Lords Sitting of 18 December 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REPRINTING) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (SAFEGUARDING OF PUBLIC) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make better provision for safeguarding the public against the dangers arising from the use of motor vehicles on the roads, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mottistone.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN AND LORD SANDERSON.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That leave be given to the Viscount Snowden and the Lord Sanderson to vote in the House during the present Session.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.

MOLD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.
  BIDEFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.

    DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER ORDER, 1935.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, I beg to move that the Mold Electricity (Extension) Order, Bideford and District Electricity (Extension) Order, and Derbyshire and
    248
    Nottinghamshire Electric Power Order be agreed to.
    Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAMBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1935.
  CHELTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1935.

    GLOUCESTER GAS ORDER, 1935.
    GRAVESEND AND MILTON GAS ORDER, 1935.
    HARWICH GAS ORDER, 1935.
    PORTSMOUTH GAS (No. 2) ORDER,1935.
    STEYNING GAS ORDER, 1935.
    STIRLING GAS ORDER, 1935.
    TYLDESLEY GAS ORDER, 1935.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be agreed to.
    Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
    LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about the Gloucester Gas Order. It is not possible now to alter that Order, but I should like to ask the Government if they would be good enough to secure that in the case of similar Orders in future the Board of Trade should give special consideration to one point. The Gloucester Gas Company is changing over from the sliding scale system of conducting their business to the newer arrangement by which gas companies have a basic price of gas and a basic dividend. What I want to ask is that, when the employees of a company making a similar change are asked to choose whether they wish an old plan of paying a bonus on wages to be continued, or whether there should be the more usual scheme of profit-sharing or co-partnership, the Board of Trade will secure that the workers are given a picture of both sides of the question so that they can judge what will be the effect.

    249
    In this particular case the Gloucester Gas Company put before the workers their picture of what would be the result to the workers, and the workers, having only heard one side of the case, unanimously accepted the recommendations of their gas company, They never heard the other side, which does in fact exist. I hope, therefore, that the Board of Trade, who drew the attention of your Lordships' Committee to the fact that there was not included in this Gas Bill the normal arrangement for a sum of money to be transferred to the workers equivalent to any excess income divided amongst the shareholders, will secure that in future the workers have both sides of the question put before them before they come to a decision.
    LORD MARKS: My Lords, I happened to be a member of the Committee in which this matter was considered yesterday. We had before us one of the men, who was deputed by the whole body of workers, who had heard the explanation of the scheme, to come to us and give us his view on behalf of the men. They were entirely satisfied with that which had been explained. They understood it, and, further than that, they preferred the scheme which was then in operation to the one which was offered.
    LORD MARLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, that is what I said to the House. The men voted unanimously in favour of this scheme. I did not say anything different from that. What I said was that they only had one side put before them. They did not hear the other side, and my point to the Government was, can the Board of Trade not secure that, when the men are deciding, they shall hear the other side as well?
    LORD MARKS: My Lords, the men heard, apparently, all that could be said with reference to the scheme that was to be proposed and brought forward. There was a representative of the trade union present also to support and protect the men if need be. They could have done something different from that which they did. They might have written, they might have put an appeal or a petition before the Committee, instead of which they chose the very peculiar system of writing to one member of the Committee upon it. That, I think, is somewhat irregular, and some of us felt that as well.
    LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was also a member of the Committee and heard the discussion. With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he missed my noble friend's point. My noble friend and myself are not criticising the scheme, but it is a fact that in their gas company and in public utility companies there is a different scheme, which may be better or worse. We want to be sure in the future that, where there is an alternative scheme, it may be put before the men so that they may at any rate have it before them as well.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marley has appealed to me to take certain action. I did not know, until a few minutes before I came in, that he was going to raise this subject this afternoon, or I might have been prepared with a fuller answer. All I can say at the moment is that I will bring his remarks to the notice of my right honourable friend the President and we will see what can be done in future eases.
    LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved with a. modification.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved with a modification.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF THE PIGS MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR, (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I gave a short explanation of the alterations proposed in this Order. Your Lordships will appreciate the fact that from time to time Amendments of Marketing

251
Schemes have to be put forward in the light of the experience gained of their working. The Pigs Marketing Board have had two years' experience of administering their Scheme and have now submitted proposals designed to improve the running of the machine. The Amendments do not raise any new questions of principle; the main features of the Scheme remain as Parliament approved it in 1933.
The Amendments, already explained in the Blue Paper which is available to your Lordships, may be grouped into three categories. The first are those which deal with the internal administration of the Board and which primarily concern the producers' interests only—namely, the power to remove the chairman and vice-chairman from office, the payment of members of the Board and the procedure for elections. Those are Amendments 1, 2 and 9 to 13. In the second category are those that deal with the marketing provisions of the Scheme and affect other interests as well as those of the producers. These are Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7. The third category contains those which are consequential on the above or are made for the purpose of conforming with the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which became law after the Pigs Scheme was approved. Those are Amendments 5, 8 and 14.
As to the first group, it may be sufficient to say that they are mainly the domestic concern of the producers themselves. As to the second group, the main alterations deal with the sections relating to the registration and confirmation of contracts made between pig producers and curers. The machinery for the confirmation of contracts is left intact, but the procedure for registration has been improved. Under the Scheme as it stands, the Board can refuse registration if the contract was received by the Board more than fourteen days after it was made, or if it was not in the prescribed form, or if it was received by the Board after a prescribed date in the year preceding the year in which the pigs are contracted to be delivered. A further ground of refusal related to 1933 pigs only. As stated in the printed explanations, this machinery is rather out of date.
The Amendments provide that the Board shall register all contracts received
252
within a prescribed date, but they may subsequently cancel the registration if it is found that the contract is not in the prescribed form, or that either of the parties has made a "side" contract incompatible with the prescribed contract, or has defaulted in a previous contract. In the case of late contracts the Board have a discretion whether they shall register it or not, but by an agreement made between the Pigs and Bacon Boards at the public inquiry, and given effect to in the Amendment, they may not register a late contract unless they are satisfied that the bacon will be taken into account in any regulation of supplies, or the Bacon Board have agreed to the registration. An important addition to the procedure requires the Board to inform the registered producer when they have confirmed his contract, or, if they have cancelled the registration, to tell him the grounds on which they have done so. If the producer is aggrieved by the cancellation of his contract he can refer the matter to arbitration.
Amendment No. 4 deals with the power to prescribe the manner in which pigs shall be insured or transported by, or on behalf of, registered producers. The Committee of Investigation for Great Britain have considered complaints regarding the insurance and transport of pigs. They found, first of all, that a system of uniform insurance is essential for the stability and well-being of the pig industry, and secondly, that a flat-rate transport system is necessary for the operation of the Pigs and Bacon Schemes. The Amendment which rests upon Section 5 (f) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, will remove doubts as to the power of the Board to prescribe the manner in which pigs, or any quantity thereof, shall be insured or transported by or on behalf of producers. The Amendments, as modified by the Minister and the Secretary of State, and in the form now presented to the House, will, I think, conduce to the more efficient operations of the Pigs Marketing Scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and mount Royal.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I just want to raise one point on these Amendments, because it may not be within the

253
knowledge of members of your Lordships' House as to what exactly Amendment No. 4 really means. If you will glance at Section 38 of the Pigs Marketing Scheme, copies of which are on the Table, you will see that paragraph (f) only deals with the regulation of the manner in which pigs are insured, and, by the modification of the Order which is now being dealt with in this House, there is to be added the transportation. The position is that the Pigs Marketing Board made an agreement with the railway companies, which has been in operation, whereby a flat rate for the transport of pigs exists, and what is so entirely away from common sense is that in this flat rate agreement arrangements have been made whereby money must be paid to the railway companies for pigs which are not transported. That is to say, a farmer sends his pigs to the curing establishment by his own lorry, and he has to pay the railway company 2s. 1d for every pig which is sent, less a discount of a few pence, 4d. or 5d., in addition to the cost of sending the pigs by his own lorry.
There are cases where a farmer living near a curing establishment has to send his pigs only five or six miles. It costs him 6d. or 8d. per pig to send them in his own lorry, and he still has to pay 1s. 7d. or 1s. 8d. per pig in addition, merely because the Marketing Board have a flat-rate arrangement with the railway companies to pay 2s. 1d. for every pig dealt with at the bacon factory. That is against common sense. We on this Bench are not against a flat rate, because it assists distant farmers, but why should farmers who are near to a curing establishment; have to pay this 2s.1d., less a little discount, for every pig which is not transported by the railways? It cannot be a good answer by the railway companies that they would gave to raise the price for pigs if payment were only made for those transported by them, because it costs nothing to the railways not to transport a pig. If, for example, the contract is for the transport of 200,000 pigs, and in point of fact only 150,000 are transported, it cannot cost the railway company any more to transport 150,000 than it does to transport 200,000. We should have an explanation of this particular provision. I think the facts which I have given are accurate—if they are not the noble Lord
254
will correct me—and if they are I think, as I have said, your Lordships are being asked to do something not entirely in accordance with Common sense as far as we are capable of judging in this House.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to let me know, this morning, that he intended to raise this point, and I have looked into it. I must admit that at first sight I have considerable sympathy with the point which he raises. As he says, there are examples of classes of farmers who are affected somewhat unfairly by this Order, as, for example, farmers who are located close to bacon factories, and Co-operative Retail Societies owning their own transport, who have been able in the past to draw all their pigs from the neighbourhood; but it must not be forgotten that for every farmer who lives near a bacon factory there are a much greater number who are not so fortunately situated, and that for every bacon factory which can draw all its pig supplies from its neighbourhood there are a number, both private and co-operative, large and small, who are compelled to draw at least a part of their pig supplies from much farther afield.
This is entirely a business matter of a kind which Marketing Boards were intended by Parliament to settle, with the help of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, in such a way as to secure the greatest good for the greatest number of their constituents. Parliament recognised that in so doing the Marketing Boards must benefit some producers more than others and, therefore, set up the Committee of Investigation to investigate and to remedy complaints, and made the public interest the important test by which the Committee should be guided. Thus the producer or bacon curer who wishes to complain against the flat rate system must show not only that he individually has been injured, but that the system is not in the public interest. When the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress complained to the Committee of Investigation on this very matter they satisfied the Committee that some curers were undoubtedly paying more for transport than previously but they did not satisfy the Committee that the system was not in the public interest: in fact the Committee found that the system was necessary for the efficient

255
operation of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Schemes. In the course of the hearing it was claimed by the Bacon Marketing Board, which was speaking on behalf of their colleagues, the Pigs Marketing Board, that the industry as a whole was likely to benefit from the system to the extent of £50,000 a year. In view of that saving and the fact that we have to take into consideration the public interest and the general welfare as a whole, I hope the noble Lord will rest content.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR, WATER AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill, like the Bill I introduced to your Lordships yesterday, is very nearly a hardy annual, but not quite, because the rule, as your Lordships know, is that whenever the Public Works Loans Commissioners come to the end of their money they have to come to Parliament in order to get a new Bill. The last Bill, which was in charge in this House of my noble friend Lord Stanhope, was passed in July of last year. This Bill differs from the Bill of last year in that Clause 1 contains the names of the Commissioners. These Commissioners are appointed for five years from the 1st April in any given year. In this case they were appointed as from the 1st April, 1931, and their term of office therefore expires on the 1st April next, and they have to be reappointed for five years as from that date. They receive no emoluments for their services.
Clause 2 authorises the National Debt Commissioners to issue for the purpose of loans to the Public Works Loans Commissioners sums not exceeding £20,000,000. Clause 3 deals with a feature of nearly every borrowing and lending institution,
256
in which you sometimes have bad debts. Clause 4 deals with the special case of Eyemouth Harbour and remits the outstanding debt of£200, plus £53 17s. interest. Clause 5 is rather complicated and deals with an attempt to simplify the accounting of the Fund. Clause 6 deals with relief in respect of interest on loans, and directs that if it should prove possible, as the result of conversion of local loans stock, to reduce rates of interest on any existing loan made out of the Fund, that relief shall be passed on to the ultimate borrower in cases where the money has been re-lent under statutory powers. Clause 7 is the Short Title. I do not think the Bill presents any novel or unusual features. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends offer no opposition to the Bill, which contains no new features; but the very fact that it contains no new features tempts me to ask whether there has not been some change in Government policy with regard to public works. I understood at the recent Election that the Government intended to embark on a great scheme of public works for the relief of unemployment, and indeed I thought they were rather seeking to steal the thunder of the Council of Action. Now I see that the usual orthodox sum of£20,000,000 is put in as the upper limit under the control of the National Debt Commissioners. £20,000,000 will not go very far when we consider the number of harbour works, bridges and so on that are required. Perhaps the noble Lord could say a word on this point and tell us that the Government policy of deflation and parsimonious economy is over, and that they are going to encourage useful and necessary works up and down the country, many of which are urgently required. I know that bridges may be con-strutted with help from the Road Fund, but nevertheless there are many other works that might well come under this Bill if money were available.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: In answer to the noble Lord I would refer him to the last item on the Order Paper to-day, the Railways (Agreement) Bill, the Second Reading of which I am also going to have the honour of moving. I think he will find there that the policy he adumbrates is

257
being very carefully and fully carried out by His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

REFRESHMENT ROOMS AND LAVATORIES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Message read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in moving the Resolution which stands in my name I would like to explain to your Lordships that this is to re-constitute a Committee which was set up in June last. Since that was during the old Parliament it is necessary to have a fresh Resolution, and accordingly it was moved in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely: "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the accommodation for refreshment rooms and lavatories in the Palace of Westminster."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. RETIREMENT OF THE HEAD MESSENGER IN PRINTED PAPER OFFICE.
The Committee granted an extension of service to Mr. James Howard, the Head Messenger in the Printed Paper Office, from the 21st January, 1936, to the 31st March, 1936, and approved a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1909, amounting to £67 18s. 6d. and an additional allowance of £181 2s. 8d. payable to him on his retirement on the latter date.
2. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1935,
A Supplementary Estimate to meet the excess due to the final restoration of cuts and of full consolidation amounting to £739 was laid before the Committee.
3. ESTIMATE, 1936.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for the year 1936 was laid. before the Committee.
4. CLERK TO THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
The Committee sanctioned an extension of service to Captain J. W. Townsend, M.B.E., Clerk to the Lord Great Chamberlain, from 21st January, 1936, for two years, the war having prevented him from taking up his duties on his appointment in 1914.
5. ALLOWANCE TO RESIDENT SUPERINTENDENT.
The Committee approved the payment of a further sum of £8 16s. for services in connection with the temporary residence now occupied by the Resident Superintendent.
6. SUB-COMMITTEES.
The following Sub-Committees were appointed:—
(1)Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Rooms:
The Earl of Lucan, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) Sub-Committee on the Library:
The Marquess of Crewe, the Earl of Ilchester, the Lord Wigan (E. Crawford), the Lord Hylton, the Lord Colebrooke, the Lord Ernle, the Lord Darling, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Marley, and the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS (AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is introduced for the purpose of empowering the Treasury to carry out its part of an agreement which was concluded between the Treasury and the four main line railway companies. Under that agreement, as was announced in the Press on November 5, the railway companies, subject to grants to them of the necessary Parliamentary powers, will put in hand a most extensive programme of reconstruction and improvements at a cost of £29,500,000. It was laid down as

259
a condition by the Government that the works, of which a description is given in the First Schedule of the Bill, should be additional to the normal railway programme and such as could not be undertaken at present on an economic basis by the railways themselves without Government assistance. The form which this assistance takes is a guarantee of the principal and interest of a loan of nominal amount sufficient to raise not more than £26,500,000, which sum will then be re-lent to the railways at the same effective rate of interest as that which will be paid on the guaranteed loan itself. It is the cheapness of this borrowing for the railway companies which makes it possible to bring forward to the immediate present works which otherwise they could not have afforded to carry out probably for several years to come.
The Bill, which contains only two operative clauses and a long Schedule, which itself contains a Schedule, is a somewhat complicated one at first sight, but not so much so when you come to look into it. I think that noble Lords, if they read the Schedule and the Schedule which is attached thereto, will find it exceedingly interesting reading. Clause 1 empowers the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of securities to be issued by a finance company to be formed by the Treasury under Clause 3 of the Agreement which is contained in the Schedule to raise an amount not exceeding £26,500,000. The Bill also authorises payment from the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling the Treasury guarantee and the receipt by the Exchequer of any moneys received by way of repayment. These provisions follow the recognised practice in cases of this kind.
Under Clause 2 the Bill also provides for the exemption from Stamp Duty of the Agreement and certain other consequential Agreements to be entered into in terms of Clause 2 (b) of the Agreement. As the law stands Loan Capital Duty might be payable on this Agreement (or any Agreements in variation of it), and then again upon the securities issued as the result of the Agreement. The intention of this exemption is that the railway companies shall not be called upon to pay Loan Capital Duty twice
260
over as a result of the special machinery adopted in this case to implement the arrangements with the Government. The guaranteed securities to be issued by the new company will bear the ordinary Loan Capital Duty of 2s. 6d. per £100, and at the end of the term of the guaranteed loan Capital Duty at the reduced rate of 6d. per £100 will be payable by the railway companies on any stocks issued for the purpose of converting the original borrowings. The terms of this exemption follow exactly the exemption given in the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Act.
The railway companies in respect of certain of the works to be undertaken will require further statutory powers and they are under obligation in terms of the Agreement to seek those powers in the present Session of Parliament. The total amount of money to be lent to the railway companies is £26,500,000, whereas the total cost of the scheduled works is £29,500,000. The difference of £3,000,000 is represented by money which two of the companies—the London, Midland and Scottish and the Southern—will themselves find from sources other than the guaranteed loan. The machinery adopted in this case, and indeed the Agreement itself, follow very closely the precedent of the London Transport case.
I have explained to the best of my ability the main proposals of the Bill. His Majesty's Government consider this Bill to be a good example of the policy which, I think, was referred to just now by the noble Lord opposite of promoting useful schemes of public work which offer both prospects of providing employment and also of adding to the valuable assets of the country. If your Lordships will look at pages 12 to 14 of the Bill you will be able to judge how very far-reaching these works, additions and improvements are going to be, including as they do the rebuilding of Euston Station, the making of over 400 new steam engines on the two Northern systems, and the building of two railway lines on the Great Western Railway. His Majesty's Government hope very much that a great deal of this work will fall to be done in the special areas. All this will be done, I think it is safe to prophesy, without costing the taxpayers a penny. We hope that this is not the last scheme of the kind. His Majesty's Government look on the works announced in this Bill as a sound means of providing

261
employment and, in addition, of improving and increasing the safety and comfort of the travelling public and the efficient carrying of their goods. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, so far as I can judge, this Bill is another step in the direction followed hitherto by His Majesty's Government of forcing down the reward on capital in order to force up the rates of wages. His Majesty's Government are caught in the vicious circle of being obliged to go on paying the working classes of this country wages that they do not earn, and in order to do this they have to force down the reward on capital which in many cases has reached vanishing point. With regard to the Bill itself I think a great deal of useful work undoubtedly can be carried out on the railways. There are a great many developments that can very satisfactorily be carried out; but I should like to say a few words on our old friend, railway electrification, which I see has made its appearance again. We can never have any Bill brought in about railways when the electrifiers are not hard at work. I see, for instance, that the Sheffield and Manchester line is to be electrified. The only advantage I can perceive in that is that it will be very nice to get rid of the smoke in Woodhead tunnel; but that any profit is going to come from it I do not believe. As for the Southern Railway, they go on and on flinging away the shareholders' money, and there is nobody to stop them.
I wonder whether in this matter of electrification the Government have taken any steps whatever to satisfy themselves that railway electrification is satisfactory and economical. I should be very much interested to hear Whether the noble Lord can tell us anything about that. With regard to surface railways—I am not now speaking of underground railways, where electrification is necessary for special reasons—all the information that exists, and it is mostly negative, shows that electrification is one of the most dangerous delusions of modern times. Far the biggest scheme of electrification is that which has been carried out on the Southern Railway. I have so often raised that subject here before that I do not pro
262
pose to say a great deal to your Lordships on it now. I would merely point out that though the directors of the Southern Railway have been asked over and over again by every kind of person, including their shareholders, for full particulars of the financial results of Southern Railway electrification, the railway shareholders have simply been refused information. Odds and ends of carefully selected figures have been published by various Southern Railway officials at public dinners and so on, but really to anybody who knows anything about the subject they prove absolutely nothing whatever. The whole thing is deliberately involved in the deepest possible fog.
As railway and other companies are not as a rule backward in giving particulars of their policy when it has been successful, it is perfectly obvious to everybody who cares to look at the thing from an unprejudiced point of view that the electrification of the Southern Railway is a costly mistake. There is no doubt about it at all, and if the Government are going to lend a lot of money to the railway companies, one of their very first duties before they do so should be to satisfy themselves that the money will be economically and satisfactorily expended. One particular trouble about electrification, as has lately been pointed out in The Engineer, which is one of the most important technical papers, is that it is like the bed of Procrustes. When you once have electrification no developments in other directions are possible because of the enormous capital cost you have already expended. I dare say it would be cheaper, after having expended all this money, to go on working the railway with electricity, but it would be far better to save the money and spend it in developing other and much more satisfactory means of traction.
We are going ahead fast. The Diesel engine, and particularly the steam locomotive, have been improved out of all knowledge within the last year or two. All this will simply be put a dead stop to by this policy of electrification. I hope His Majesty's Government will be very careful before they give their consent to anything of this kind. Above all things I hope that we shall not hear that the railway managers know their own business best. The history of British railways contains incident after

263
incident in which British railway managers have shown that they do not know their own business best. One thing only I need point out, their opposition to block signals and continuous brakes, which no one in his senses at the present day would say was otherwise than hopeless. There are many other instances. I will only draw your Lordships' attention to one, and that is this business of third-class sleeping carriages. It has been a brilliant success, but I do not know for how many years the railway managers flatly refused to have anything to do with it.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Cross Benches has really used this Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill in order to raise a debate apparently on the iniquities of the electrification of railways, and I really do not think he can expect me to give him an answer on that question to-day.
LORD MONKSWELL: Are you not going to find out about it?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: If the noble Lord will give me a chance I am about to answer him. I will, of course, bring what the noble Lord has said to the notice of the proper authorities, and, if he likes to raise the subject again in the new year, no doubt he will get an answer either from myself or from someone else. As regards this Bill, I can only say it is produced by the Government in order to stimulate employment, and the railways, before they embark on any of those projects
264
for which they are going to get guaranteed public money, will have to obtain Parliamentary authority. I think I need say no more on the subject, and I hope that now I may get a Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill introduced in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, as amended by the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1933, have been complied with:
East Lothian County Council—(Substituted Bill).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

THE RECESS.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, before the House adjourns I have been requested by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Halifax) to say, in answer to a question which the noble Lord, Lord Marley, put yesterday, that the date of our re-assembly after the Christmas vacation is Tuesday, February 4.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before five o'clock.