Lords Sitting of 14 October 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DUMFRIES ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1941.
Special Order, dated 9th October, 1941, in respect of part of the Borough of Dumfries:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ESTATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you will be aware that we have before us nearly every Session what is known as an Estate Bill, a Bill dealing with settlements, wills and things of that kind—a personal Bill. The procedure in the case of such Bills is rather peculiar: before being given a Second Reading the Bill is referred to two of the Judges of the High Court, who make a Report upon it. That has been the practice for a great many years. I think that it was instituted before the Act of 1876, which gave your Lordships' House the advantage of the presence of the Law Lords. It has worked very well, and we arc grateful to His Majesty's Judges for the assistance which they have given us and for the trouble they have taken; but it is rather a cumbersome procedure, and, now that your Lordships have the advantage of so much legal talent to advise the House, it occurred to me that we might perhaps substitute a different and more convenient procedure and save the Judges the trouble.
I therefore ventured to consult my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and I have been able to secure his concurrence in the course which is proposed in the Standing Order which is printed on the Paper. The Standing Order is really a very simple one; it merely substitutes a Committee for the two Judges. Your Lordships will see of whom it is proposed that the Committee should consist: the Earl of Donoughmore, Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Maugham and Lord Romer, to-
212
gether with the Chairman of Committees. The proposal is that this Committee should act in exactly the same way as the Judges have acted, and report in the same manner. I wanted to bring this before your Lordships' House at an early date, because it may be that Estate Bills will come before us—I have not heard of any as yet—and it is desirable that the agents and any parties interested should be aware of this change in procedure, which is not really a very big one, and which will make no difference to them, since it merely substitutes a Committee of your Lordship's House for two of His Majesty's Judges. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Estate Bills be amended as follows:

ESTATE BILLS.

  Part V.
  Standing Order 182—Page 69, leave out the Order and insert the following New Order 182:
  Petitions for Estate Bills referred to a Standing Committee.
  At the commencement of every Session a Standing Committee shall be appointed to be called the Committee on Estate Bills. Every Petition for an Estate Bill affecting the provisions of an English Will or Settlement shall stand referred to the Committee so soon as the Petition has been deposited in the Private Bill Office.
  The Committee shall consist of five members including the Chairman of Committees and in any proceedings on such a Petition, three members shall form a quorum.
  The Committee shall, in the case of every Estate Bill the Petition for which is referred to them by this Standing Order, report to the House whether, presuming the statements of fact alleged in the preamble as grounds for the passing of the Bill to be proved to the satisfaction of the House, it is reasonable that the Bill do pass into law, and whether the provisions thereof are proper for carrying its purposes into effect, and what amendments, if any, are required therein.
  In the event of the Committee approving the Bill the Chairman of the Committee shall sign a copy of the same containing the Amendments (if any) recommended by the Committee.
  A copy of the Committee's Report and (in any case in which Amendments are

  213
  recommended by the Committee) of the Bill containing the Amendments shall be supplied to the Agents for the Bill.
  Page 69—After Order 182 insert the following New Order:
  No Estate Bill to be read 1a, till Standing Committee has reported to the House.
  No Estate Bill to which Standing Order 182 applies shall be read a first time until the report of the Standing Committee on Estate Bills on the Petition has been made to the House.
  Standing Order 184—Page 70, line 6, after ("Bill") insert ("to which Standing Order 183 applies").
  Standing Order 186—Page 70, line 13, after ("Committee") insert ("other than the Committee on Estate Bills").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to. The said new Standing Orders and Amendments to be printed.

MARRIAGE (MEMBERS OF HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Alteration of place of marriage.
1.—(1) Where the parties to an intended marriage have duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in a building in England, then, if either of the parties, being a member of His Majesty's Forces, has obtained from the appropriate authority a certificate that owing to the exigencies of His Majesty's service he or she cannot go to that building, the marriage may, during the war period—

(a) be lawfully solemnized in any other building in England in which marriages may be lawfully solemnized, as if the parties duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in that building; or

(b) be lawfully celebrated by a minister in Scotland, or contracted in the office of an authorised registrar in Scotland, as if the parties had duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling the marriage to be so celebrated or contracted.

(2) Where the parties to an intended marriage have duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling a marriage between them to be celebrated or contracted in Scotland, then, if either of the parties, being a member of His Majesty's Forces, has obtained from the appropriate authority a certificate that owing to the exigencies of His Majesty's service he or she cannot go to Scotland to be married there, the marriage may, during the war period, be
214
lawfully solemnized in any building in England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnized, as if the parties thereto had duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in that building.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "building," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "and that the said authority has no reason to believe that he or she is already married." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two Amendments which stand in my name follow closely on the lines of that moved by my noble friend Lord Phillimore during the Committee stage a week ago. The essence of both these Amendments is that the authority who grants the certificate, to the effect that the man or woman concerned is unable to get to the place at which, originally, it had been arranged that the marriage should take place, is required to amplify that certificate by a statement that he has no reason to believe that the man or woman is already married. As a matter of fact these two Amendments go beyond what was moved by my noble friend last week, in that they apply not only to marriages originally arranged to take place in England, but also to marriages originally arranged to take place in Scotland. I hope very much that what I have said meets the views of my noble friend, and I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, at end insert (" and that the said authority has no reason to believe that he or she is already married ").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord and the Government for this Amendment, which entirely carries out what was in the minds of myself and my supporters at the time. It is therefore very satisfactory that this should go through as an agreed Amendment. I would like, if I may, to add one word and it is that, as a result of the publication of the debate which ensued on this Amendment in the House, I have had certain correspondence which does go to show that quite simple steps could be taken to make more difficult the crime of bigamy. I think that in other times it might be worth while for that subject to be looked into further.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMOKE: My Lords, in subsection (2), after "there", I beg to insert the words as printed.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("there") insert ("and that the said authority has no reason to believe that he or she is already married.")—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH RAILWAYS.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to inquire whether the technical and administrative development of British railways is included in His Majesty's Government's planning for the post-war period; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have lately issued a White Paper giving particulars of a financial agreement which they have made with the railways of this country. Under this agreement the Government have taken over a large amount of responsibility for railway finance. At the same time we are told that the Government are planning for increased national efficiency in all directions during the post-war period, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the dependence of railway finance upon railway efficiency and the importance of including railways within the scope of the planning arrangements. I have on previous occasions put before you matters bearing on railway efficiency and railway finance when the Government were not directly interested. Now that the Government have taken over responsibility for railway finance—a responsibility that they will obviously have to continue for some time after the war, if not permanently—they automatically become directly interested in railway efficiency.
When I raised this matter a year or two ago in another connexion, I was told that the Government proposed to do nothing about it. They then appeared to take the rather strange view that they were not interested. I can hardly suppose that they are still of that opinion. I do not wish to criticize the proposals of the Government for tiding over the war period which, in view of the chaotic conditions into which railway finance has been allowed to drift, appear to me to be as good a practical arrangement as could be expected, but I
216
wish to call attention to what seems to me the need for the Government at once to take in hand the question of what should be done after the war. The difficulties which we are now experiencing in regard to railway finance are the climax of the series of muddles that had their origin in very early days, and in order that present day conditions may be properly understood it is necessary to say a few words about the past.
The invention of railways produced such a completely new set of conditions that this country in particular, being as it was the country where railways were first introduced, and being therefore unable to profit from the experience of other countries, failed to make proper arrangements for the future. The first bad mistake was made when failure to appreciate the scale of future requirements led to the adoption of a too narrow gauge of the rails, with—far more important—insufficient breadth and head room. The consequence is that British railways have never been so economical to work as they would have been if they had been built to enlarged dimensions. An even more serious trouble was the absence of competition. From the beginning railways showed themselves so far superior to any other form of inland transport that no competition was possible. In these circumstances there quickly grew up a race of railway officials whose dominant idea was to secure for themselves a quiet life, with the least possible amount of change and development. They succeeded so well that, though it cannot be said that development ceased altogether, its pace for fully eighty years was so desperately slow that all sorts of unfortunate results followed.
One in particular that has led to endless trouble of the acutest kind was that the railway servants did not get the improved equipment which should have made the work of each man more efficient and more productive, and should have justified higher wages. The only real justification for higher wages is, of course, more efficient and productive work; any rise secured otherwise merely means that somebody else must pay. It is into this economic morass that the failure of the railway managements to make reasonable progress has plunged the railways. During their long period of stagnation the railway managements behaved as if the conditions which existed in the middle of the nineteenth century were going to last for ever.

217
Moderate dividends were easily earned, so the shareholders gave no trouble; labour was cheap and the railway servants were mostly unorganized, and so gave equally little trouble. Heavy industrial freights were subsidized by means of high charges on high-class merchandise, and so the principal customers of the railways were kept quiet. In this way the crazy structure remained standing till the early years of the twentieth century, when trade union organization among the railway servants began to make serious inroads on railway finance, and soon made the payment of dividends on the junior stocks extremely precarious.
It is at the present time undesirable to open a contentious subject, so I will merely say that in view of this action by trade unions the railway shareholders were extremely badly served by the managements, who failed to organize them for their own protection or to give them any bargaining power. The only attempt to do anything at all was that of Mr. William Whitelaw who, so far as I can remember, as Chairman of the Highland Railway, at a general meeting at Inverness invited his shareholders to pay voluntary subscriptions for the protection of their own interests. Your Lordships may think that to ask a Scottish meeting to subscribe a large sum of money for a vaguely specified object was hardly the way to launch a serious campaign. Anyhow Mr. White-law's idea came to nothing. Nothing was done, and the shareholders, whose thrift had made the building of railways possible, were left in the lurch. Neither was anything adequate done for many years to improve the efficiency of the railways, and things went from bad to worse, usually at the expense of the shareholders. Finally, some ten years before the present war began things got so bad that the railway managements appear to have woken up, the old inertia largely disappeared, and a whole series of great improvements was made. Most of these, which comprise improvements to permanent way, engines, signals, and passenger and goods services might just as easily have been put in hand in 1850. Though progress for the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the present war was in most, though not in all, directions satisfactory, it has been impossible in ten years to make up for the neglect of eighty years, and railway finance is still in a state of chaos.
The question of the financial interests of the shareholders is one that deserves the closest and most sympathetic consideration. Here are a large band of citizens whose own, or whose predecessors', thrift has provided the country with a vital public service and one which, so far from being over-capitalized, possesses assets which, at present-day prices, could not be replaced for twice the nominal capital. These unhappy people have been singled out to bear losses from which the shareholders in most other public services are immune. As regards technical efficiency, the railways were attending to this matter themselves fairly satisfactorily in the years immediately before the present war, and so long as this continues little interference is necessary, but it is important to see that the railways really attend to it, and not to forget the eighty largely wasted years from the middle of last century which are responsible for the difficulties in which the railways now find themselves. While the war lasts we must get along the best way we can with our existing equipment, and must make the best temporary arrangements we can to meet the situation with which we are confronted. No large-scale development is possible. But, sooner or later, the war will come to an end, and something will have to be done about the railways, both as regards the financial interests of the shareholders and also the technical efficiency of the railways themselves. Neither of these matters is much affected by the question of nationalization. At the present time the railway shareholders have lost all control of their property. The only parties who have any influence are the Government, the railway officials, and the trade unions, and, short of some great political upheaval, this is likely to remain the case whether the railways are nationalized or not.
It is easy to find matters which lend themselves to planning. One of the worst defects of British railways has always been their neglect of punctuality. Unpunctuality is by no means a mild and unimportant fault. While it has been the cause of many bad accidents, it is also most wasteful both of time and labour. I need not emphasize this; it is obvious to your Lordships. But, for some inscrutable reason, the railways have always been terrified of issuing to their men any clear

219
printed instructions about making up lost time. Most big European railways do issue clearly-defined, printed instructions so that their men know exactly where they are and what is expected of them. The electrification of surface railways is a matter that would repay very close investigation. Many competent critics believe it to be a serious mistake, and there are no figures available to the public to do anything to dispel this belief. In fact, the incompleteness of the figures that have been given, and the omission of all information that would allow a balanced judgment to be reached, are reminiscent of nothing so much as of the methods of Dr. Goebbels.
Then there is a matter to which I have already alluded. Railway goods and mineral rates are based on the principle of subsidy. Heavy industrial freights are charged less than the cost of their transport, and the difference is made up by charging high-class merchandise much more than the cost of its transport. So long as there was no road competition, this vicious system could be made to work, but since road transport has become an accomplished fact the railway interests raise a bitter cry that the high-class stuff is all being sent by road, and that the subsidy on which they rely is being torn from them. I suggest that it would be much more honest and satisfactory to charge all freights the approximate cost of carriage, and to make no attempt to differentiate. In my view this country is in serious danger of dying of subsidies.
There is much to be done in the way of improving the steam locomotive. It will not be far wrong to put the average of useful work performed by all the locomotives in this country at something between 5 and 6 per cent. of the power set free by the complete combustion of the fuel used. A number of simple improvements has made it possible to build engines that will return 11 per cent.—that is to say, they do double the work for each unit of fuel burned. The coal burned by all the engines in this country in the course of a year is about 13,000,000 tons. I do not suggest that this could be halved, because the engines which return 11 per cent. are no doubt in a better state of repair than the average engine in this country, but I think that to save a quarter is well within the range of possibility. That would
220
economize more than 3,000,000 tons of coal, costing, I suppose, about £3,000,000. Ever since railways were introduced there has been trouble with the rail-joints. Every wheel in every train receives a jolt as it passes from each length of rail to the next. It is gradually becoming apparent that this defect can be overcome. Longer and longer rail-lengths have been laid down, with a corresponding reduction in the number of joints and, rather surprisingly, it was found that the intervals left for expansion need not be lengthened as the rail was lengthened. Really solid and strong permanent way, with the rails firmly attached to the sleepers, seems to have such a grip of the rails that their tendency to expand with heat can be overcome, and very long continuous lengths can be secured by welding. This major improvement has not yet proceeded far, but it should be energetically pursued and planned for.
As I have already remarked, I am glad to say that some at least of these and kindred matters are already receiving attention from the railways, but there is plenty left that lends itself to large-scale planning, and great reason to suppose that energetic and instructed supervision would do much to keep the railways up to the mark. Whether or not the railways are nationalized, financial results will depend upon technical and administrative efficiency. This efficiency has in the past been allowed to lapse, with disastrous results upon railway finance, and I hope the Government will be able to assure us that they are now making plans for continuously developing the efficiency of the railways after the war, or for ensuring that the railways will do it for themselves. I beg to move.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I always look forward to debates in your Lordships' House when the noble Lord is going to speak because he never fails to produce a speech of interest, with criticisms which at all events deserve attention. I am never quite sure whether the noble Lord is to be classed as a friendly or a hostile critic. On this occasion I like to think that in spite of a tinge of acerbity which crept into his remarks from time to time he still is a friendly critic. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth." That is certainly true of the noble Lord opposite. The points which he has brought to the attention of your Lord-

221
ships are of very great interest. I venture to say that they are really more technical than administrative, but be they in one or other of these categories they do deserve and are receiving, if I may say so, close and continuous attention.
Before I turn to the wider aspect of what I conceive to be included in the term "planning" which my noble friend opposite really, to my way of thinking, did not touch upon at all, I would like to refer to one or two of the points which my noble friend has made but which, in relation to the wider aspects of planning are, if I may say so, of comparatively small importance. The noble Lord told us that from 1850 to 1930 the railways were all sound asleep. He also committed himself to the view, which I think was a little bold, that all the improvements to which he is glad to pay tribute which have been made in the last ten years could equally have been made in 1850.
LORD MONKSWELL: From 1850.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: 1850 is a date when I suppose the grandfathers of many of your Lordships were celebrating with great family rejoicings the births of the fathers of many of your Lordships. It is a good long time ago, and to take one development of modern science alone, electrical science, I suppose it was non-existent in 1850. How much of our technical improvements to-day could have been carried out without the development of electrical science? The noble Lord said that the railways in the beginning suffered from two very great defects: firstly, that they were unable to profit by the experiences of others; and secondly, that a race of railway officials had grown up who thought of nothing but a quiet time for themselves. As to the first point, the noble Lord is right, but that clearly is the penalty of the railways in this country having been pioneers. I do not think the noble Lord can deny that. It Is perfectly true that it would have been much easier for the British railways to have developed satisfactorily if they had had greater breadth and headroom, but the mere fact that these handicaps are imposed upon them are, I think it must be admitted, handicaps arising from their having been pioneers.
As to the inertia of which railways are accused, I would be the last to deny that when the railways had a complete
222
monopoly they did suffer from the defects of monopoly and there was sometimes a lack of enterprise which was regrettable. But that, I think, may be usefully reflected upon when we consider what the state of affairs would be if the railways were once again turned into a complete monopoly in the hands of the State. The noble Lord made some reference to nationalization, and I do not know whether he thinks that nationalization of the railways as a State enterprise would contribute to efficiency. I do not suppose he does, but, if not, it is because you would be returning to those days of monopoly to which he has alluded, not perhaps quite fairly, but with some degree at all events of justification.
I now turn to some of the specific points which the noble Lord made. He talked of punctuality. Perhaps I need hardly say that the importance of punctuality is a point which has occurred from time to time to railway managements, and I think it is fair to say that the greatest enemies of punctuality are frost and snow and fog and other natural difficulties of that kind. The noble Lord complained that there were no clear instructions about making up time. There is a very important factor which enters into that and that is the safety factor. You cannot give instructions to men about making up time without very great regard to the speeds which must not be exceeded. But I am not belittling in any way the importance of punctuality. Punctuality is, of course, essential and it is the constant endeavour of railways to achieve it. I shall say a word or two later as to why I do not think that nationalization or another system of railway management would secure greater efficiency than the present one, and punctuality is a test of efficiency.
Electrification. I agree with my noble friend that main line electrification is a thing which would have to be proceeded with with great caution. It depends on the density of the traffic. The Southern Railway is the main example of electrification at the present time, and the system of the Southern Railway is peculiarly suited for that. The most important main line electrification which was contemplated and was about to be put into effect before the war was the stretch of line on the London and North Eastern Railway between Manchester and Sheffield, and that was about to be commenced when war

223
broke out. The work has been suspended, but the delay has not been altogether useless, because there has been constructed during these years one of the type of electric locomotives which was considered to be most suitable for the work, and it is only within the last week or two—your Lordships may have seen a reference to it in the Press—that it has been tested out under working conditions and has been found to be satisfactory. The delay, however, will give a chance for every possible improvement to be incorporated. That particular stretch of main line is particularly suited for electrification for reasons with which I will not weary your Lordships.
Now as to rates. The noble Lord spoke eloquently of what he called "this vicious system" as though it was a vice which resided in the railway managements. This vicious system, as the noble Lord calls it, was imposed upon the railways by Parliament when they were a monopoly, and, of course, the advent of the road traffic has rendered this system the very thing which the railways were trying to get rid of and urgently asking to be relieved of in what was known as the square-deal campaign. The noble Lord who will reply may have something to say about that, but I quite agree that under present conditions that system ought to be modified.
The noble Lord also talked about the efficiency of steam locomotives and he said that the average efficiency in this country was something like 5 or 6 per cent. I think he is putting it a little low. I have not the figures with me, and I can only say that my impression is that we obtain a better efficiency than that but not the efficiency of 11 per cent., which he states has been attained elsewhere. I should like to know where, and I am quite sure the chief engineer of my railway and the chief engineers of the other railways would be very much interested to have particulars from the noble Lord of a steam locomotive working to 11 per cent. of efficiency. Illustrating the desires and achievements of the railways I should like to tell your Lordships that at the time the war began work was proceeding at the cost of a very large sum of money—something running into hundreds of thousands of pounds—on a locomotive testing plant which was being established jointly by the London, Mid-
224
land and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway which would undoubtedly have tended greatly in the direction which the noble Lord wants. I mention that to show that the railways are alive to that problem and are doing the best they can to overcome it.
The noble Lord's last technical point had to do with the elimination of rail joints and he spoke, I think, perhaps, if I may say so, a little bit in advance of practical achievement. Railway joints, of course, are necessary, as the noble Lord told your Lordships, to provide for expansion, and interesting experiments have been made. I have seen something of them by the London Passenger Transport Board who have already laid lengths of, I think, 300 feet. Of course in the Underground Railways conditions of temperature are more equable and therefore there is not the same danger arising from expansion as there would be when railways are out on the surface. That is a matter which is being examined and pursued, and I would like to tell your Lordships—because it interested me when I saw it—how flexible a length of steel rail of 300 feet is. I have seen a length of 300 feet of rail capable of going round curves like a snake. It was quite astonishing to see the flexibility of heavy standard rails. Another point in connexion with the question of rails is a portable lifting plant which now is available and through the use of which the railways have been able to use much longer rails. Standard rails run up to 120 feet now, compared I think with the normal length of 60 feet. The weight of these rails is formidable. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that the weight of a standard rail is 95 lbs. per yard. Therefore the invention of this portable lifting machine is of great value when you are seeking continuity of rails and consequent smoothness of track.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with further matters of a technical character. I desire only to say enough to try and convince your Lordships that, however deep the sleep of the railways may have been in the last century, some of them, at all events, are nowadays awake. Before I leave that aspect of the subject, however, I would like to give your Lordships one figure to show the extent of the capital expenditure which has been incurred by the railways on im-

225
provements in the ten years from 1928 to 1938. The total expenditure on improvements during those ten years amounted to no less than £260,000,000. The total capital expenditure of all railways was £1,175,000,000, so that expenditure of £260,000,000 on improvements of all sorts derived both from capital and revenue is, I think, striking proof of the efficiency of the railways and their desire to secure further efficiency by every possible means.
I turn to the aspect of the noble Lord's Motion which I can hardly say principally interests me but is of very great interest, his reference to planning. As I understand it, planning must have reference to very much wider considerations than these technical points, of great interest as they are, to which the noble Lord referred. Your Lordships had a debate about planning and reconstruction only a few days ago. Physical reconstruction, which would be largely concerned with the railways, falls within the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who is charged with devising machinery for physical reconstruction, but at the same time the reform and reorganization of railways is of such importance from the economic point of view that quite clearly, to a large extent, it must fall within the field over which the Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, presides. Here I would like to say to the Government that it would be of great interest to all of us if we could he told, in the widest sense, what the Government are thinking and intending to do about the planning of the railways. The noble Lord referred to the possibility of nationalization. Nationalization is a term capable of many interpretations but taking it in its simplest sense, which I suppose is purchase by the State from the shareholders of the railway undertakings, I imagine it can be said, without controversy, that nationalization in that sense to-day is as dead as the dodo.
I say that for this reason, that no Government of whatever composition could, I suppose, possibly contemplate State purchase of the railways alone, leaving the railways open to unfettered competition by road transport. Plainly if the Government are going to buy the railways, they will also have to buy road transport as well. If the Government are going to buy the railways and road transport, can they leave out the great develop-
226
ment of the future which is bound to take place; that is, air transport? And can they leave out coast-wise shipping which competes with the railways, and can they leave out transport on the canals? Are they to contemplate buying in one gigantic operation the whole of these different methods of transport? What an octopus would be created and how the imagination boggles at the endeavour to produce efficiency in administering such an immense business.
I hope the Government will think once, twice and three times, before they feel quite sure that they have invented a method of railway administration which will be more efficient than that which we have already. I am inclined to think that the largest of our railway companies are somewhere near the limit of size and undertaking by which efficiency can easily be secured. Speaking from memory, I think there are something over 200,000 employees on the London Midland and Scottish Railway and a number not far under that on the London and North Eastern Railway. The total personnel of all the railways, I think I am right in saying, is over 550,000. The annual wage bill of the railways amounts to £123,000,000. These are colossal figures and the task of administering even the railways as one unit would, I feel sure, be beyond the capacity of, let us say, ordinary business people and certainly beyond the capacity of civil servants seated in Whitehall.
The administration of a great railway, with a number of employees of the order that I have mentioned, is a very complex matter. The present method of administration by means of boards of directors has often come under violent, not to say virulent criticism, but having seen something of it from the inside I am inclined to think it is a very efficient method of carrying on such a great business undertaking. You have a board composed of men chosen not for their knowledge of railways but chosen for their knowledge of general business. Some of them perhaps are heads of other great businesses with an intimate knowledge of the business with which they are concerned. You have very efficient general managers and you have a board divided into committees dealing with such things as traffic, organization, works, stores, descending to other matters such as property, hotels and

227
so on. To each of these committees come the officials of the railway; men who have risen from the ranks, men of supreme capacity, all intent to prove to their relative committees that that which they have to suggest is in the interests of efficiency. There is a considerable spirit of emulation not only between one committee and another but between one railway and another, and that spirit of emulation is a thing which, somehow or other, we must preserve if efficiency is to be maintained. They are colossal undertakings, each one of these great railways of ours, and I claim for them that at present a very high degree of efficiency is being achieved.
The present state of affairs is, of course, that the operation of the railways and their control are a Government responsibility. The Government give their orders through the Railway Executive Committee; the day-to-day administration is still carried on by the managements under the boards, and the boards, if I may say so, still have a very useful function to perform. The railways are doing their best, but I have already detained your Lordships long enough and it is not the time now to speak of what the railways have achieved. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed to deal with one other point which occurs to me. The noble Lord said that the railways woke up about 1928. What happened was that the railways were under Government management during the last war. They were handed back to the companies with tremendous arrears of maintenance to make up. They were handed back in a shocking state. But by about 1925 something like order had been restored and it was possible for the railways to look more towards the future. The noble Lord says that they woke up. They did not wake up, they emerged from the difficulties in which war circumstances had landed them. I am not blaming the Government, they had to carry on the war then, and they have to carry on the war now.
This final plea I would make to your Lordships. If, during the coming winter, some of you have difficulty in obtaining a sleeper, do not assume that it is the fault of the Government, of the boards of directors or of the management. Please remember that by the sacrifice which is imposed on you, you may be instrumental in getting, perhaps, one extra
228
truck of coal to some munition factory where its arrival is of vital importance. I hope that a thought such as that may be some slight consolation to your Lordships for any discomforts which you may have to endure. I have perhaps gone rather wide of the noble Lord's Motion, but I do thank him for having brought this matter forward. I trust that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to answer the points which have been raised in the widest possible sense, and will be able to give us a feeling of assurance that, in the midst of all the innumerable activities of the war, the Government have not overlooked the essential part which the railways have to play in the future economic development of this country, and are prepared now to devote proper attention to the planning of the whole of the transport system of this country.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who raised this important question. I feel that his speech was full of interest and I have listened to it, as indeed I have listened also to the very interesting and helpful contribution by the last speaker, very carefully indeed. As your Lordships will know, Lord Monkswell is an expert in the matter of railways. For myself I have been able to give, in more recent months, an intensive study to railway operation in the present war conditions. But I must confess that I am lacking very largely in knowledge of much of the history which Lord Monkswell has studied so exhaustively and knows so well. The Motion relates, primarily, I think, to post-war planning; planning for the efficient and proper development of our railways. Such a subject, I assure you, has the most intense interest and consideration of His Majesty's Government. Railway transport, however, cannot be considered by itself alone. The consideration of all forms and methods of transport will be involved, and, as I see it, these are so closely interlinked that they must be considered together. I would here say that Lord Monkswell has been aware of this, because he says that the rate structure which has been built up over many years will have to undergo a change in view of the development of road transport. All these things are interlinked and amongst the many post-war subjects which will

229
receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government, inland transport will be one of the most important. As your Lordships know, in recent months we have arrived at a new agreement with the four main line railway companies and with the London Passenger Transport Board. Under this new agreement the Government's control of these undertakings will continue for at least one year after the end of hostilities, and I think this period will afford the time we shall need to consider and examine in every way this very important problem of inland transport in all its aspects.
During the war the primary and pressing concern is to secure from the railways and from all forms of inland transport the greatest possible effort of which they are capable in order to cope with the increasing traffics essential to the war effort. I am not qualified to judge whether or not railway progress in those earlier years was slow. My task and the noble Lord's Motion are both concerned with the future, but it is only fair to say that the railways and their workers have achieved most creditable results since the outbreak of war, and there is good reason to think that in spite of all adverse conditions they will do yet more in a total effort to deliver the goods. It would take up a great deal of your Lordships' time if I were to recite the progress made in new works and marshalling yards, in new types of locomotives and in many other ways under the Railways (Agreement) Act of 1935. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has given us the benefit of certain information in this respect, and I do not think it would be useful to recite it again; it may suffice to say that under this Act the main-line railways expended over £16,000,000 up to September, 1939, and over the same period the London Passenger Transport Board expended some £23,000,000. This new work was in execution of schemes for speeding up traffic and generally improving railway facilities in the country. With the changes brought about by the incidence of war production, other developments have been called for, and a large amount of work has been carried out during the period of Government control so as to achieve a greater throughput of traffic, particularly in certain areas where, by reason of these changes, exceptionally heavy traffics have had to be handled.
230
I should like to say a word about the question of electrification. It is a technical matter, but I am satisfied that in the suburban areas of London and of other great cities it would have been impossible to cope with the enormous volume of passenger traffic had we not been able to make use of electrification, with its speedier acceleration and with the power which it gives us to pass through tunnels a much more frequent service of trains. There is a great deal to be said in favour of electrification from those points of view, but no one has yet been able to come to a decision as to electrification which goes beyond the needs of suburban traffic.
I should like to conclude my remarks by assuring the noble Lord that, while the immediate tasks of war occupy our first attention, much thought is being given to the problem of post-war reconstruction and progress on the railways. In this connexion, I am in touch with the Minister without Portfolio, who has general responsibility for post-war planning. I will convey to the appropriate quarters the suggestions which the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, have been good enough to make, and I know that, in view of the source from which they come, they will receive attention and the utmost care.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic reply which he has made. I am glad to hear that the Government are taking this question of railway development into consideration—I take that to be the sense of what the noble Lord has said. Although he did not go very much into detail, I trust that the various points which I have ventured to bring forward will be gone into rather closely before the war comes to an end, so that we shall be ready to start work on these matters immediately after the war.
LORD LEATHERS: Yes, certainly.
LORD MONKSWELL: My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh wished to give my Motion a much wider scope than I gave it. I followed his remarks with the greatest interest. There are, of course, many matters on which he and I do not see entirely eye to eye, but I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into them, as I do not think that

231
they would be of sufficient interest to your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONhad given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the need for immediately increasing the minimum wages paid to agricultural labourers; and also move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I venture to address your Lordships, because I can lay no claim to the gift of oratory for which this House is so well renowned; but I must ask for your indulgence, since the subject matter about which I want to speak is, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, of great importance. Farming has, I am afraid, been a neglected Cinderella for many years. She has only now been recognised as the most desirable of her productive sisters, and I can only hope that her Prince Charming, in the form of the Minister of Agriculture, will not be laggard in his attentions.
In 1936 there were about 3,000,000 fewer acres of land in cultivation than in 1921. That is not an encouraging picture of British agriculture. About half of those acres, I understand, were put down to grass; the other half have been built on or have become derelict. At the same time, it is a sad thought that medical evidence has shown that a large proportion of our population was undernourished and in vital need of food in those years; but if food was necessary in those days, how much more is it necessary to-day! It is, I would suggest, absolutely vital to us both for victory and for existence. We can well congratulate ourselves on the amount of food which is coming in across the Atlantic; we can be proud of the life-line kept open by the very gallant work of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Merchant Navy, and we can be very grateful for the most generous help which has been given to us by the United States of America; but to rely on this life-line being kept open without interruption would be madness. If we want to survive, we must build up the agriculture
232
of this country, and we must establish what will probably be for us the most important front of any.
The difficulties of the farmer have, I think, always been under-estimated. He has to contend with many incalculable factors, like the weather. Rain can never be depended upon, and the crop which he has carefully nursed may well be killed in one night through an unseasonable frost. Blight and disease may attack his crops and his herds. Not only that, but the general shortage of capital suffered by the agricultural community before the war has added greatly to his difficulties. Capital outlay was impossible; some of his machinery became obsolete, and, as a result, and owing also to the burden of tithes, which fall only on the agricultural community, and of debts and mortgages contracted as a result of these difficulties, many acres went out of cultivation, and herds were very often dispersed, to the great loss of this country.
Probably the greatest cause of the low-ness of the wages of agricultural workers was the poverty of farmers before the war, and this difficulty was increased and exaggerated at the beginning of the war, when industrial wages rose quite considerably. During the first nine months of this war, in fact, approximately 70,000 persons left agriculture, either for better-paid industrial work or for the Services. While this was happening, however, there was a great drive for increased cultivation, and many additional acres were brought into cultivation, which had to be coped with by a very much diminished supply of agricultural workers. For example, I am told that in Norfolk during the two war years over 70,000 acres have been brought back into cultivation. In Devon, where over a thousand agricultural labourers left the land either for industry or for the Services, as many as 214,000 acres have been broken up, which is a magnificent achievement. The agricultural labourers have taken on this extra work and have done their best to perform what they look upon as their duty to their country, but I cannot be surprised that deep resentment is beginning to be felt among them in that they feel that their case has been neglected and that they have become the subject of definitely unfair treatment.
With all this harder work, with the fact that the machinery of agriculture is producing far more than it used to do, it has

233
been estimated that agricultural efficiency increased by 50 per cent. between 1925 and the beginning of the war, and it is still increasing. But, with all that, the minimum wage in many parts of this country still remains at 48s. While industry is earning increased wages the agricultural minimum remains at the very low figure of 48s. But this is made worse by the artificial differences existing between different districts, for which, as far as I can see, there is no justification. In certain parts of England an agricultural labourer may look over the hedge and see another agricultural labourer doing the same job, in the same climate, under the same conditions, and yet getting perhaps 5s. or 6s. or 7s. more a week for it. For example, I understand that in Norfolk the county wages committee has increased the minimum wage to 54s. In Essex it is 54s. In Cambridgeshire it has gone up to 55s., and yet in Suffolk, adjoining, it is still 48s. Of course, it may be argued that different conditions justify different wages, that in certain counties where the soil is wetter and the work heavier for the labourer it is only fair that he should have a higher wage by way of compensation. But so far as I can see, this has not really been carried out, and it seems to me an arbitrary system. In any case what I am asking for is not a uniform wage but a minimum wage, which I suggest should be £3 a week throughout the whole country.
There is no reason why, if there is particularly difficult work, hard work or extra skilled work, the wage should not be increased, but at least that minimum wage would ensure that the agricultural labourer would have fair treatment for the extraordinarily important work which he is now doing. If the farmer cannot afford to pay this, surely it is the duty of the Government to ensure both that the farmer can make a reasonable profit and that he pays this minimum wage. I think great injustice is done unintentionally to the agricultural labourers by so many people who consider them as unskilled workers. In reality the work is highly skilled, it needs great adaptability. They have to cope with all sorts of problems, very often on the spur of the moment. If you took a garage mechanic and put him on the land, and told him to hoe a field of turnips, milk a cow, or lay a hedge, you would soon find that he was at a loss, and the skill needed would become apparent. That is one of the reasons
234
why the Women's Land Army, which has done magnificent service, cannot really fulfil the functions of the men who have left the land. I should like here to make one suggestion, and that is that there should be a statutory alteration of the size of the sack of wheat. The sack of wheat, I think I am right in saying, all over the country weighs just over 150 lbs. This is a very heavy weight to handle even for a fit, strong man. It can be done, but it is very tiring. But in the case of an older man it is very difficult, and almost dangerous for him; in the case of women it is impossible. These sacks could be cut in half and one side sewn up, so that no more material would be needed. I think it would save a great deal of time on some farms where lorries are kept waiting because the stronger, younger men cannot be had to unload these sacks.
The life of the agricultural labourer is a very hard one. He has to be out in all weathers, and his day is from 6 o'clock to 5 o'clock, though more often it turns into 5.30 or 6, and in harvest times later. He is forced to work overtime in order to keep even his very low standard of living going. It is true that rents are low, but as against that you must remember that housing conditions are in many parts deplorably bad. Cottages that were built many years ago by people who cared little what conditions their labourers lived in, are still being used, often without light or water. I can remember one case some time ago of a labourer who after his day's work, had to put on a yoke, take two buckets, walk 200 yards to a well, wind up water from nearly 100 feet, fill those buckets and bring them back to his house. On washing day he had to do this twice and you can imagine how little these two buckets of water are to a house where there is a woman, perhaps a young baby and other small children. Conditions are getting better, but they are still, I am afraid, very bad in some districts. In many cases they have been worsened by the arrival of evacuees from the towns, who have been used to totally different conditions. These people find it extremely hard to adapt themselves, and in consequence make life even more difficult for the labourer's wife, and therefore for the labourer.
It is true that wages have risen, but I suggest that they have not risen nearly

235
enough to compensate for the lower purchasing power of the pound. It is very difficult accurately to assess the changes in living costs, but certainly the official cost-of-living index shows that costs are up twenty points since a year ago. The agricultural price index since 1937 is up 53½ Per cent., and since June, 1940, it is up 24 per cent. This clearly raises difficulties for the labourer. If anyone will take an imaginary budget for a labourer with a wife and perhaps two or three children, take into consideration food, clothing, insurance, and all the other essentials, and try to make a weekly budget of 48s. or, for that matter, even £3 a week, he will see the difficulties. In addition the labourer is now often asked to go out at night after his work to do fire-watching, which is unpaid, or else to use what leisure he has for training himself to be an efficient A.R.P. worker or else to join the local Home Guard and patrol with them. I am sure this House sympathizes with the agricultural labourer to-day. I can only imagine that the reason why his condition has not been bettered is the fear of His Majesty's Government of creating an inflationary rise in prices, with higher wages leading to higher prices, higher prices leading to still higher wages, and so on.
I recognize that the spending power of the community must be limited so that work goes into war supplies and necessary exports, that wages are more easily controlled than prices, and therefore that wages must be controlled. I do not feel that this is a time to go into the question of economics, but I submit that the agricultural labourer's wage is so far below the normal skilled wage in industry that it should not come into the picture at all. It is one thing to keep down the standard of wages, but to penalize this small but important community would be creating such an injustice as to endanger the whole scheme. We are all united, I know, in our desire to win this war, to crush Nazism, and to stop that creed from ever again dominating and humiliating the people of this earth; but it will not be easy, it will need work, courage, sacrifice, and, above all, thought and organization. I beg His Majesty's Government to consider and to plan the system of agriculture in this country so that not one acre may be wasted, not one unit of man-power lost, and that the necessary supplies for our
236
defence may be there in our hour of need. I beg to move for Papers.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I should be lacking in my duty if I did not express to the noble Earl our appreciation and congratulations on the first occasion on which he has addressed this House, and I am certain your Lordships will join with me in hoping that he will take further part in the discussions which we carry on. The question which the noble Earl has raised is one which, I am quite certain, has the sympathy of all members of your Lordships' House, and it is, of course, one which is vital to a prosperous agriculture. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made a very fair and balanced statement about it in a full debate which was held in another place a short while ago. In case the noble Earl who has placed this Motion on the Paper feels that it is the Government, and possibly in particular my Department, which is shelving the problem connected with this question, I can assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. It is a matter which we are always considering, and if I can add nothing to what my right honourable friend said on August 7, I would assure my noble friend that it is not because I am either unsympathetic to, or in disagreement with, the views he has expressed. It is due to the fact that the minimum agricultural wage, which is 48s., is to be reviewed by the Central Agricultural Wages Board in a very short time, early next month, and it would be improper for the Government, having set up an independent body to fix the minimum wage, to seek to influence its decisions.
As your Lordships are aware, the Government's policy in relation to wages and wage fixation has been laid down in the White Paper on "Price Stabilization and Industrial Policy." This laid down the principle that it is best to leave the various wages tribunals free to reach their decisions in accordance with their estimate of the relevant facts. The Government regard it as the duty of both sides in industry to take all possible measures to avoid inflation. This has been done and is being considered at this moment. The existing machinery for fixing agricultural wages has been reviewed and revised by

237
Parliament since the outbreak of war. It takes the form of county agricultural wages committees, which are responsible for fixing agricultural minimum wage rates, subject to the national minimum wage fixed by the Central Agricultural Wages Board. A motion was tabled last April by the representatives of the agricultural workers, and put before the Board, proposing an increase in the national minimum wage from 48s. to 60s. per week. Mary meetings and many full discussions took place, but no agreement could be found between the workers' and the employers' representatives. In July the Board gave a fairly clear indication of their intention to increase the minimum wage, but left the determination of the amount of the increase till later in the year.
In the meantime, as the Board pointed out, there was no intention to prevent county agricultural wages committees from dealing with applications for wage increases in their areas. As the noble Lord said, and as most of your Lordships know, a great many counties in this country have increased the minimum wage. I should like to stress the fact that while 48s. is the minimum national wage, there are means, which I have just described, by which that can be and has been raised. In view of the Government's expressed policy in wage matters, it would clearly be wrong for my right honourable friend to intervene, especially as this matter is to be discussed and a decision, I hope, arrived at early in November. We must remember that an increase in the national minimum wage raises many other issues, and may well produce unforeseen repercussions. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to the agricultural workers of this country for the amazing way in which they handled the harvest this year under very trying and very difficult conditions. As my right honourable friend has stated it is the Government's aim to ensure a prosperous agriculture after the war with a decent standard of living for all agricultural workers, I feel it is better, therefore, to step carefully now than to prejudice the future by rash actions.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think it would be as well if from this side of the House expression was given first to our congratulations to the noble Earl on his maiden speech, and, secondly, to
238
make it quite clear that the sympathies of this side of the House also are with agricultural labourers, and that we regret as much as any of your Lordships that for the moment the agricultural labourer seems to have been to a certain extent the victim of circumstances and policies not directly affecting agriculture itself. I would go further and would join with the noble Earl in laying it down that the principal plank in our agricultural policy ought to be that the agricultural labourer receives a wage corresponding to that earnable in industry. I use the word "corresponding" in order to cover the various conditions in which the agricultural labourer works, and the differences between those conditions and the conditions of industrial workers, but I hope we are all agreed on both sides of the House that there can be no satisfactory solution of the agricultural problem unless the agricultural labourer does receive a corresponding wage. The noble Duke who answered for the Government has made it plain that it would be wrong for the Ministry which he represents to intervene on this occasion, but I do think the noble Earl has given us the opportunity of saying once more what we all feel upon this matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I wish to express my great appreciation of the kind way in which my very simple speech has been received by noble Lords in this House, and also for the attention of the noble Duke opposite to my Motion and my views. I am very glad indeed to find sympathy on both sides of the House for what I have advocated. At the same time I cannot help feeling regret that some steps cannot be taken more immediately for the alleviation of the case of these men, who, it must be remembered, are now compelled to remain on the land and who are undoubtedly suffering a genuine grievance. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMITTEE ON ESTATE BILLS.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion upon the Paper standing in his name.
Moved, That the Standing Committee on Estate Bills be appointed, and that

239
the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:
V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),
V. Hailsham,
V. Maugham,
L. Romer.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, we are expecting to receive certain Bills from the
240
other place later in the day. The House will therefore adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Earl of LUCAN.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a
House adjourned.