors have committed is that they obeyed successive exhortations from various Chancellors to save their money and have placed explicit belief in the return on trustee funds. I would like to read to the House one or two examples of how individuals are being penalised by this Measure. There is a spinster who inherited £1,000 in railway stock from her father. In 1945 the interest was £40. Under the compensation proposals her income will be £7 10s.; less than one-fifth. There is a husband and wife, who have brought up four children, who have invested £3,500 in railway stocks which brought them in an income of £250 less tax. They are now expected to be content with £88 If that is fairness, hon. Members opposite take a different view from myself of what is fair, and I suggest it is a very poor result to come from what the Minister has referred to as a simple and easy scheme of compensation. The people to whom I am referring are citizens of a victorious nation, and have

  1869
  contributed no less than many other people towards victory They suffer the highest direct taxation in Europe, the highest indirect taxation in Europe and the highest rates. Moreover, they have seen their £ depreciate in value in recent years, and this compensation will deal a tremendous blow to the particular class of individual to whom I am referring. The question of compensation is apparently far too difficult for the Minister himself to solve equitably, and I think, therefore that it should be turned over to independent tribunals to arrive at a fair answer.
  Finally, it seems wrong that, at this time, politically irresponsible, complicated and gigantic schemes of this nature should be introduced when the good will of all classes, the finest brains and enterprise, and the smooth running of business life should be least disturbed and most closely co-ordinated if the standard of life of the country is to be maintained. I think the Government are jeopardising the welfare of the country for doctrinaire ends, and I see no reason at all for this Bill.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Morris: My intervention is by way of an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of one or two rather important Clauses in this Bill, the general structure of which we fully approve. Clause 12 seeks authority to acquire railway and canal undertakings. As I understand it, the vesting date is 1st January, 1948. Clause 39 calls upon the Commission to prepare a scheme as to the property, right, powers and obligations of the Railway Clearing House, and, if the scheme meets with the approval of the Minister, he will draft an Order embodying the scheme and will give notice that he intends to proceed with the matter. What is the position of the Railway Clearing House between the vesting date and the implementation of any scheme prepared under Clause 39? The ambiguity is emphasised by the provision of Clause 102, under which the Minister proposes to introduce a superannuation scheme for the staff of the Railway Clearing House. I cannot quite follow that, because the Railway Clearing House staff are already members of a fund known as the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Scheme, to which several of the railway companies are also parties. If the Parliamentary Secretary, or the right hon. Gentleman,
  1870
  can clarify that point, I shall be much obliged.
  Then there is the Northern Counties Committee's railway in Northern Ireland, which is part of the L.M.S. undertaking. I assume from the Bill that it will be vested in the Commission. I have a cutting from the "Belfast Telegraph" of 12th December, which reports a meeting which was attended by the Ulster Members. It says that a full discussion took place on the proposed change in ownership of the Northern Counties Committee's railway system in Northern Ireland under which the British Transport Commission will sell the lines to the Northern Ireland authorities. Is that correct? If so, what protection is being afforded the staff concerned in respect of superannuation, and against any worsening of conditions that may arise as a result of the selling of the railway to the Northern Ireland Government?
  I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate on the part of the Opposition this afternoon. He was good enough to pay the Railway Clerks' Association a compliment for the pamphlet it issued on the question of nationalisation. I want to acknowledge that the quotation he made was quite correct, but, like all selected quotations, it was only a part of the quotation he might have made. If he had read one paragraph further on he would have discovered that the Railway Clerks' Association expressed the view that the net maintainable reasonable revenue would be the least satisfactory scheme, but we were careful to add that His Majesty's Government, with the expert advice at their disposal, and with much more information in their files, would be the best authority to decide that matter, and we would be prepared to accept their judgment in that very important issue. The Railway Clerks Association having made what I hope can be regarded as a constructive contribution in respect of this important Bill, readily acknowledge that they underestimated the business acumen, the foresight and courage of the Front Bench. The proposal that they made in respect of the compensation Clauses meets with our hearty approval, and we offer our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Another matter with which we are seriously concerned is that there does not appear to be adequate protection in the Bill for the 100,000 members contribut-

  1871
  ing to existing railway superannuation funds. Hon. Members will know that the present arrangement is for members of the staff, who represent their colleagues, and members of the railway companies who represent the railways to administer the funds jointly. They are contributory funds, and because of that, we hope that this authority will be maintained. I would be bold enough to invite the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment in such terms as would have the effect of maintaining the present constitution, rules, management and administration of the railway superannuation funds until they may be altered as a result of agreement between the National Transport Commission and the members of the funds, and representatives of those members. The Railways Act of 1921 contained a Section maintaining the management of railway superannuation funds unaltered until other provision was made, and we hope that the Government will do at least as well as was done in the 1921 Act.
  Mr. Osborne: It was a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Erroll: Will the hon. Member be good enough to put an Amendment on the Order Paper, so that we can consider whether we should put our names to it?
  Mr. Morris: I should be very happy to do so, but I cannot anticipate with any degree of certainty that I shall be a Member of the Committee. I hope I shall be and if I am, I shall be very happy to put this Amendment on the Order Paper, and a number of others—
  Mr. Erroll: May I point out that it is not necessary for the hon. Member to be a Member of the Committee in order to put down an Amendment? He ought to find out what can be done.
  Mr. Morris: I am always willing to learn, and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for any contribution he can make to my development. I do not mind how I do it, provided that I achieve my purpose.
  I come to another matter which is important to us I refer to the constitution of the Commission. My right hon. Friend suggests five as an appropriate number. That seems to me to be a very small body. If my right hon. Friend is still satisfied that five will be sufficient I should like him
  1872
  to keep open the door, in case it might prove helpful, if not desirable, to make the number eight, because the Commission will be faced with a tremendous task. We approve, in fact, of the various Executives, and we beg my right hon. Friend to make a careful selection of the personnel in respect of both matters. I have heard the taunt from hon. Members opposite, "jobs for the party." If there is anything in that suggestion, I confess that we are innocents abroad in that matter. In the many years I served on the railway, we had to spend a good deal of our time breaking down what was called the genealogical tree—the handing down of appointments from father to son, from son to brother, extending to cousins, and eventually to nomination by a friend. I am happy to say that that unfortunate characteristic has almost completely disappeared, but there is room for a better and wider selection of competent people to administer this great undertaking.
  Major Legge-Bourke: With regard to the hon. Member's remark about "innocents abroad," will he say which half of the party that represents— the part which rebelled against the official foreign policy, or some other part?
  Mr. Morris: The Railway Executive Board, too, will have an important task. I would like to see membership being made a full-time appointment. Hon. Members who are outside the industry must find it difficult to appreciate the tremendous amount of work ahead. The Minister, in his opening speech, mentioned that there were no fewer than 40 million or 50 million different rates in operation. Millions of those rates would never have existed but for the evils of the competitive system. I hope that some time during the Debate, and in Committee, the Minister will be able to indicate how the rates tribunal will work to simplify matters, to the greater satisfaction of the public, and protect the interests of the trade of the country.
  We hope in subsequent weeks to help the Minister to get the Bill through the House. We feel that it is a good Bill. It has a splendid objective; it is necessary in the national interest, and it will have the ready support of the public, who will study and appreciate what is involved. It has the unanimous support of thousands of railway workers, who will feel that

  1873
  they have a much greater incentive to work if there is a better prospect of improved efficiency, and if there is a conviction in their minds that whatever profit is derived from the industry, will be used for the public good. We recognise that it is a long-term policy. We do not imagine for a moment, and neither do the people we represent, that if the Bill goes through all its stages by Easter, all will be well in the autumn. We recognise the work that has to be done and we are prepared to make our contribution. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to get the best, in the interests of the country, for this very important undertaking. We subscribe to the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to meet the points I have mentioned and, that the Measure will have abundant success.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Digby: The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) referred to the satisfaction which some of his friends in the transport industry will feel in the knowledge that this industry has been nationalised. In the few remarks which I wish to make, I want to look at the matter, not from the point of view of the satisfaction of those who are actually providing the transport and engaged in the working of it, but from the point of view of the people who will use the transport. There has been a certain amount of talk about co-ordination. The Minister when he spoke was at pains to talk about coordination—later it was called unification. Those of us who were in the Army know quite well that if anyone was trying to make out a job to include another officer on the staff, the first thing they always put down was "co-ordination." That was the stock excuse, and it meant exactly nothing.
  Major C. Poole: It might not have meant anything in the hon. Gentleman's Army; it did in mine.
  Mr. Digby: The right hon. Gentleman, who introduced this Measure in a very long speech, started by saying that it was the most important socialisation Measure of all time. He then, I thought, quite failed to make out a really serious case for the Bill. There were many omissions from his speech and I would not attempt to try to list all of them. There was one which rather surprised me. He did
  1874
  not make any reference to Magna Charta. I would like to know whether or not hon. Gentlemen opposite subscribe to that document—or is it a mere piece of Tory propaganda? If any of them have not read it recently, I hope they will refer to Chapter 30. There I think they will find these words:
  "No sheriff or bailiff of ours or any other person shall take up the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty against the will of the said freeman."
  I take it that the party opposite have now renounced Magna Charta.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Has the hon. Gentleman realised that steam and electricity have been invented since Magna Charta?
  Mr. Digby: Yes, but liberty is still the same.
  Mr. Mitehison Mr. Mitehison (Kettering)rose—
  Mr. Digby: I cannot continue to give way. It goes without saying that if this transport nationalisation scheme is to be a success, as no doubt hon. Members opposite genuinely believe it will be, it will greatly benefit this country. If it is the wrong idea, or if the organisation which has been devised to put it into practice is bad, the whole industry of this country is threatened. This is a country which lives on its industry, and it can ill afford a calamity of that kind.
  In the short time at my disposal, it is impossible to use all the arguments which I had intended. We know quite well that the railways of this country were the first in the world and that they were built to link up with a horse-drawn traffic system. Nevertheless, this system, operated by private individuals, was subjected, when it was set up by Parliament, to the very greatest safeguards for those who were going to use the railways—just the kind of safeguards which are so lacking in the Bill before us today. Again, regarding the roads, we know that they are also an inheritance from the past, a development of the old bridle paths. Of course, we need better roads, and I wish that the Minister of Transport, in the year and a half in which he has been in office, had done a little more in pushing on with these roads which we need, because if we had a little more evidence of initiative in that direction, we might have more confidence in the way in which he is going

  1875
  to tackle this question of co-ordinating the whole transport industry successfully.
  There is no doubt that, in theory, coordination can produce certain advantages, and that, by it, the overheads can be cut down. That is all very well, but we have to remember that there are disadvantages as well, and that everything may not work out quite smoothly. There will be, in this kind of scheme, a serious lack of competition and that is almost certain to lead to slackness and high fares, unless the greatest possible protection is given to the users of transport. Again, there is a grave danger that consumers' wishes will be treated with indifference, and the fact that there are to be the consultative bodies of consumers does not reassure us very much. Even such a staid organ as the "Economist" described these bodies as "eyewash". It must be fully realised that to achieve co-ordination this Bill depends upon co-ordination in Whitehall. In all fairness, we car say nothing else. Of the Executives which are to work under the Commission, we may say that they are to be divided up, not on a basis of areas, but on a basis of functions—railways and roads and so on—and that any co-ordination which there is, will be at the top. Frankly, I do not believe that it will work. So far as I see, the problem of each district regarding transport is a separate one. I know well that, in my own constituency, we have a very real problem. I know that from Dorchester to Bristol is not a very long distance, yet it is frightfully hard to get there by road, rail or any means of transport. This is the kind of transport problem in Dorset which might be fully appreciated by an Executive in the West Country, but which I do not believe will be appreciated by the co-ordinators in Whitehall.
  We should look a little closely at the results which this co-ordination will produce. We see that it is, essentially, going to be done by the Minister, who has enormous overriding powers and is in a position to appoint the members of the Executives, although the Executives are supposed to work under the Commission. We also know quite well that Ministers are only human beings, and that a great deal of this work has to be left to the civil servants in Whitehall, so that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this co-ordination, which is talked about
  1876
  so airily, is really going to produce the results we want. A high price is to be paid for this co-ordination, besides this dictatorship of civil servants far removed from places where the transport is required, many of them probably having very little practical experience of transport.
  There is another grave matter in the Bill which has already been referred to, and that is the fact that holders of "C" licences, which, under the old road haulage scheme, assured adequate competition, may not go more than 40 miles without a special licence. My Division is more than 40 miles from every big city to which one is likely to want to go, so that "C" licence holders obviously will have to apply for a very large number of licences. From the agricultural point of view, which was ably stated yesterday, and from many other points of view it is a serious matter to refuse people the right to take their own goods in their own vehicles for more than 40 miles. There have been other restrictions of this kind in the past. When I read the Bill I could not help thinking of a system of society which existed many hundreds of years ago, which, no doubt, hon. Members opposite will have studied carefully, because it conforms very closely to Socialist conceptions. I refer to the civilisation of the Incas in South America. Under that system, which was highly socialised, there were excellent roads hewn out of the mountains, but I wonder whether hon. Members remember that only officials were allowed to go down them. It was regarded as rather a nuisance in that kind of society to have people moving about, so they were forbidden to go to the next village down one of these excellent roads without a licence from the Government. I hope this licensing system under the Bill is not the first of worse steps and that, as the "Manchester Guardian" said, the only wonder is that one is allowed to take out a private car without a licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "One cannot."]
  I would like to repeat how remarkble it is that so little attention has been given in this Bill to safeguarding the interests of the users of transport. It is a question not only of passengers but of the whole of the trade of this country, and it is remarkable that there is practically no effective machinery in that connection. For that reason, I feel that this Bill is

  1877
  highly dangerous, and is one which has been introduced in far too lighthearted a spirit.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Like other Members on this side of the House, I am enthusiastically behind the Minister in this Bill, but I would not have ventured to intervene in this Debate merely for the purpose of patting the Minister on the back. It is rather my purpose to prod him along further towards nationalisation. My right hon. Friend has been prodded a good deal in the past, and I hope he is not too tender in the prodded part, although I am sure he is much too tough for that.
  I wish to invite attention to Clauses 70 and 71, which deal with docks and harbours. May I first bring out three points which seem to me to be important in connection with those Clauses? First of all, there is no provision in the Bill directly imposing any scheme for dealing with ports and harbours in the way, for instance, in which the railways are dealt with under the nationalisation provisions. It merely provides that a scheme may be prepared. The scheme which may be prepared is, in other words, purely optional. That is the first point. Secondly, the schemes are, to quote the words of the Bill, for
  "any trade harbour or group of trade harbours."
  The important thing there is that it is not a scheme for the ports of the country as a whole. It is to be for a harbour or a group of harbours. The schemes are not to be national but local. The third point is that the schemes may specify a body to which a harbour or group of harbours may be transferred. Under that provision it is open to the Minister to transfer, under these Clauses, harbours that have been nationalised under other Clauses in the Measure. In other words, so far as Clauses 70 and 71 are concerned they are not just nationalisation provisions, but denationalisation provisions. Those are the three points to which I would invite the attention of the House: first, that the schemes are optional; secondly, that they are local and not national; and thirdly, that they provide for a sellout by the Minister.
  Lord William Scott: Could the hon. Gentleman tell
  1878
  us what he means by "optional"? Optional to whom?
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Optional to the Commissioners and the Minister. There is nothing in the Bill itself which lays down any provisions comparable to the nationalisation provisions for railways. It is, therefore, quite open—I am not suggesting the present Minister would do it, but it is quite possible as far as the Bill is concerned—for the nationalised South Wales ports to be sold out to a private company, which will have authority over the Bristol Channel group of ports, and it is also open to that private company to shut down the Welsh ports, or to limit the Welsh ports in the interests of Avonmouth, or some other port. Similarly, of course, it could happen the other way round. There is this danger in the Bill as it stands, and I hope the Minister will give some assurance as to how he proposes to work these Clauses. It certainly would be open, under these Clauses, for a benighted Minister, in some distant future age, to take precisely the action which I have suggested is possible. The trouble, as I suggest, is that the Minister really has not grappled with this port problem at all, and he never has done. He has handled these provisions in this Bill with butterfingers.
  The ports problem, as far as we of the Bristol Channel are concerned, is not just a problem of the organisation of the Bristol Channel group of ports. The problem is not a port facilities problem at all. It is a shipping problem, and a national problem. It is a problem of what share of the shipping of the United Kingdom the Bristol Channel ports are to get. This Bill does not face up to that problem. Clause 3 lays down the purpose of the Commissioners. It refers to an "integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities." The ports themselves are at the junction of inland transport, on the one hand, and shipping on the other hand. One cannot deal with the ports problem merely as an inland transport problem. The Government in so far as they have dealt successfully with the ports problems in my own part of the country have done so by dealing with shipping on a national scale. I have attacked the Government before on this issue, and I now acknowledge gladly the great part which the Government have taken in dealing with the South Wales ports problem since the summer; and all

  1879
  of us in South Wales, quite irrespective of party, recognise and are thankful for what the Prime Minister has personally done. I have here a letter from a gentleman in a big company; certainly not a Socialist; and I should like to refer to one or two passages from that letter. It says with reference to this ports problem in South Wales:
  "The position during the last few weeks has been very much more healthy than at any time this year. I am quite satisfied that a very sincere and practical effort is being made by everyone to comply with the Prime Minister's directive"—
  that is, with regard to dealing with South Wales ports—
  "and in particular, I would mention the Minister of Food."
  And the writer refers to a record shipload of motor cars which was recently exported from Newport.
  The Government have been making a direct contribution towards our problem in South Wales, but it has been done, not by dealing with port facilities; it has been done by dealing with shipping, not on a local scale, as a Bristol Channel problem, but on a national scale.
  Major Legge-Bourke: When the hon. Gentleman says this is being done through shipping on a national scale, does he mean certain ships have been diverted from other ports to the South Wales ports?
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Certain ships have been induced to use South Wales ports in the same way, I suppose, as certain factories have been induced to go into that devastated area. More can be done within the Government's present powers, and I should like to touch upon three things which can be done. First of all, conversations are now going on with various Government Departments, and what we are finding happening is that the onus is being put on us in our interviews with those Departments, instead of those Departments themselves taking the initiative. They have the means and knowledge, and, instead of their merely putting the onus on us, I suggest they should take greater initiative themselves. Secondly, the Government Departments themselves now control a good deal of the imports and the exports of this country. Under ordinary commercial practice, the person who pays the freight can choose
  1880
  the port to which the freight is to go. What we find happening so often in the case of Government freights is that the shipowners themselves are allowed to dictate the port of loading or of unloading, partly due to the fact that different Government Departments have goods going by the same ship; and there is no coordination at all between these different Departments which would enable the Government to say, "We want the goods delivered at that particular port". That is a matter which could be remedied, above all, by the Minister of Transport providing coordinating machinery for the Government Departments.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member has just made a most important statement, with which I entirely agree, that there is no co-ordination between Government Departments. Yet at the same time I gather that he is on the whole supporting this Measure, which will call for a very great deal of co-ordination within Government Departments. How does he bring the two things into line, how does he explain it?
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am tied by time at the moment. I am making a point on this particular problem of the ports, and I do not really appreciate the relevance of the interruption on that point [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] What happens now is that the shipowners themselves take the line of least resistance, and go to a home port which is not, generally speaking, a South Wales port. They do that, because it is for their own convenience, when it is not the most economic thing in the interests of the country as a whole. I have no time now to go into figures, but there are cases of substantial freights—tin-plate, for instance—being taken from Swansea for export from an English port when they could perfectly well have gone from a South Wales port. There have been cases too where identical cargoes have been shipped from Newport and from an English port, the one from Newport costing half as much and taking half the time. These are facts, I have the figures here but I have not time to produce them.
  In order to deal with this ports problem I suggest that the following principles should be adopted: First, that the ports must be severed from the railways and from any other interests. I recognise that there is a glimmer of this in these Clauses, but they do not go far enough. Second

  1881
  the ports must be integrated not only with inland transport, but with shipping, too. Third, the ports development and policy must be national, and not be just dealt with by groups locally. Fourth, it follows from the other principles that the port authority must be a national authority. It is by development along those lines rather than on the lines contained in these two Clauses that we shall find a solution of the ports problem, at any rate as far as we see it in South Wales. This means, in fact, the nationalisation of the ports. It means, too, the regulation of shipping, and it is only by dealing with these problems that the difficulties we are having with the ports ran be solved so that we shall get a properly integrated ports service in this country.
  I welcome the proposals for nationalisation which are contained in this Bill, and I am in complete agreement with the observations made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) and Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) in the course of this Debate. AM these proposals will be welcomed enthusiastically by the men in the industry. It is the men in the industry, the officials and the working men, who run the industry. It is not run by guinea-pig directors or absentee shareholders. The great organisations are run by the officials and the men in the organisations themselves.
  Colonel Clarke Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead) rose—
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: No, not now; I am just about to finish. These men, if they are given an interest and a stake in the industry, will give a much more enthusiastic service than we are getting now. An hon. Member has referred to the coal industry. I accept the challenge. Output per man shift in the coal industry has been going up from the very prospect of nationalisation. Nationalisation has to be tested, I agree; it has to be tested severely by its practical operation and by its efficiency. It must pass these tests, but there is more than that to nationalisation and to Socialism. I remember a great speech made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in which he stated, before the war, that we should face the great problems that were looming up at that time and that it was essential that we should have not just efficient armies but a moral purpose, too.
  1882
  In this Bill, by bringing in nationalisation, we are extending the principles of democracy to industry, and giving to industry and the men in industry a moral purpose, a say in industry and a stake in the country.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Assheton: My first duty is to declare my interest. I am not only a railway shareholder, but a railway director, and in view of what the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) said about genealogical trees, I would like to inform him that my father was a railway director and that I am not ashamed of it; that I am proud of that and proud of the record of the railways from the time that George Stephenson drove the "Rocket" from Stockton to Darlington, to the time when 24,459 special trains were provided for D-day. I have another special interest, which is this. I am a trustee for a number of charitable and other trusts, including railway superannuation funds which have holdings of something like £4 million of railway debenture securities. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should consider, with particular care, the effect of these proposals upon such trusts. I propose to speak solely on the question of compensation. I am, as hon. Members opposite know, a convinced opponent of nationalisation, because I believe that it is contrary to the interests of the public, and likely to cause-great damage to our trade and industry. I also think that it has many other serious objections, some of which have been put forward already by my hon. Friends, and others, no doubt, will be put forward in tomorrow's Debate.
  I do not want anyone to think, because I am only speaking on the subject of compensation, that the transport interests would agree with nationalisation in any circumstances. I want to make it absolutely plain that they object to nationalisation, quite apart from the question of compensation.
  Mr. David Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that statement to the railway general managers?
  Mr. Assheton: I certainly would. I would also observe that money alone cannot compensate owners for the loss of their businesses. I am sure that anyone who has a heart—and hon. Members

  1883
  opposite have hearts as much as any other hon. Members—must realise what this Bill means to owners of transport businesses, as well as to those who have been associated with the railways. I say that in passing. I am not asking for sympathy, or for anyone to shed tears, but I think that it is useful to remember that monetary compensation is not everything. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, yesterday, made the case that the compensation under this Bill, was fair and reasonable— I do not think that is over-stating the case put—but the Opposition regard the compensation as unjust, inadequate and arrived at by wrong methods, and that is the case I propose to make out to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted from one or two of the newspapers, and he must have had considerable difficulty in finding his quotations, because the vast bulk of newspapers in the last few weeks have been strongly critical, although I appreciate that he was referring to the first day the scheme was announced.
  Mr. Dalton: I quoted statements from the newspapers, including a number of Conservative newspapers, on the first day after the announcement of the scheme, and before they had been be devilled by organisation, education and propaganda.
  Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman looked at the newspapers the morning after his Press conference, and was satisfied, but since then a lot of water has flowed under the bridges. If I may quote from yesterday's "Times," a respectable newspaper not on our side, it said:
  "The basis of purchase of the railway appears extremely unfair."
  "The Times" also said:
  "The more it is examined, the less equitable it appears."
  "The Times" said further:
  "The most singular feature of the compensation Clauses of the Transport Bill is that stockholders have no right of appeal against them other than to Parliament. There the Government will be judge in its own case."
  That is "The Times" up to date. On the methods of compensation, I will say this to begin with: we have had a number of different proposals for nationalisation in recent months, and in each case the method of compensation has been different, and in this Bill there are four
  1884
  different methods of compensation set out. It looks rather as if expediency were the governing factor rather than a desire to do justice. I approach this matter, however, on the basis that the House of Commons, whatever its political complexion, desires to do justice, and that is why I want to make the case that the Government's proposals are not just. I do not know whether I can carry the whole House with me when I suggest that compensation to be fair should put those who are being compensated, as far as possible, in the same position financially as they are today. That, I suggest, is the test that should be applied, and I think I shall carry the majority of the House with me when I put that proposition.
  I do not propose to spend very long on road haulage, which has already been discussed, except to say that we do not accept the proposition that from three to five years' purchase of the profits of the business makes it possible for the arbitrator to give a fair compensation in a great many cases. It must not be forgotten that in the case of many of the small hauliers, the Government are taking away the tools of a man's trade. It is just like taking a joiner's tools or a surgeon's knife. It is no good thinking that compensation with a small number of years' purchase is adequate in those conditions. With regard to the privately owned wagons, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in some difficulty. I do not think he can have fully appreciated the different treatment of these wagons under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and under this Bill, but I admit that the question is a complicated one, and had better be considered fully in Committee. I expect that both the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be ready, when we come to the Committee stage, to listen carefully to the arguments, which I think are very cogent, in that regard.
  As far as the railways are concerned, I suggest that it has never been the practice of Parliament itself to fix the value of an undertaking or property compulsorily acquired, unless by agreement, and if there are any precedents to the contrary, I should very much like to hear them Earlier this evening, one hon. Member suggested a precedent, the case of Imperial Airways, but that precedent has since been found not to be a good one. Valuation is a very technical business. I do not think Parliament is qualified for

  1885
  the task. I believe that hon. Members on all sides know that. The method proposed in the Bill is, as the Chancellor has told us, to adopt Stock Exchange quotations on certain dates, and I will endeavour to show that that is not fair. These are my reasons. First, the Stock Exchange quotations are not related directly to the value of the company's assets or to its earning capacity, and consequently, these quotations, for whatever days they are taken, cannot form a fair and equitable basis for compensation. The Stock Exchange does not determine the prices at which stocks and shares are sold. The Chancellor quoted from the memorandum issued by the Council of the Stock Exchange, which, I think, made their case extremely well and stated:
  "It is the considered opinion of the council that the only fair and equitable method of arriving at a proper basis of compensation is, failing agreement between the parties, by arbitration."
  I suggest that that is the only English way of settling it too. Stock Exchange prices are the result of buying and selling on the part of a very small number of individual stockholders on any one day. They are persons whose actions and opinions, as the Stock Exchange council tells us, are the result of
  "hope, fear, guesswork, intelligent or otherwise, good or bad investment policy, and many other considerations."
  The report of the Trades Union Congress, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend, was also to the same effect. They state, in their document dealing with nationalisation that although the basis has superficial advantage, "it has however serious objections." That is what the T.U.C. said. I would like, if I may, to tell the House what Lord Keynes said. Unfortunately, he is not here to tell us himself. He explained, in his book "The General Theory of Employment," why it was that Stock Exchange quotations were so unstable. I will just use one quotation from the book:
  "Day to day fluctuations in the profits of existing investments which are obviously of an ephemeral and non-significant character, tend to have an altogether excessive, and even an absurd, influence on the market. It is said, for example, that the shares of American companies which manufacture ice tend to sell at a higher price in summer when their profits are seasonally high than in winter when no one wants ice. The recurrence of a bank holiday may raise the market valuation of the British railway system by several million pounds."
  1886
  It is clear that people who have given thought to this matter have come to the conclusion that although market value may be an interesting factor it is not a clear basis of valuation, when it comes to taking over an undertaking.
  Mr. Jay: Supposing that the alternative method, arbitration, which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, produced a valuation lower than the Stock Exchange quotation, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept it. or would he call it confiscation?
  Mr. Assheton: I am asking for arbitration. If the terms of the arbitration were fair I would be prepared to accept them.
  Mr. Jay: Even if they produced a lower figure?
  Mr. Assheton: Of course. I am asking for fair arbitration. I want to know the answer. Those Stock Exchange figures do not give the right answer.
  The next point I want to make relates to the doubts and uncertainties of the Government's policy on transport, which, for many years, have led to fluctuations in price. Fear of nationalisation and of unfair treatment have undoubtedly resulted in Stock Exchange prices being lower than they otherwise would be. I do not think anyone who has followed the argument can challenge that statement. It is not surprising that those who buy and sell stocks and shares—that is, the general public and not members of the Stock Exchange, who carry out the transactions—should take into consideration the point that if a Labour Government came into power it would be liable to nationalise the railways. It is not surprising that that possibility is taken into account when people assess the value.
  Mr. Messer: They never expected a Labour Government.
  Mr. Assheton: The majority of people in this country decided there was to be a Labour Government. I assume that a lot of people had decided that they were going to vote that way.
  Let us look at the results of the method which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed, and see whether it works out fairly. There are two main classes of stock, debenture stock, which represent money lent, and there are stocks which have different rights in regard to

  1887
  income which are owned by the proprietors of the company, and carry votes. In general, railway stocks carry the right to a certain income. The holders of debenture stocks—I would direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very closely to this point—have only a right to a perpetual annuity. I would like to quote to the Chancellor from Halsbury's "Laws of England," 2nd Edition, Vol. 5, page 57, referring to this matter of railway Debentures. It states:
  "The holder of Debenture stock is not a creditor of the company, except as to the annual interest; he has only a right to a perpetual annuity, payable out of the concern. The capital cannot be called in, or paid off"
  That is the law as it stands now, and which it is proposed to alter. The interest to the Debenture holders of these companies—and I ask the House to listen to this carefully—has always been paid in full. Holders have been absolutely secure in receiving that income. What will their position be now? Let me illustrate it by an example from the Great Western Railway. The 2½ per cent. G.W.R. Debenture holder will receive, in future, interest of £2 7s. 9d., instead of £2 10s. So, he will lose only 4½ per cent. of his income.—
  Mr. Dalton: No risk.
  Mr. H. Hynd: What percentage was he getting?
  Mr. Assheton: Two and a half per cent., and now he is to get £2 7s. 9d., a reduction of only 2s. 3d. per cent. But the 5 per cent. Debenture holder will receive, instead of £5 per annum, £3s,. us. 2d., so that he will lose nearly 30 per cent. of his income. These two stocks rank, pari passu in every degree, with exactly the same security, yet one holder is to have 30 per cent. of his money taken away while the other has only 4½ per cent. of his money taken away. That is not equitable. The Chancellor referred to cheap money, about which I would say this: Cheap money, obviously, has many beneficial aspects if it is natural, but if it is artificial I should say that cheap money was not only dangerous, but dishonest. I have looked back to 50 years ago yesterday when money was cheap and the 2½ per cent. debenture stock of the G.W.R was standing at par. What do I find? I find that the 5 per cent. stock
  1888
  was standing at 194, which is just what I should have expected, nearly double the price of the 2½ per cent. stock. That shows that before there was any fear of nationalisation a reasonably proper relationship was maintained between those stocks. I ask the Chancellor to examine that position, and I challenge him to justify it by reference either to precedent or equity. I specifically ask for a reply to that particular illustration.
  I give a second illustration. The 4 per cent. Debenture stock of the Forth Bridge Railway is valued, in the Schedule, at a considerably lower figure than the Debenture stocks of the London and North Eastern Railway over which it has prior security, and the Forth Bridge Debenture holders get less. There are a number of of these anomalies, and it is necessary that the Chancellor should give his mind to this matter. If he has given his mind to it, I should like some fuller explanation than we have had so far. May I go on to the case of stocks other than Debenture stocks? The L.M.S. 4 per cent. guaranteed stock—
  Mr. Dalton: What about the L.N.E.R. ordinary, on which no dividend has been paid for 20 years?
  Mr. Assheton: They have never failed to receive interest at the rate of £4 per annum. They will now receive £2 14s. per annum and lose one-third of their income. On a stock which has always paid interest in full, that interest has now been reduced. Holders of L.N.E.R. second guaranteed stock who received £4 per annum will now receive £2 10s. 5d., and holders of Great Western 5 per cent. Preference Stock who received £5 now receive £3 2s. 7d. In all these cases there has never been default and there was never likely to be.
  Mr. H. Hynd: There has "never been default," although the poor widows about whom we are hearing so much were getting no dividend on their shares.
  Mr. Assheton: These are the stocks which the poor widows are holding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, they are. These are the stocks held in the trust funds and superannuation funds. Take the railway superannuation funds of the L.N.E.R. to which I referred. They hold £4 million of railway stocks. These are the stocks held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty

  1889
  With regard to the ordinary stock, let us take the Great Western Railway.
  Mr. Dalton: Take the L.N.E.R.
  Mr. Assheton: I will take the L.N.E.R. in a moment.
  Mr. Dalton: Twenty years and no dividend.
  Mr. Assheton: Let me take the Great Western Railway first. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I am making the speech The Great Western Railway have paid an average dividend for the last 70 years of £5 4s. per cent. and for the last 20 years 4½ per cent. There was nothing so horribly speculative about that. What are they to receive now? They are to receive £1 9s. 6d. per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to talk about the L.N.E.R. deferred shares, and he will observe in a Schedule to the Bill that the price put down by the method he has chosen is £7 6s. 3d. per cent. on the £100 preferred ordinary stock and £3 12s. 6d. per cent. on the deferred ordinary stock. That will give the holders of the equity of that company an insignificant amount for the equity of that company.
  Mr. Dalton: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what dividends have been paid in the last 20 years on the L.N.E.R. Railway deferred ordinary stock?
  Mr. Assheton: None. What the right hon. Gentleman offers is 3s. 8d. and 1s. 10d. per cent. respectively.
  Mr. Dalton: They get something now under this Bill. They got nothing before.
  Mr. Assheton: But they always had a prospect of getting something. I now come to the question of ownership of these railway stocks. Some hon. Members opposite give the impression that railway stocks are owned by the rich capitalists. I do not know if they have taken the trouble to study the figures, but there are over one million railway shareholders, and they are not the rich capitalists. Hon. Members can jeer if they like, but let me read to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an extract from his favourite paper the "Economist":
  "There can hardly be a trust fund estate, pension fund, sick club, hospital, school or charity in the country that does not hold railway stock. The big rentier has not been the characteristic railway stockholder; it is the
  1890
  widow and the orphan, the patient and the pensioner, who will mainly suffer. Moreover, the trade unions and their benevolent funds are known to be large holders of railway stocks."
  Hon. Members can laugh at that, but that is true. When I tell the House that there are one million stockholders, they cannot all be Supertax payers. Look at the effect on the Church of England The Church of England will lose more than £2oo,ooo per year. That will be reflected in the diminishing income of hundreds of country rectories and vicarages. Then there are pension schemes in numerous businesses. I know from my own experience something about superannuation funds. Then there are insurance companies which have invested their money on the assumption that these debenture stocks were to receive a perpetual interest, and their actuarial valuations have been based upon that. These proposals will upset all the actuarial payments, and every pension and superannuation fund in the country. In addition to that, there are innumerable small investors who put their money into stocks many of which were trustee securities, and the Chancellor does not even indicate that he is willing to consider the possibility of changing the Trustee Act. It is not surprising that there is going to be suffering, when it is realised that 45 per cent. of the income of the railway shareholders is to be taken from them.
  Mr. Shurmer: How long has the right hon. Gentleman been concerned with suffering?
  Mr. Assheton: What have we been told to justify this? To begin with, we have been told by the Chancellor that the holders will get British Government security. But they do not want it. As British Government security, they are going to get guaranteed stock, and I hope the guarantee on it will be better than the guarantee on the London Passenger Transport Board 3 per cent. guaranteed stock 1967–72. I have a prospectus here in my hand which says:
  "The Governor and the Company of the Bank of England give notice that, with the consent of the Treasury, they are authorised to offer London Transport 3 per cent. Guaranteed stock 1967 to 1972 guaranteed as to principle and interest by His Majesty's Treasury."
  Whatever the Chancellor may say about the law—and on the law there are different opinions on this now—in the

  1891
  market place the people who bought this stock did so in the belief that the words:
  "guaranteed with principle and interest by His Majesty's Treasury, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1934,"
  meant what they said. I warn the Chancellor that if he is going to put out a thousand million pounds' worth of guaranteed stock, and does not take care to implement the guarantee on this stock, he is not likely to keep the trust of the public which every Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country should have. Will he consult his investment council on this matter and take their advice and would he be good enough to inform the House what they tell him?
  The Chancellor then said that but for this Bill the railway companies and the stockholders would lose their money. What is the truth of that? That is the second big contention he put forward. The first was that they were going to get Government stock. The next was that if it were not for this Bill they would lose their money. Let me tell the House that every year before this war the railways earned many millions more than the Government are now prepared to pay the stockholders. During the war, the Government took control and took away from the railways earnings of more than £200 million. I am not complaining of that now; I am saying that during the war the railways earned £200 million in addition to the return which the stockholders got as a fixed annual sum. After the war, if anything like justice is done to ensure fair play between road and railways, they should be able to continue to earn a fair return on the capital invested, and unless the Government's policy of full employment is all "ballyhoo" and an utter failure the railways look like having more traffic than they can easily carry. What justification is there for the idea that the stockholders are going to lose their money? If I may speak for the stockholders, I say that they are quite prepared to take that risk.
  The next point I want to mention is the question of the capital assets. The capital assets of the railway companies are estimated now at something like £2,000 million for replacement purposes. In his speech the Chancellor jeered at the railway companies. I am sorry that he did so. He said that their permanent way was in bad condition before the war.
  1892
  [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is."] That is quite untrue. The permanent way of the railway companies was finely maintained in the years before the war, and they did wonderful work on it during the war. It would be getting better now if we could get the timber for sleepers. The Chancellor gibed at the assets of the railway companies but I think that one day he may regret it. For these assets which, as I say, would cost £2,000 million to replace, the Government are offering £900 million, and I cannot think that assets which have been able to earn as much as these have over the last 20 years could, with the prospects that are before them, possibly be valued at as low a figure as that. What is the Chancellor going to do with his ill-gotten gains? He told us that he was going to make a profit of £17¾ million—
  Mr. Dalton: I said that my right hon. hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would make a profit.
  Mr. Assheton: I will accept that figure for the purpose of this argument. Is the Chancellor going to reduce the cost of transport to the public? He did not say anything about that, and I feel sure he would have done so, had it been in his mind. He talked of building some better stations and better restaurants; those are very desirable things in their right place and in their right priority, but it is much more important to get the permanent way, and the rolling stock into proper condition. The others are things to be done in due course.
  From the general point of view, I want to ask the Chancellor whether he has considered the inflationary effect of the proposals in this Bill—the fact that it will make quick and alive a lot of assets which are now dormant. There will be money seeking investment, and stocks and shares sold bringing money alive which has for many years been dormant, and this will undoubtedly have an inflationary influence on the whole structure of the community. If the Chancellor does not agree that that is so, I should like to hear in due course why not. I suggest that it is about time that the Government looked at this thing again. The Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse—made a speech to a meeting of railway stockholders in 1936. [HON. MEMBERS: "We read it."] I am glad that some hon. Members have

  1893
  read it, but it may interest them to hear it again. The right hon. Gentleman said then:
  "However much I may wish to 'sock' him, I think it is always better done by a separate process…."
  that means taxation—
  "and so I believe you will find that the community will make a very fair bargain with you… I think you will find that a Labour Government will give you proper compensation."
  I ask hon. Members to think these things over and to search their consciences—not just to put aside their responsibility—and say whether they think these proposals are fair. There is only one fair and equitable method of arriving at a proper basis of compensation. Either the parties must agree, or there must be arbitration by an impartial tribunal. This is no sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller here such as there is on the Stock Exchange. It is a case of compulsory purchase by the State. Are the owners who are being expropriated in all these forms of transport to have no say whatever, and no opportunity of putting their case? This Measure does not go upstairs to a Select Committee of this House so that there is no such opportunity for them to put their case at all. Are the Government really asking the House to agree that they are themselves the right people to value the property which they themselves are taking over? Can they really carry out such a transaction with impartiality?
  Mr. Dalton: The Stock Exchange.
  Mr. Assheton: They say, "the Stock Exchange," but they have decided that it is to be the Stock Exchange prices. Can it be right that they should decide? I think that it is the essence of British justice that this matter should go to an impartial tribunal. After all, have they not agreed to that in all other cases of nationalisation? Are undertakings in the future to be taken over at any price which His Majesty's Government feel they can afford or are inclined to pay? Is that going to be the measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of the principle we are going to follow? If such a practice is going to develop in this country it will undermine the whole confidence in our financial affairs on which industry depends so much. It will undermine confidence in our financial structure. I feel -sure that when the Government have re-
  1894
  flected upon this they will find it possible to reconsider the decision they have come to. What is the Government asking the House to do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalise transport."] To approve a Measure which we on this side of the House say has in it a very serious element of confiscation, and confiscation is a long word but what it means is theft by the State.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  LATE SITTINGS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES)
  9.56 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that provision should be made for transport for Members and officers of this House, and persons attending on the service thereof, when the House is adjourned at an hour when normal transport facilities are not available."
  I would say straight away that although this is a Government Motion, it has not been put before the House in any party spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If at the close of the Debate a Division is challenged, the Government Whips will not be asked to function. Hon. Members will be free to vote either for or against the proposal or to abstain if they think that course right.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: That is what happened this morning.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The issue raised by the Motion is a domestic and not a political one. It affects all who are associated with the Palace of Westminster. In putting it forward, the Government deny in advance any suggestion that it is designed to assist primarily their own supporters. There was a time undoubtedly, when such a charge might have been uttered. When I first entered Parliament nearly 18 years ago it was hon. Members of my own party—the Labour Party—who had either to walk home or sleep in the chairs of the Library when the House sat, as it very often did, into the small hours of the morning. Times, however, have changed. As many hon. Members on this side of the House as in any other part of the House now

  1895
  run cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am delighted to receive that cheer, because it shows quite clearly that hon. Members of the party on this side of the House are not drawn from any one section but transcend all sectional interests. Wartime taxation, too, has been a great leveller. The burden of a taxi fare often repeated at two o'clock in the morning would not now be confined to any one party. Speaking, therefore, in support of the Motion, I hope I may claim that the issue is not a party one but a scheme designed to benefit all concerned, regardless of party. It seeks to assist hon. Members, officers of the House and staff in equal degree.
  As the House is aware, the suggestion that special transport of some kind should be provided when the House sit late has been made on and off, over a long period. Some months ago, therefore, in order to test the extent to which such facilities would be used, a questionnaire was circulated to hon. Members. The replies to this show that some 300 Members of the House would welcome the introduction of a scheme, and, in addition, it was found that about 150 officers and others who work in and about the precincts would also find this scheme of service to them.
  Mr. James Callaghan: How were the 200 divided by party?
  Mr. Hall: I cannot say that offhand, and I hope I said 300. It was 300 Members and 150 officers and servants, all of whom, roughly 450 in all, said that they would value such a service and would find it useful to them when they wanted to get home at night if the House sat beyond the normal time.
  Now these figures demonstrated, so we thought, that there was considerable support for the project embodied in the Motion now before the House. Discussions were accordingly opened with the London Passenger Transport Board, as a result of which that body is prepared, when a late Sitting is in prospect, to make buses available for taking passengers from the precincts of the House by various routes to the periphery of London. What these routes should be—11 have been suggested —must depend on the need shown when and if the scheme comes into operation. Subject to this proviso the House will, I believe, be interested to know what are
  1896
  the routes at present proposed. They are as follow:

  Becontree, via Highbury, Leytonstone and Ilford.

  Enfield Town via Finsbury Park, Muswell Hill and Southgate.

  Highgate via Marble Arch, Baker Street and Camden Town.

  Queensbury Circle via Paddington, Golders Green and Hendon.

  Harrow-on-the-Hill via Hammersmith, Harlesden and Wembley.

  Sudbury Town via Hammersmith, Eating and Greenford.

  Isleworth via Wandsworth, Putney, Richmond and Twickenham.

  Kingston Station via Clapham, Wimbledon and Morden.

  North Cheam via Tooting Broadway, Wallington Station and Sutton.

  Purley Cross via Brixton, Streatham and Thornton Heath.

  Sidcup via New Cross, Blackheath and Plumstead.

  Air-Commodore Harvey: All change.
  Sir G. Fox: What about the West of London?
  Mr. Hall: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the West of London is covered, but if it is not, we will see, if the scheme is accepted, that the West of London is not left out in the cold. It will be realised that these buses must follow the main routes, and that those using them may have to walk some distance from the nearest point to their homes, but the service will be of great assistance in getting them within walking: distance of home.
  What I have already said about the service as a whole applies to particular routes, and it may be necessary not only to reduce their number, but also to alter them according to the use made of them. Hon. Members will naturally want to know something as to the possible costs of a scheme of this kind and how we propose to meet them. It is, unfortunately, difficult for me to be precise or to give the exact figures. The proposal is that on any day when there is any possibility of the House sitting beyond 10.30 p.m.. the London Passenger Transport Board depot should be warned in order that the crews of the necessary vehicles may stand by, even if the House rises before 11.30 p.m. The weekly charge in this event for a maximum of four nights in any one week would be £13 15s., that is for 11 crews if the 11 routes which are projected were used. It is 6s. 3d. multiplied by four by 11. That comes to a fixed charge of £13 15s. week by week.
  Captain John Crowder: Per bus?
  Mr. Hall: No, £13 15s. for the 11 buses. It would be a standby charge. If the House sits on throughout the night, and the buses are still not called upon, and hon. Members can use the ordinary transport facilties, which would be available about 6 o'clock the next morning onwards, the maximum weekly charge on the same basis of 11 buses would be £110. The crews would have to be paid if they stood by after 11.30 at night for a full eight hour shift, and the eight hour shift for the crews of 11 buses works out at £110 per week. If the buses are called out, the total time of the staffs employed if it did not exceed eight hours on the same basis of 11 buses, would mean a net cost of £50 10s. per night or, in a week of four nights, £202. I have gone into this detail because I think the House is entitled to know what the projected scheme is and what cost is involved.
  As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said in reply to a supplementary question last Thursday, it is our view that Members of Parliament should pay a reasonable sum for these facilities. What this should be has yet to be determined, and the Government would welcome the views of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. The Government believe that hon. Members generally have no desire that they should be carried free at public expense, or even for an uneconomic fare. The routes, of course, vary in length, but approximate, on the average, to between 10 and 12 miles from the House. We therefore, suggest that the minimum fare should be 6d. for a distance of, say, three miles, and that longer distances should be charged for at increased rates according to the stage to which any hon. Member may go. It would mean that anyone going the full distance of the route would probably find he had to pay 1s., 1s. 6d., 2s. or more. But may I repeat that these things are approximations only, and would have to be worked out when we see how the scheme can be operated? It is further proposed, as the House knows, to make these services available to officers and staff of the House, to members of the Press Gallery, and indeed, I think I carry the House with me here, to any relatives or friends of Members who might be within the precincts when
  1898
  the House rises. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Why?"] I will tell the House why. In my view there are two reasons for allowing this. One is that it will help to meet the deficit if any. The more passengers the greater the income. Secondly, if a Member has a friend or relative, say, his wife, in the Gallery of the House, it seems to me rather unfair not to allow her, if there is room, to travel on the bus with her husband. As I say, this is a domestic matter. It will be for the House to decide. I merely put that forward as a commonsense suggestion, which I trust will be acceptable to Members on all sides of the House.
  Mr. Keeling: The Financial Secretary talked in one sentence of the fare being economic, and in almost the next sentence of a deficit. How does he reconcile those two words?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Member will wait, I will perhaps come to that. I said we are working in the dark. It may be that there will be a deficit; we shall have to see as we go along. Visitors and the Press would, of course, pay the same fare as Members, but whether the staff of the House or those who are kept under the Gallery on the service of the House should pay at the same rate, is a matter for this House to decide. The Government have an open mind on the subject. The feeling of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that on the analogy of the good employer, the staff of the House, perhaps below a certain level of remuneration, might receive this service free, or, if this is not agreeable to hon. Members, then for a reduced sum. We would, however, as I say, welcome an expression of opinion from Members on this point.
  Finally, the scheme is, and must inevitably be for some time to come, an experiment. We have at the moment no exact means of knowing what use Members will make of this service, and the routes that will be followed, or even with what smoothness the service will work. Nor can we tell what loss, if any, there may be upon it. If a loss is sustained, we estimate it might be in the region of £2,000 to £3,000 per annum, or perhaps, at the most—I think is the outside figure as far as we in the Treasury can judge; I want to be frank and open with the House on this—about £4,000 in a full year.
  Mr. Keeling: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question I previously put to him? How can he talk about an economic fare and then talk about a £4,000 deficit?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps I should have explained; I thought I had done so. The proposal is that Members should pay what we think is an economic fare for the distance they travel. In addition we should carry officers and members of the staff. It has yet to be decided whether the staff are to be allowed to use this service free, or whether they shall be asked to pay something, if not the full economic fare. It will all depend upon the decision of this House— and we would like an expression on the part of the House on this matter— whether there will, therefore, be, so far as some passengers are concerned, a possible loss, whilst, quite obviously, we do not want there to be a loss so far as Members are concerned. That, I think, is the explanation which the hon. Member wants.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would not there be a loss on the occasions when the buses are standing by but not used?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That again is a contingency which inevitably would add to the overall cost of the service and it might very well mean that a deficit would eventuate, though we hope it would not be a large one. If a deficit does arise a supplementary Estimate will be needed, when no doubt the matter can be debated at some length and reconsidered. In the meantime, I hope the House will agree to the Motion on the understanding that the scheme will operate to the end of the present Session, as an experimental period The experience gained will guide us in any future action we may take. If the House passes the Motion, it is proposed to bring the scheme into operation when we reassemble after the Christmas Recess.
  Before I sit down, I wish to say a few words about the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in line 3, to leave out "Members and." I am not quite sure whether the Motion would not permit Members to travel by the buses notwithstanding the fact that they were not specifically mentioned in
  1900
  the Motion. The Motion refers to persons attending on the service of the House. I think it could be said—at any rate, it could be argued—that Members of Parliament come within the scope of those words. On reflection, I think right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that if this scheme is to operate—and I understand that they are willing that it should; for everyone else except Members—there is a good deal to be said for Members being allowed to use the service if we want the loss to be lessened or if we wish to have no loss at all. I hope the House will approve this Motion, that we shall get unanimity of agreement upon it, and that we may in the coming months watch the experiment in order to see whether our view materialises that it will be useful to a large number. If it does, it will then become a permanent feature of this House.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "Members and."
  When one reads the terms of the Motion which the House is asked to approve, one gets no idea at all of the scheme which is to be operated thereunder. Indeed, it was not until we heard the Financial Secretary, that most Members of this House could have any idea of the financial provisions involved in the operation of any scheme for providing transport. The difficulty of Members in getting home when the House sits late is no new thing. It happened during the war, and I am sure it happened before the war. I was glad the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it certainly affected his side of the House as much as it affected this side. Indeed, as he pointed out, perhaps more cars in London are owned by supporters of the Government than by Members on this side of the House and, after all, there are always "lifts" in Ministerial cars. There is a distinction to be drawn between the provision of transport for hon. Members of this House, and the provision of transport for officers and staff. If further provision is considered by the authorities of this House to be necessary to take home the officers and staff, then we would have no objection to any reasonable arrangement. But the suggestion that transport for hon. Members should be provided either at the public expense, or partly at the public expense, is entirely

  1901
  another matter, and, in my view, and, I think, in the view of those who sit on this side of the House, there is no justification for it at all. There is no justification, particularly at this time, for casting any extra burden upon the taxpayer, who is already carrying a very heavy load. Of course, it may be argued that this will not cast any extra burden upon the taxpayer, in view of the new income to be received after the passage of the Trafalgar Estates Bill, but the Financial Secretary has in my view dealt with this matter in a most unsatisfactory manner.
  First, he told us that it is likely to take no less than 11 buses and their staffs, and that they may be kept standing by all night. The hon. Gentleman did not say one word about the effect which that would have on the public services in London—a very important point. When one tries to get an improved bus service for the general public, one is normally met by the Minister of Transport saying that the service will be improved as there are more drivers available, more conductors, and sometimes, more buses. What would be the effect of keeping staff and buses standing by all night? Does it mean that, on the occasions on which the warning signal is given, the bus services in the early morning will be reduced for ordinary members of the public? That is a matter which should be dealt with and be explained to the House, because, in considering what further privileges may be enjoyed by hon. Members of this House, we ought to have regard to what extent it would place an increased burden and increased difficulties on the travelling public.
  Then, we are told that the stand-by each week the House is sitting will cost £13 15s. a week. As I understand it, this provision will be made primarily for Members of Parliament, because it has been said that some 300 will make use of it. If it is only to be a provision for the staff and officers of the House, it is obvious that the cost will be very much less, because, obviously, not nearly so many buses will be required. It may even be that it will be much cheaper, on the few occasions on which this service is wanted, to hire a few cars or use some of the cars from one or other of the Ministries. There has been no suggestion at all from the hon. Gentleman that, if Members of Parliament use these buses, they should pay any part of the cost of the
  1902
  standing by. As I understand it, all that would fall to be borne by the taxpayer. Really, what is this for? The hon. Gentleman did not tell us that, in the last year, it would have been under 30 times that this service would have been used by hon. Members of this House if it had been available. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us very clearly what the estimate of the loss would have been in the past year if we had had this service. I suggest to him—he can correct me if I am wrong— that it would have been a sum of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year in order to get some, or nearly all, hon. Members of this House home when the House sits late.
  Of course, it may be that in this coming year, with Socialist legislation and more regulations, we shall have more Prayers. It may be that the Patronage Secretary feels some doubt as to whether he will be able to keep the requisite number of Government supporters in the House. I do not know; I am speculating about that. But I assure him that if that thought ever entered his mind, the attractions of a nationalised bus would not make his task any easier. The Government are trying to create an expensive service to serve what is a limited need, so far as Members of the House are concerned, and if any service of this kind is to be organised, the full cost should be borne by the Members who use it, and not a penny should be borne by the ordinary taxpayer.
  It may be that with a little more planning, the Government might limit the night shift to those who live close by or who have cars. It may be that a little more thought and a little more private enterprise on the benches opposite would dispense with the need for. employing the London Passenger Transport Board. I would like to know what inquiries have been made as to whether it would be possible on these occasions to hire the requisite number of private cars from one of the private hire services. I would like to know whether any estimate has been made as to the cost of such an arrangement. I find it difficult to believe that every night this House sits late, there would be anything like 300 Members wanting to make use of this service. I think that is a great over-estimate.
  This matter deserves serious consideration. After all, in 1911 this House granted an allowance of £400 to Members of Parliament, not as a remuneration but purely

  1903
  as an allowance. It was increased to £600 in 1937 and was increased again this year, to £1,000 a year. We now have free warrants for travelling between our homes and the House, and between the House and our constituencies, and we ought to be most careful in considering what further privileges and perquisities we grant to ourselves. The Financial Secretary said that he approached this matter in no party spirit, and informed us that the Government Whips have not been asked to function. It will be very interesting reading to see the Division List, because I remember an occasion not so long ago when we were told that the Government Whips would not operate, that it would be a free vote, and then the Lord President of the Council, in the course of the Debate, indicated quite clearly to the Government supporters what the view and the decision of the Government was. That occasion was the Debate about an inquiry into the Press. We shall watch this matter with care. I hope it will be a free vote and, considering the present financial position and the burden borne by the taxpayer, I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that this is not the time to embark on any further experiments with an unknown and unlimited burden likely to be cast upon the taxpayer at the end of the year.
  I hope this Motion, covering as it does an extremely vague scheme, will be rejected, and that before it goes to a Division hon. Members will leave no doubt as to their views. We take the view, if I may repeat myself, that if a service is required for the officers and staff of the House that is quite a separate question, and it is most unfortunate indeed that the two topics should be merged together as they have been. It is with that object—to limit it to the officers and staff—that this Amendment is moved.
  10.31 p.m.
  Lieutenant-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: My first word's must be words of sympathy to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on being called upon to handle this matter in the absence of those Ministers who, in my opinion, should deal with it, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord President of the Council—who, as I shall show presently, is the Minister roost interested in this proposal—and the
  1904
  Minister of Transport. Running my eye along the Treasury Bench I fail to detect the presence of one Member of the Cabinet. May I say next that I take no exception at all to the proposal that the various members of our staff who are kept to an inordinately late hour, should be taken to their homes free of charge. After all, they have no say in the matter at all; they have no opportunity of voting against the suspension of the Rule. They are kept here by the decision of the House; and I have felt for some time past that it is a hardship upon many of them— attendants, messengers, Hansard staff and others—that they have to find their way home, in the early hours of the morning.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries and Expenses which was set up by this House almost exactly a year ago I have certain observations to offer on this proposal. We had lengthy deliberations, and the Select Committee was unanimous on one matter—that we should arrive at a global figure which should cover the proper expenses of a Member of Parliament and that there should be no perquisites. That was agreed to by all. Hon. Members may recall that when these proposals came before the House for endorsement, I took the opposite view to some of my hon. Friends who resisted the increase of salary to £1,000 a year: I did so on the ground that that global figure was fair and necessary, in view of the duties we have to perform in these times. It is possible for hon. Members living in London to claim their expenses against Income Tax. It is possible for them to set off the cost of transport of this kind, and one of the things which we envisaged was that hon. Members who are kept late at the House might be put to the expense of hiring cars to take them to their homes. How many members of the general public would welcome a salary of £1,000 a year and facilities to enable them to get home from the various duties which they have to perform?
  I was really astonished to hear it suggested that these perquisites, now proposed, extend outside the boundaries of the membership of the House of Commons. We find that apparently aunts, sisters, and sweethearts may join in this concession. May I ask the Financial Secretary what happens if

  1905
  there is a full bus? Do hon. Members get priority; or are they left behind while the wives and sweethearts ride home? What are we really being asked to do? I suggest this in all good temper to hon. Members on all sides of the House. What we are really being asked to do is to subsidise the pernicious practice of all-night Sittings. Hon. Members ought to know, by now, that business done after midnight is business badly done. That is why I suggest the Leader of the House should be here, to explain what is really behind this suggestion. Further, I should like to know if we are to have a balance-sheet published in connection with this experiment. We are not to have balance-sheets in the case of other Government experiments, such as coal or the railways, to show exactly what each scheme is going to cost the taxpayer. Are we to have one in this case?
  May I say, quite frankly, that this proposed arrangement would suit me admirably. I heard the Financial Secretary read out the name of the suburb in which I happen to reside. I shall nevertheless vote against this proposal, and I shall go further.
  When the proposal to increase salaries was before the House I suggested that hon. Members who objected should refuse this increase, and return it to the Treasury. May I say in the presence of all these important witnesses that if this proposal goes through, I am not going to use this bus. I shall hire a car, if I can persuade other Members to share the expense, as I have not the fortune to own a car. But I submit that it is utterly monstrous that the taxpayer should be called upon to bear the cost of taking Members of Parliament home, because they sit to an unreasonable hour. The Government make the arrangements for the business of this House and the real answer to this difficulty is a perfectly simple one—that the Government should not overload the legislative programme. They should so arrange their affairs that the House can rise at a reasonable hour, at, say, midnight. [Interruption.] I am being subjected to interruption by one of the Ministers of the Government who does not realise that it is out of Order to interrupt when he is not in his proper place or seat. It is none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, who, I suggest, would be better
  1906
  engaged in trying to provide homes for the people.
  I trust that hon. Members on all sides of the House will have a sense of responsibility in this matter. Eight months ago, I stood in my place here and defended the increase in salaries. I did so on the ground that I believed the global sum of £1,000 per annum was necessary, if we were to carry out our duties with dignity and efficiency. But I will be no party to creating a further perquisite which will stink in the nostrils of the public.
  Mr. Speaker: There is one point which the hon. and gallant Member seems to have forgotten in his speech, and that was that he rose to second the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: So many other matters were in my mind at the time, Mr. Speaker, that I forgot. I now beg to second the Amendment.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Bowles: I should have expected the House of Commons to have been at its best this evening, but I am sorry to find that it is rather at its worst. Surely we are entitled, as a House of Commons, to regard this proposal not from a party point of view, or from the point of view of whether hon. Gentlemen opposite can hire taxis or cars to get home, and whether hon. Members on this side of the House have to lie about in the Libraries and Smoking Rooms as I have seen them do. when the House sits late.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): May I ask whether the hon. Member proposes to use this service to return to St. James's Street?
  Mr. Bowles: I listened very carefully to the list of routes read out, but no bus in the scheme appears to go past my flat, which is not ten minutes' walk from here. I have no car and I am speaking completely disinterestedly. I am trying to restore to the House of Commons a sense of pride which, if I may say so, it seems to have lost. I was quite amazed at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He appears to have some curious idea that it is a matter of privilege, whether he can get home or not, but that other hon. Members may get home as best they can. The House of Commons must function properly, and I should stop at no single privilege being given to any hon. Member, on any side

  1907
  of the House, if he carries out his duties to his electors. I was also amazed that the hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) should have taken the rather unusual attitude indicated by his speech. He is one for whom, in the past, I have had great respect, especially having regard to his work in looking after the staff of the House and caring for the general amenities of this House. He made a very good speech, which I well remember, in the Debate on the increase of salaries of hon. Members, but I am surprised that he has taken the line which he has followed on this occasion.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I want to make it clear that I made no complaint regarding facilities for members of the staff. On the contrary, I endorse the provision of those facilities.
  Mr. Bowles: I do not regard this provision of transport for hon. Members after they have finished the day's work as a "perquisite" at all. That is what it has been termed. I am not going to say more, but I think that the House might have shown itself at its best this evening. Up to now, as I say, it has shown itself at its worst, and I am sure that the hon, and gallant Gentleman will, on second thoughts, realize that we are not here concerned with obtaining any special privilege for poorer hon. Members, for those of the middle income groups, or any other hon. Members. All we are trying to do is to see that this House can do its job without hon. Members having in mind that their last bus may be going in half an hour. We want to see that, if Members are working at a late hour, they should be enabled to do their job and be transported home in comfort.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the hon Gentleman if his remarks embrace the wives and sweethearts of hon. Members? Will he have a Gallup Poll of wives, to see whether they approve of this measure?
  Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in Order for the hon. and gallant Member opposite to suggest that the hon. Member embraces my wife?
  Mr. Bowles: I can see no reason why any persons interested in the working of
  1908
  Parliament, whether they are hon. Members, or members of the staff, or the police, or others, should not have every facility placed at their disposal.
  10.44 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I am sorry that this proposal has been brought before the House, because it forces some of us into a position which we would rather avoid. I know well of the difficulties of getting home after late Sittings of the House, for hon. Members who have not cars at their disposal. But are we to extend every facility to the staff who are kept here if we sit late? The House must be aware that certain facilities are provided for staff who are kept here late. The second point is, and I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree, that this scheme stands or falls on the participation in it of Members as well as staff. These are very austere days for many members of the community, and it is my conviction that they are going to be harder and more austere in the next two or three years. I feel strongly that if this House votes itself extra privileges at a time like this, it is going to lower its prestige in the country, among those who are feeling the pinch of very hard times.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I shall, first, declare my interest in this. matter, as we did in the previous Debate. My interest is that I am a Member without a car, living at a distance too far for me to walk; and therefore, I find it difficult to get home when the House sits after a quarter past midnight. I am astonished at the two speeches we have had from the other side of the House. They did, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said, fall far short of the requirements of this Debate. We had, for example, the astonishing argument from the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that the standing by, or even the use, of eleven buses on any particular night, would upset the bus services of London on the following day.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I put a question to the Financial Secretary. I did not say it would upset the bus services, but asked what effect it would have on the services for the public, if these drivers were kept standing by all night.
  Mr. H. Hynd: If there is any difference between what the hon. and learned Member says he said, and what I said he said, I fail to see it. He asked whether this scheme would have any effect on the bus services of London on the following day. I would ask him to make inquiries about the number of buses in service in London on any particular day. I think that will be sufficient answer. I hope I have made myself clear. What I am trying to point out is that the use of eleven buses would represent something like .001 per cent. of the bus services of London.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) made the remark that the Government have the responsibility of organising the business so that we should not be kept here all night. I venture to remind him that he is not strictly accurate. There are many occasions under the Rules of the House when, whether the Government like it or not, he and his friends can keep the House into the middle of the night, as they have done. Behind the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness sits the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who is an expert at saying nothing at very great length, and it is not so long ago since Members on the other side deliberately kept us here until the last buses and tube trains had gone, and then told us we could go home.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the hon. Member not agree that these are occasions when we have to pray against certain Orders in Council, and that the way to avoid this is to legislate in the proper manner?
  Mr. H. Hynd: I would be the first to do my duty by staying here all night, two or three nights a week, if necessary, on my Parliamentary business; but I have painful recollections of the experience which shocked me as a new Member, of sitting here until the early hours of the morning and listening to—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tripe."]—I hardly dare use the word— from the other side. Let me give one example. On one occasion I rose to protest against a speech made from the other side on the question of the Highway Code. On that occasion a Member had complained for about 15 or 20 minutes, because no provision had been made in the code for the use of rickshaws. That is the kind of thing to which we all must object; it is the kind of thing that lowers
  1910
  the dignity of Parliament, and the kind of thing which makes this Motion absolutely necessary.
  The Government have asked for our observations, and I am going to make one observation which may not please my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. As he said this would be a matter for a free vote, I take it I am perfectly in Order in disagreeing with him on one thing. That is his assertion that there are as many Members on this side of the House with cars as there are on the other. I disagree with that. I am not a member of the Stock Exchange, but I am quite prepared to bet that he is wrong in that assertion. I suggest, first, that we should make a strong endeavour to cut out these all-night Sittings. That would be the sensible way of conducting our business. But if there are occasions when we have to wait, and as hon. Members on the other side have said that they do not object to special arrangements being made for the staff, then, surely, there would not be objection to Members of the House going home in the buses provided for the staff? What is wrong with that? As regards paying for the service, I am quite prepared to pay my share, and I think many Members would be prepared to pa}' more than the staff would be called upon to pay. It is not essential to the scheme that we should pay uneconomic fares. But, at any rate, let us have some method of getting home.
  May I make another suggestion? Could we not suggest to the London Passenger Transport Board that the bus service proposed should be put on as a regular service on the proposed routes? There are other people besides Members of the House who would like to use these buses occasionally, and if these buses were running regularly, on these routes, many of the objections to the scheme might be obviated. For these reasons I strongly support the Motion, and if the only objection is the cost of the scheme, I suggest the cost should be worked out on an economic basis, so that we may know what fares we are to pay.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I was not aware until the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) spoke, that this matter of all-night Sittings was one in which I had ever played any important part. I am one of those who have, almost invariably, had to walk home, and I have

  1911
  the most thorough dislike of all-night Sittings. They have never been caused, so far as I am concerned, except by the overweening follies of the Government of the day. But I am not going into that now. I welcome, and, I think, every Member of the House welcomes, the fact that we all agree about one aspect of this matter —there are two distinct aspects of it—and that is in regard to the staff. The other side of the matter, on which there seems to be some disagreement, is the inclusion of hon. Members in the scheme. The Financial Secretary said that this was not a matter of politics; that it was just a domestic matter to be settled among ourselves. I, at once, thought, as he said that, that, as the House was dealing with a domestic matter, it was the clear duty of the Leader of the House to be here. Only a day or two ago, the Leader of the House was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as our dictator, and perhaps, on this occasion, he has very kindly absented himself in case his presence might seem to put pressure on any of his back benchers. But I feel that in regard to this matter even though his own people might not want him, the Liberal Party might have been willing to accept his guidance.
  Perhaps I might say a word on the Motion. Until the Financial Secretary spoke, I do not think any Member had the faintest idea how far this transport would take anyone. We now know that the transport is to be provided only within the London area. Surely that should be made clear in the Motion. There should have been something binding which would prevent the scheme being widened at any future time. Then we learn that the Financial Secretary has considerable difficulty in finding out what the cost will be He says that it may come to £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000, but that it really depends on how many people use the service. I am not quarrelling with his statement, although I am rather surprised at it, and my only regret is that this matter is being considered at this time of night when very few of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be reported in the Press. I am surprised to learn that these buses are to be available to the wives and friends of Members. I think it would be interesting to know just how widely that statement applies.
  We should remember, when we are subsidising a service of this kind, that we
  1912
  are the trustees of the finances of the nation, and when a trustee votes money out of the income of a trust, it is sometimes thought to be a curious proceeding. Before voting on this Motion, we should ask ourselves whether this is the time; when the public are enduring very great privations, and when a Member of the Front Bench has warned the public of much worse things to come, for Members of Parliament, with comparatively little publicity, to give ourselves this privilege. There is a tendency always to veer towards giving ourselves, as Members, additional privileges. I am not one of those who can afford a car in London, but I believe that on a matter of this kind Members would be well advised not to vote themselves an additional privilege after they have aready done themselves very well in other ways. I shall support the Amendment, not with any desire to make the position of Members more difficult, but because I am sure that it is in the best interests of Parliament that we should not grant ourselves any privilege of this sort unless we are certain that it is necessary. No one can maintain that the occasional nights on which we have to sit late, are any justification for the Government bringing forward this Motion.
  Hon. Members: Divide.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bing: I am sorry that this Motion is being treated in a party spirit Any of those who have been at the door in the House know that there are Members, on both sides, who do not speak very much in Debate, who are rather better perhaps in their attendance than some who do speak, and who remain in the House to support their parties at great personal and physical sacrifice. I think it is unfortunate that an advantage should be taken of an infirmity of that sort. It has been said by a Member opposite that the House has sat late on 30 occasions, actually it is 27, and on the great majority of these occasions it was Opposition business, either on Prayers or—
  Sir John Mellor: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that Prayers against Orders are Opposition business? They are House of Commons business Orders lie on the Table—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am trying to ascertain,

  1913
  whether the hon. Member is asking a question, or making a speech.
  Sir J. Mellor: I merely interrupted, Sir, to point out that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that Prayers against Orders are Opposition business. They are House of Commons business. Any Member has the right to move to annul an Order which lies on the Table for two days.
  Mr. Bing: Prayers against Orders are Private Members' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] Well, they provide an opportunity for back bench Members to raise various questions. However, I am not quibbling with the hon. Member about one phrase or another. There are a number of important matters—for instance, the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, which we shall debate tomorrow night— which, presumably, are of interest to all Members. Whether or not a Member records his vote should not depend on whether or not he has a motor-car.
  The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said he thought the cost would be somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000. Actually, I think the figure would be in the neighbourhood of £2,000 gross, if the scheme had been in operation last Session. What the net losses will be, or whether in fact the House makes a profit, depends entirely on how many hon. Members use the service. If we debar hon. Members from using the service, we increase the cost. There may fee an argument in favour of prohibiting hon. Members from using it, but it is not the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member. It is no argument to say that we want to save the taxpayer's money, because by prohibiting hon. Members from using the service, we shall in fact, increase the amount to be paid by the taxpayer.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the hon. Member really suggest that anything like eleven buses will be required to convey the staff?
  Mr. Bing: That is exactly what I am suggesting. After all, by some strange coincidence, members of the staff of the House of Commons do not all live in the same place. In order to convey them to their different destinations, it is necessary to have a number of buses which pursue different routes. I should have thought
  1914
  that problem was quite simple to anyone who has ever used a bus. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the "night shift" should be left to those who have cars. I cannot think that that is a proper suggestion. We have a responsibility to our constituents. It may be that an hon. Member desires to raise a matter on the Adjournment, or other hon. Members wish to hear a Debate. Are only hon. Members who have cars to be able to do this? I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) is not in his place. He spoke on the question of Members' salaries. It is quite true that hon. Members have a salary of £1,000 a year. It is also true some hon. Members are able to augment their salary in other ways. But it is possible that those who are able to augment their salaries arc able to afford transport home, while the ordinary Member is not able to do so. It has to be remembered that it is not open to all hon. Members to follow a part-time profession. If one looks at the occupation followed by most hon. Members one finds that it was coalmining. But there is not a convenient mine here, in which hon. Members can work part time. There are offices of various companies where hon. Members could conveniently serve part-time as directors, but there is no reason to suppose that a person able to use his spare time as a director and who can afford a car should necessarily vote in a Division, or remain in the House.
  The hon. and learned Member said that the sum of £13 for buses standing by was very large. I do not think it is. I think it is an extremely generous offer on the part of the trade unions who agreed that their members should stand by for a low figure.
  An Hon. Member: Trade union rates?
  Sir G. Fox: More sweated labour?
  Mr. Bing: It shows a great sense of responsibility on the part of the trade unions and that they realise they are taking part in what is a public service. They are prepared to make a personal sacrifice, and I am sorry hon. Members have not accepted this offer in that spirit.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not want to go into detail on this matter but to consider it solely as a question of prin-

  1915
  ciple. I suppose the germ of the party opposite originated some 150 years ago, in the great days of the Whig aristocracy. For those 150 years the forebears of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been fighting the world of privilege. It comes as rather a surprise to find that, in the whole of that time, their complaint against privilege was not one of principle; and that all that was involved was that they wanted the privilege for themselves. Here we have a proposition which, if carried to its logical conclusion, must be unlimited. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) put it on the basis that we must have at our disposal all that is necessary for our comfort and all that is required to enable us to do our business. If that is carried to its logical conclusion, what is to happen, say, when we come to the Summer Recess? Are we to have a Motion that all Members are to have free holidays provided for them at public expense? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may jeer. I ask where one is draw the line once we embark on a matter of principle of this kind.
  In the life of this Parliament we have already granted sufficient privileges to Members—increased salaries and increased travelling facilities at public expense, and better meals at lower prices. Somewhere, the line must be drawn. If we do not make a stand somewhere, on a question of principle, and say that Members are not to continue voting themselves more and more privileges, then we are in danger of getting to a point at which Members of this House become a privileged class distinct from members of the public. Without any question as to whether or not it is convenient, I believe, as a matter of principle, we ought to make our stand somewhere and that we should do it here and now.
  Mr. Bowles: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that this House can do its job of work properly if it rises at three o'clock in the morning and hon. Members have to lie about this building until six or seven o'clock, and then serve upon a Standing Committee at 10.30 o'clock the same morning?
  Mr. Marlowe: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members have been doing so for several hundred years.
  11.13 p.m.
  Major Cecil Poole: I doubt whether I should have intervened in this Debate had it not been for two remarks made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I see that neither of them is now in his place, both, I suppose, having gone home. I refer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr C. Williams)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] He has come back. I apologise to him.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Major Poole: I have already said that I apologise to the hon. Member if he has been in the House the whole time. If hon. Members did not talk so much among themselves, they would hear much better what is said. The hon. Member for Torquay spoke about hon. Members "doing themselves well." I think that is an unfortunate phrase and lowering to the dignity of the House. It is completely untrue. It is most unfortunate that it should come from an hon. Member of experience, who has occupied the responsible positions which the hon. Member has occupied in this House. The second remark to which I take exception is that of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). I am not so much surprised in this case, because during the life of this Parliament the hon. and gallant Member seems to have clothed himself in a mantle of self-righteousness. He stands up as frequently as he can, to assert that he alone possesses all the virtues of a House of Commons man and that everyone who disagrees with him must be wrong. He used an equally undesirable word in relation to hon. Members when he spoke of "perquisites" as though we were people going round pinching the pens out of the trays, and drinking the ink out of the bottles.
  I am not affected by this Motion. No bus will take me home if the Motion is carried and if the buses operate, unless buses are going to run to Birmingham. My humble abode in London is within walking distance of this House, and I am very happy to have to walk on occasions in order to keep my streamlined figure. It does me quite a lot of good. But I assert that the attitude of the Opposition to this Motion is nothing less than irresponsible humbug and hypocrisy. In fact, I will go further than that. If hon. Members opposite thought there was the slightest chance of this Motion being

  1917
  defeated, they would never vote against it. It is only because they know that this Motion is almost certain to be carried and that the buses will be available to take them home, that they think they can curry favour in the country by appearing to oppose this Motion for providing transport of which they themselves, in their heart of hearts, will be very glad to avail themselves when it is provided. I imagine they will clamour for it just as much as anyone else.
  I regard this service for getting Members of Parliament from their work when there are no other means available, as just as much a part of the machinery of government as the provision of electric fight and central heating in this building after 10.30. If Members of Parliament are not entitled to have the public utility service of transport to take them home, by what right are they allowed to burn electricity beyond a certain hour? Why should not Members pay for the extra electricity consumed in the House, for the extra cooking facilities which have to be provided and for the whole gamut of facilities necessitated by night Sittings?
  I notice that Members of the Opposition are prepared to agree that this facility shall apply to the staff. In fact, they are most pleased that it should be available for the staff. I wonder what those hon. Members were doing through all the years when they provided the government of this country, when not only did they fail to provide the staff with buses to take them home, but did not even provide them with decent wages. Every time the House went into Recess, the poor devils in the kitchen here had to go wandering around the coast towns of the country trying to get jobs. No wonder, one characterises the opposition to the Motion as pure hypocrisy and humbug when hon. Members opposite profess to have some interest in the staff of this House. I prefer to believe that they have rather a rooted objection to riding in the same buses as the staff of this House. I would sooner believe that, than believe that they have an interest in the staff.
  Colonel Wheatley Colonel Wheatley (Dorset, Eastern) rose—
  Major Poole: The late buses are not running tonight and, therefore, we ought to try to catch the last bus home. If the objection to this scheme is the cost which
  1918
  will fall upon the Exchequer, I am quits prepared to face the situation. I do not want anything for nothing out of this House, and I would say that if the cost is £3,000 a year, what is £3,000 a year? Let us divide £3,000 between 600 Members, and each of us pay £5 a year. I think that would commend itself to all hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope it would to hon. Members opposite. Let us each pay £5, and, if possible, let the staff and officers of the House go home for nothing. That is the intelligent approach to this scheme.
  With regard to wives and friends of Members, I confess I do not like that part of the scheme. Perhaps it is because my wife is never able to come to this House, although I can appreciate the point of view of a Member whose wife is here. However, most wives, if they were sensible, would not be in this House when it was sitting until midnight, or one or two o'clock in the morning. I should have thought that if they had any intelligence they would go home to bed before then. I would suggest that we should not make a specific provision for wives and friends to travel in these buses, but, if any hon. Member is landed with someone on his hands from his constituency, who has to get home late, I do not think we should debar those people from having a seat. The best way would be to split the whole cost between the 640 Members of the House. Let us have this scheme; it will enable us to do our job better, and it will enable hon. Members of the Opposition to get much better figures in the Divisions at three o'clock in the morning.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: After the last somewhat provocative speech to which we have listened, there is a danger of the House sitting very late to-night, of all of us having a very good time, but of the House of Commons getting into what I think will be a rather undignified wrangle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?"] I will not say who started it, but I say there is a danger of our Debate developing into an undignified, and very prolonged, wrangle. There is I think, general agreement in all quarters of the House that it would be a very good thing to provide transport home for the 150 odd members of the staff of this House who are detained here by late sittings. We are all, I think, agreed that the staff should be conveyed home at the ordinary

  1919
  fares chargeable in the daytime, which will involve a subsidy from public funds. I think that, so far, there is general agreement. The question then arises, Should Members of the House of Commons also be able to make use of this special transport? There again, there is not the slightest objection to Members making use of the buses which will be available for taking the staff home. The only point upon which there appears to be any difference of opinion is whether the fares of Members using that transport shall be subsidised out of public funds.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get this point straight, and that he would not intentionally misinterpret what has been said. I can assure him that, so far as we are concerned, we do not want Members to travel at the public expense. We believe that a scheme could be worked out—we hope it can—which will ensure that members of the staff travel, either free or at a reduced fare, but that Members themselves, pay what I described as an economic fare.
  Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have seen all the papers which have been privately circulated upon the matter, and there is no mention whatever in these papers, of any differentiation between the subsidised fares to be payable by the staff of the House, and the fares to be payable by hon. Members.
  Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to papers which he has seen, but which are not available to Members of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is in Order.
  Mr. Peake: I his matter has, of course, been discussed through the usual channels, and the Government scheme has been made available to some of us on this side of the House It comes as a very pleasant surprise to me to hear that the Financial Secretary is prepared, as I understand, to undertake that there shall be one scale of fares for the staff of the House, and another and higher, scale of fares for Members who make use of this late transport. That, in fact, means that the carriage of Members home by the special late transport will not be subsidised out of public funds Am I right?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is our intention, and if things move that way, I think I can say, on behalf of the Government, we should be perfectly willing to discuss the question of ways and means of ensuring that, so far as hon. Members are concerned, they do pay the proper fare, and that any subsidy which is to be found, is found in respect of the staff.
  Mr. Peake: The Financial Secretary has gone a long way towards satisfying hon. Members, if it is quite clear that the fares for the staff will be on one level —let it be a subsidised level—and the fares for hon. Members on a higher level, and upon an economic level. Of course, there may be some adjustment necessary afterwards. It may involve an account being sent to hon. Members at the end of a Session, for so many Journeys home, worked out on an economic basis. If the Financial Secretary will make it clear that there is to be no charge on public funds, in respect of the carriage of hon. Members home after a late night Sitting on the special transport, there is no need for any difference of opinion. Is the Financial Secretary in a position to give such an assurance as I have indicated?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I forget whether the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I spoke earlier, or perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I had intended to do. What I tried to make clear was that this was a domestic matter and was for the House to decide—that we were in the hands of the House. Our suggestion was that these buses should be provided, because we thought it was right and proper that hon. Members should get home at night. Hon. Members, I said, wanted nothing free, and so far as those on this side of the House were concerned, they were willing to pay an economic fare, whatever it might be, for the buses taking them within reach of their homes So far as the staff is concerned I said we had an open mind. I know my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would like to see the staff carried free, on the grounds that any good employer would do so. Nevertheless, if the House desired the staff to pay something, we would fall in with whatever the House decided. I hope, in view of what I have said, that no further undertaking is necessary.
  Mr. Peake: I have listened to what the Financial Secretary has said and so far as his statement goes, it is satisfactory. I want to make the position perfectly clear. We will be no parties to the carriage, out of public funds, of hon. Members home in the middle of the night. We are however quite ready to fall in with any reasonable suggestion. I suggest that it would save the House from any unseemly wrangle tonight if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to adjourn the Debate— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—to enable further discussion to take place with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement, which will satisfy every-one.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I have rarely known of a more comtemptible exhibition. After the position had been made perfectly clear, hon. Members opposite threw a lot of mud and now they try to run away from the issue. I am surprised at the naiveté of my hon. Friends in thinking this proposal would be dealt with in a non-party spirit. Once the mean, contemptible, legalistic mind got to work, this presented itself as an opportunity for spattering hon. Members on this side with all the mud which could be thrown. If that is done, I will stand on my feet and keep this Debate going, side by side with hon. Members across the Floor—and we can keep it going. Hon. Members opposite know that there will be no hesitation about seeing who will last the longest. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has taken up the position in this matter indicated by his speech. I believe him when he says that he will not use this transport if it is provided. I remember the attitude which he took in the Debate on the salary increase for hon. Members. Rut, are all his hon. Friends prepared to give the same pledge about these buses, if they vote against this Motion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] No, they will not answer. But I suggest that we should put in this Motion a provision that every hon. Member who votes against it should undertake not to use the buses.
  Mr. Grimston: Move an Amendment then.
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall be very happy to move an Amendment. I see no reason at all why hon. Members opposite who feel so strongly about this matter should
  1922
  not vote for such an Amendment if it were put down, and I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunity to do so. The plain truth, I think, is that when the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness says we have in our hands the opportunity of deciding whether we shall go home at a reasonable time or not, he is really suggesting that public business should depend on public transport. In other words, he suggests that, whatever the state of public business, whatever stage we have reached in this House, we should go home.
  Lieut. -Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, in his exalted position of one with an income of a thousand a year, he expects his constituents to pay for his transport home because the House has sat late?
  Mr. Callaghan: I am not personally affected by the matter, as I think hon. Members know. I am not interested one way or the other, but if the Government take up the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) and have a "whip round" for the transport for the staff, I suggest that that would be in order. If the thing is going to cost £3,000, a "whip round" of £5 a year each would cover it. [Interruption.] With great respect, Mr. Speaker, some of the hon. Members who are interrupting have not spoken at all in this Debate. If there is any dubiety about this matter, let me say chat we want no subsidy in this business. The whole point, which surely must be known to hon. Members on all sides of the House, is that one just cannot get transport at two or three o'clock in the morning. There is no transport available at that time of night —or rather, morning—and when hon. Members suggest that a service should be provided but that hon. Members should not make use of it, they are making an absurd proposal. The suggestion that some people who are kept late at night should not make use of such a service is the most fantastic thing I have ever heard. Are we going to suggest that hon. Members will hang about the House until three o'clock in the morning just for fun? If they are kept here why should they not make use of the service to their homes? I apologise for having spoken with some feeling, but I did feel rather angry. Perhaps I said more than I would have said if I had not been so angry and

  1923
  perhaps I have a rather quick temper. But I do feel that this is a matter for the House, and that the House has not done itself justice in the way it has treated the proposal tonight. This is not a case of people with cars against those without cars. It is a case of getting the business of the House done, and this Motion suggests the way in which we can get it done. I hope the House will pass the Motion.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put a question to the hon. Member? Does he mean by that, that he is in favour of Members of the House not only paying, the extra cost of carriage, say, from here to Highgate, but also their proportion of the standing-by charges?
  Mr. Callaghan: I meant that there should be no subsidies of any sort in a matter of this kind. That is all.
  11.36 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I confess that I was a little deceived when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that this was a domestic, and not a political, matter. My experience of domestic matters is that they are much more agreeable than political matters. But that is not how things have turned out. It has turned out as the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) has indicated in making his substantial contribution to the Debate. I wish the Government had not brought this domestic matter before the House. I can speak from a unique position in this matter, because I was the only Member in the House who opposed what I still think was the shameful procedure of increasing salaries, without first consulting the people of the country. I had no support from any one else in the House and I had to submit to the criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who commented in a disparaging way upon my opinions. So I am at least consistent in this matter. I did not seek the privilege of a thousand a year, and I seek no additional privileges from the House.
  Mr. Hollis: My hon friend is not the only one. He was by no means alone in that attitude.
  Sir W. Darling: I am glad my hon Friend corrects me. I am referring to
  1924
  the occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer first announced the setting up of the Select Committee. I am not referring to the subsequent occasion when the matter was put to the vote of the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of making that clear. I say this from the almost egotistical point of view of a Scotsman representing a Scottish constituency. I, with other Scottish and provincial Members, spend two nights out of bed every week in my public duty, and think nothing of it. These soft-skinned— tender-footed Englishmen, mostly Members for London constituencies, are apparently concerned about the fact that the public business for which they are amply paid, keeps them out of bed for an hour or two, once or twice in a Session. That is what we are being asked to consider. This is a domestic matter right enough. The hon. Member for South Cardiff and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), I understand, have wives at home who lament their untimely absence.
  Mr. Bowles: The hon. Member apparently does not know, what everyone else knows, that I am a bachelor
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Sir W. Darling: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but his rapt and happy expression always suggested to me that he has some secret joy and happiness. It is not for me to penetrate these mysteries. But this project before us, this domestic convenience which is being offered to London Members, involves a very serious consideration. I can speak quite with feeling on this matter, because every night—often in the early morning—I walk home to where I sleep, and, believe me, there is nothing more cooling for ebullient and eloquent speakers like myself, of whom there are many in the House. Walking home in the night they can trim their wits, and recite the speeches which they have been prevented by the Whips from making. That is preferable to a long journey in the bus, with those persons with whom one has sat all day long, one's competitors in the Debate, perhaps equally disappointed and embittered with oneself; or with those also in the galleries who have waited to hear the speech that was not delivered. That is the company in which, according to the Financial Secre-

  1925
  tary, we should end a disappointing day. I say when we have done with the House of Commons let us walk soberly—as you, Mr. Speaker, would wish us to do— soberly, solemnly and singly home to our beds.
  The proposal the Financial Secretary has put before us is significant. It is introduced in an interval in the discussion of the great Transport Bill. This is an astonishing piece of planning. I cannot believe this is the product solely of the intelligence of the Financial Secretary— providing 13 buses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eleven.")—11 buses to stand by sometimes, to go round by Highgate and Twickenham and Balham and other suburbs of London, as may be desired. This is an astonishing piece of Socialist planning, placed before the House of Commons in an interval in the discussion of a Transport Bill, which is to command all the ramifications of transport. Any confidence I may have had in the Bill languishes now, in view of the appearance of such plans as this for the Members who live in London; plans which require such a Debate as this, and such formulation of schemes and arrangements of subsidies and "whip round"— which, I think, was the expression of the hon. Member for South Cardiff—in order that the staff may pay what is called an "economic price." If this is the first of our Socialist transport plannings—well, I am not easily enamoured of it.
  But there are other possibilities, to make these proposals more attractive. If hon. Members representing London boroughs or suburbs, who arrange political party meetings at local Labour halls, could come down by the ordinary transport, and arrive with their constituents at 9.30 o'clock, when, it is known, Mr. Speaker may call upon me to speak, such an entertainment would attract large numbers to those little party gatherings, particularly if they were assured of special transport home. I know how difficult it is to keep political organisations together. This would be a contribution to the local Labour organisations in the county and City of London, and I suggest that it should not be overlooked. But it is not a project of which I, as a Scottish Member, am enamoured.
  Dr. Morgan: What has all this to do with the Motion?
  Sir W. Darling: It is already apparent to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  Mr. Gallacher: Not me.
  Sir W. Darling: In matters of this description we have been asked to consider the dignity of Parliament. I think that Parliament has a dignity, but to treat a subject of this kind seriously is very difficult. There are some absurdities that can only be countered by wit and raillery, and I have endeavoured to contribute something in that direction. This attempt to secure one petty privilege after another, this attempt to secure something which hon. Members can enjoy, and which no workers in any factory can enjoy—
  Mr. Thomas Reid: Does the privilege exist if hon. Members pay for the transport?
  Sir W. Darling: The privilege is quite obvious, because even if one pays for it, one is not paying the economic price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Probably I know as much about transport as the hon Member, but no one can tell me that the economic cost of withdrawing eleven buses of a capital value of £3,000 each, together with garage expenses, and standby crews at trade union rates—who may strike sometimes; do not let us forget that possibility—and the economic cost is met by the figures obscurely presented by the Financial Secretary. There is a limit of decency below which ordinary men and women do not choose to fall. This is the limit of decency and I have my standards of shame.
  11.47 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: The speech of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) reminded me of an April day; it started off with a thunderstorm, and finished with sunshine—to be followed by the merry month of May. It is evident that there is not much point in dividing the House upon this question at the moment. So far as providing staff transport is concerned, it seems to me that it is a much more simple proposition, than providing transport for Members. The staff are fixed in number, or nearly so, and go home to the same places every night, whereas in the case of Members we should have to provide for variable numbers. If the Financial Secretary can give us an undertaking that no charge

  1927
  shall fall upon public funds, in respect of Members, for their carriage home or for a proportion of the standing charges, I think that we should be able to accept an assurance of that sort. Both sides are agreed that no charge should fall upon public funds in respect of Members, but we are not satisfied that the Financial Secretary has given us such an undertaking. If he could give such an undertaking, the difference between the two sides of the House would be removed.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If it will help to bring these proceedings to an end, I most certainly can give that undertaking, and in order to implement it to the full, I would suggest, if it finds favour with hon. Members opposite, that steps be taken during the Recess, through the usual channels, to discuss this matter. In that way perhaps we can see that the sums charged to Members of Parliament, when they travel by these buses, will be such as will implement to the full, the undertaking I now give on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the clear assurance which has removed the doubts which have been in our minds from the beginning of this Debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Resolved:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that provision should be made for transport for Members and officers of this House, and persons attending on the service thereof, when the House is adjourned at an hour when normal transport facilities are not available."

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Twelve.