Lords Sitting of 28 June 1951

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are expecting from another place during the course of the afternoon a Bill dealing with the Ministry of Materials. It will, of course, be read a first time to-day, and I should like to announce that, following discussions through the usual channels, it has been found agreeable, as the Bill is urgently required, to take it through its remaining stages on Tuesday next.

FIREWORKS BILL
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Seizure of fireworks]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHmoved to omit all words in subsection (1) after "factory" (where that word first occurs) and the whole of subsection (2), and to insert:
", magazine or store fireworks which he has reason for thinking may he dangerous when in the possession of the public, he may take a number of them as a sample and require the occupier of the factory, magazine or store to keep the remainder of such fireworks in the factory, magazine or store for a period of three weeks, or such shorter period as the inspector may specify, and to take such steps as the inspector may specify to secure that they are not moved or tampered with during that period.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied as a result of examination and testing that the fireworks removed by the inspector would be dangerous when in the possession of the public and is satisfied that the sample is a fair one, the Secretary of State may require the occupier to deliver at the factory, magazine or store the fireworks kept there in pursuance of the
450
inspector's requirement to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to receive them; and the Secretary of State shall cause the fireworks so delivered to be destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless and disposed of as he directs.
(3) Where the Secretary of State does not act under subsection (2) of this section, he shall return to the occupier any fireworks forming part of the sample unless their value after examination and testing is so small that it appears to him unreasonable so to do."
The noble Lord said: This and the following Amendments standing in my name in the Marshalled List are intended to meet some criticisms which were made upon the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to explain the effect of all the Amendments together, as I feel that this would be the most convenient course. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, pointed out on the Second Reading that this clause was drawn in extremely stringent terms. I indicated then that I thought there was considerable substance in the observations which they made. These Amendments are put down for the purpose of improving Clause 1, so as to achieve the main object which it was intended to secure—namely, that there should be power for an inspector of explosives to seize fireworks in order to prevent them from getting into circulation and doing damage to innocent persons, but at the same time to protect manufacturers of fireworks from the followed sequences which might have followed under the clause as originally drafted.
Your Lordships will remember that Clause 1 as it stands provides that fireworks which are seized by an inspector of explosives because they would, in his opinion, be dangerous when in the possession of the public, are to be destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless, and are to be forfeited to the Crown. These Amendments provide that fireworks may be seized by the inspector, and that he may cause them to be detained. After that, he has to take samples of the fireworks, which are to be examined; and if upon such inspection they are found to be dangerous, then the Home Secretary may cause the fireworks to be destroyed, rendered innocuous, or otherwise dealt with. The clause as it stands provides no remedy for the manufacturer if, in fact, the seizure and destruction of the fireworks prove unjustified. There is a provision in subsection (6) which was

451
intended for the protection of the inspector, but which, conversely, had the effect of depriving the owner of a factory of any remedy for an unjustifiable procedure. That subsection will disappear, and if the owner is aggrieved he will have his normal right, if he can prove that the seizure is unjustified, of taking proceedings against the Crown. I have had the pleasure of discussing these Amendments with Lord Simon and Lord Llewellin, and I am obliged to them for the assistance which they have given. We are all agreed upon the principle of the Bill. Our object is to make it as just and as workable as possible, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page I, line 7, leave out from in "factory") to end of line 16, on page 2, and insert the said new words."—(Lord Douglas of Bar-loch.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the terms of the substantial Amendment on the Paper which he has just moved. As he has frankly recognised, that Amendment has been moved because he feels that Clause 1 of the Bill as it stood on Second Reading contained provisions which were unduly severe and peremptory. It was on that ground that my noble friend Lord Teynham and I called special attention to subsection (6) of the clause. I notice that, consequential upon the Amendment which the noble Lord is now moving, subsection (6) will disappear. If I may be permitted to say so, I think the noble Lord has shown a wise discretion in that matter. I do not think it would have been difficult to persuade the Committee that subsection (6) should not stand, which is what we said on Second Reading. If subsection (6) remained in this clause, the result would be that, even though the inspector made a mistake, even though he seized something which was not in a store or magazine—perhaps he had confused the Co-operative Stores with a store, when in fact it is only a shop—and which he had no legal right whatever to seize and destroy, none the less the party who suffered would be deprived of all possible remedy for compensation. Therefore we ventured to point out that it was not right in such circumstances to say that the man who had suffered
452
the loss could recover nothing. Recently, thanks to the activity of the present Lord Chancellor, we have passed the Crown Proceedings Act, and when a man suffers from wrongful destruction of his goods, even though his goods be destroyed by an inspector of the Home Office, he not only has his remedy against the inspector but, what is much more to the point, has his remedy against the Crown who, in such circumstances, would have to pay.
I believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is an immense improvement, and I think I speak for my noble friends beside me when I say that we shall be prepared to accept it. It makes a very different and much more reasonable provision. In the first place, it does not authorise an inspector to seize and destroy goods which he thinks are dangerous and then snap his fingers at the consequences. It takes a much more reasonable course. It says that if the inspector enters a factory, magazine or store, and finds fireworks there which he has reason to think may be dangerous in the possession of the public—and it is usually the juvenile public he is not to destroy them out of hand, but he is to take a sample, just as though he were a food inspector taking a sample of food which was alleged to be dangerous. This sample has then to be considered by the authorities. I remember enough of the Home Office to know that the Secretary of State is extremely well equipped with people who know how to form a just opinion on matters of this sort. If the Secretary of State, with the sample before him, is satisfied, as a result of examination and testing, that the sample would be dangerous in the possession of the public, then the fireworks may be destroyed. On the other hand, of course, if it turns out that a mistake has been made, the fireworks will be returned and no harm will be done to anyone.
While subsection (3) of the noble Lord's Amendment, quite properly, includes a duty to return to the occupier any fireworks forming part of the sample if it is found that they ought not to be destroyed, it does not insist upon that course if the sample is so minute or the articles are so trifling that it would be unreasonable to expect the squib or cracker or catherine-wheel to be returned with, due solemnity, and, I presume, a

453
receipt demanded by the Home Office from the man whose apparatus has for the time being been detained. All that seems very reasonable, and I think your Lordships be perfectly willing to put your confidence in the Home Office—which takes the greatest care to do what is right in these things—not because you are willing to give authority to an inspector to go in and destroy things wholesale because he thinks it is right, but because he has taken a sample and properly analysed it—I suppose the doubtful squib has been held at a certain distance to see what would happen. Nobody is hurt, except that perhaps the Secretary of State's hair may have been singed. When it is all over, the result is one which is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory. To my mind, the object of the Bill is an excellent one. None of us wants to see Guy Fawkes Day celebrations result in a lot of children in hospital with fingers blown off. But the Bill in its original form was going too far, and I venture respectfully to thank the noble Lord for having framed an Amendment which, to my mind. is perfectly reasonable. In the circumstances, I need not move my Amendment for the omission of subsection (6), because the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, has down an Amendment to the same effect.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps I may be permitted to say one or two words on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The point has not been mentioned this afternoon, but the Government are keenly interested in this measure, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill. Although the debate in the main has been between the Benches on either side of the House, the Government have not been without sympathy for the points which have been put forward. Therefore, I am very pleased indeed to say that the Government lock upon these Amendments to the Bill as a great improvement on the original measure and agree with them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("of an inspector") and insert ("made").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("section") to ("he") n line 20.—(10n1 Douglas of Barloch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am not sure whether I have to move the next Amend-mend or not. In accordance with the suggestion of the noble Lord, we have amended the Bill down to line 20, but he does not require subsection (6), which begins at line 22.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: No, but the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment has priority over mine in the Marshalled List.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If my noble friend would like to move the Amendment himself, nobody would be better pleased than I. In the circumstances, however, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (6).—(Viscount Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Determination or amendment of licences for factory where dangerous fireworks made
2.—(1) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that in any factory there are being manufactured fireworks which would he dangerous when in the possession of the public, he may serve a notice on the occupier of the factory—

(a) stating that on the expiration of a period of seven days beginning with the date of service of the notice any licence under the principal Act relating to the factory shall he determined;

(b) requiring the occupier within the said period to deliver any such licence as aforesaid to the Secretary of Slate for cancellation:

Provided that the Secretary of State shall at least fourteen days before serving the notice give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to the occupier a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement.
4.18 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso to insert:
"stating the grounds on which his opinion is, based.
If within fourteen days of the receipt of the notice the occupier has not discontinued the said manufacture, the Secretary of State may serve upon him a notice—"
The noble Lord said: The Amendments to Clause 2 are really designed to put the clause in its proper order. If your Lordships will look at the clause you will find

455
that action taken under the first part, down to the end of paragraph (b), will be subsequent in time to action taken under the proviso. I am given to understand that this proviso was inserted at a certain stage in another place, and my Amendments are designed to put it in its proper sequence in time. After all, one of the justifications for a second House is to see that a Bill is put into tidy form before it reaches the Statute Book. The words of my Amendment may not be quite correct, and if they are not perhaps the noble Lord will provide the appropriate words. I believe it will be the wish of the whole House that the alteration shall be made, so that the actions which have to be taken are put in their right order in the Bill. I was glad to hear what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. One is always delighted, when there has been a kind of anonymous parentage of a child, to see the real parent come and claim responsibility: I suppose that everyone knows that this, in its origin, is a Government measure—and it is right that it should be so, to deal with such a problem. And yet the Bill was introduced again quite properly—by a private Member. At any rate, we welcome the real father's appearance in the House for the first time in connection with this Bill. I thought he was looking a little anxious when I started to move my Amendment, but I assure him that no damage is intended to his child. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that this clause (and a similar point arises on Clause 4, to which he has put down an Amendment) is in its present form owing to an Amendment which was made in another place. It is, as the noble Lord has said, a question of putting events in proper sequence. I would, however, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, because in it he has inadvertently narrowed the ground upon which the occupier of the factory can make a representation to the Home Secretary to a single point. There may well be other grounds on which he could make representation to the Home Secretary which might influence the Home Secre- 456
tary's course of action. Therefore, it would be fairer to the owner of the factory if the substance of the clause remained as it now is. If the noble Lord will agree to that suggestion, I will undertake between now and Report stage to put down an Amendment which will effect the purpose he has in view and will preserve the subsection, but which will clarify it and make it easier to understand.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am quite happy to accept what the noble Lord has said. I think he and I are at one in thinking that this clause should be drafted so that it presents in the right order events which will take place. I presume that the experts that the Home Office have put at the noble Lord's disposal for drafting will devise the correct form of words, and I am content to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment now, on the undertaking given by the noble Lord that he will put down something on Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: There is just one point that should be mentioned in this connection. Under the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, a certain power of the Secretary of State would be voided and he is very anxious that his powers should not be lessened. The point is that if, within fourteen days, a manufacturer of dangerous fireworks makes the necessary changes, then, apparently, the Secretary of State is not in a position to withdraw the licence. It might be, if an offence were a first offence, that no great harm would have been done; but if a manufacturer repeatedly made dangerous fireworks, then there might be an occasion when, notwithstanding the fact that the matter then under review would be cleared within fourteen days, the Secretary of State would want to take disciplinary action. If, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, the matter will be raised in the re-drafting, followed, if need be, by consultation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not seek to alter the position as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I am quite agreeable that the point should still be included. I recognise that it may need to be included in the new draft which Lord Douglas had promised to bring in on Report stage, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Determination or amendment of licences for factory where there is negligent manufacture
4.—(l) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that in any factory the manufacture or storing of fireworks is being carried on in such a way as to cause danger to persons in or about the factory from explosion or fire, he may, subject to the provisions of this section, serve on the occupier of the factory any such notice as he might serve under section two of this Act if he were then of the opinion that there were being manufactured in the factory fireworks which would be dangerous when in the possession of the public, and the like consequences shall ensue as would ensue upon service of the like notice under that section:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall, at least fourteen days before serving the notice, give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to the occupier a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from "may" down to "any," and to insert:
"give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to the occupier a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement or of discontinuing the dangerous practice as the case may be.
If the occupier does not convince the Secretary of State by his representations and does not discontinue the dangerous practice, then the Secretary of State may serve on him."
The noble Lord said: This is a very similar point. As your Lordships will see, Clause 4 contains a similar proviso which also, in the operation of this Bill when it becomes law, has to take place in advance of what precedes it in the clause. I do not know whether I have been more successful with my draftsmanship in this Amendment than in the previous one—I shall not be offended if I am told I am not—but I believe that this time I have included everything necessary, though not, perhaps, in the very best possible words. The point, however, is the same, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out from ("may") to ("any") in line 44 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think the noble Lord is right in saying
458
that this Amendment is in a not very different category from the previous Amendment; but I am not absolutely certain at the moment whether, in fact, his Amendment has narrowed the point or not. In any case, if I may respectfully suggest it, as the previous clause is to be re-drafted, with the assistance of those who are expert on these matters, and this one follows on similar lines, it might be more convenient if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment to-day. I will then undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage which will effect the purpose he has in view.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am prepared to accept that suggestion. As I have said, I think this Amendment is a little better drafted than the previous Amendment, and that I have included everything this time; but it might be put in more apt words—and, after all, since the country employs gentlemen who are expert to draft these things we might as well take advantage of their skill. I am quite prepared, in the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Marking of fireworks
(6) A person against whom proceedings are, brought under this section a shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days" notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person, to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due, brought before the court in the proceedings, and, if after the contravention has been proved the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is a very simple Amendment which will not require many words of explanation from me. Subsection (4) of Clause 5 reads:
"If the foregoing provisions of this section are contravened in respect of any fireworks, the occupier of the factor shall on summary conviction he liable to a penalty not exceeding

(a) ten pounds; or

(b) an amount equal to twenty shillings for every pound of fireworks…."

459
I am told that in paragraph (b) "every pound" means pound weight, but in the line before we have the reference to "ten pounds," which, quite clearly, means £10 in value. I think we should make it clear in the succeeding line that we mean pounds weight and not pounds value. I suggest putting in the word "weight" in the second instance. My drafting in this Amendment has been very short and simple, and will, perhaps, be acceptable to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after ("pound") insert ("weight").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Lord's Amendment is certainly extremely short and clear. I have great pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to omit subsection (6). The noble and learned Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Teynham and I have no intention of pressing this Amendment, but I feel that it is right briefly to move it, so that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can (as I think he will) give an assurance which I think would be proper in connection with it. Clause 5 is a remarkable clause. It requires that
"each firework bears conspicuously the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory."
It is a time long ago, but the sort of fireworks I used to acquire were not usually of a size which would make that a very easy condition to fulfil. I recognise that there is an exception in the Schedule in respect of three forms of fireworks more familiar to the youth of to-day than to myself—namely, "sparklers," "jumping crackers" and "throw-downs." With those exceptions, every firework has to be conspicuously marked with
"the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory."
I suppose the idea is that, after an accident has happened, the expert examines whatever may happen to be left as a result of the explosion, and, with good fortune, he may still be able to find out from where the firework came. That seems to be quite right.
460
As my noble friend Lord Teynham and I ventured to point out on Second Reading, subsection (6) contains what is certainly a very unusual procedure. It is a procedure by which, if the accused is charged with having consigned from a factory fireworks which are not thus marked, he may none the less say: "Well, it really is not my fault. I will lay an information against somebody else" —I suppose it would probably be one of his staff, or somebody else concerned within the department—"He is the man who ought to be pursued. I told him that he ought to mark them and he has failed to mark them, whether negligently or maliciously, and therefore the right man to hit is not me but him." That is a form of procedure which I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree is not very usual in this country, although there are precedents for it. In fact, the one which I regard as quite overwhelming was brought to my attention by the noble Lord himself in conversation, because it appears that, when I was Home Secretary and responsible for the last Factories Act, I had a clause in these same terms in reference to the occupiers of factories in certain matters, so I am not denying that it is a procedure which may be proper. It is just unusual, and it has its disadvantages.
It has the disadvantage that the occupier of the factory, though he has given every explanation and shown exactly how it happened, may nevertheless be hauled up before the magistrates, and then this elaborate procedure would be gone through. If he has a good answer, and somebody else is, in fact, responsible, one would think it right that the occupier should not be prosecuted at all. I can see that there may be cases in which this is a proper provision to make, but I feel that they will not be numerous. I should like to be assured by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as I think I shall be, that the Home Secretary or those concerned will prosecute only where they are satisfied that the right man is in front of them, and, that in cases where they investigate the matter and find that somebody else is to blame, we shall not have this elaborate procedure gone through. That is the practice under the Food and Drugs Act; I do not know whether it applies under the Factories Act, but there may be such a provision. Otherwise, we are going round in circles to get the man who is

461
responsible. I am not challenging the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can tell me that that is the way it is to be worked, I am quite content, and I shall withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5. line 27, leave out subsection (6).—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will permit me, I should like to say a word or two about this point. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said in moving the Amendment, it is true that this is an unusual procedure. The reason for it, clearly, is this: that fireworks are manufactured in what is technically an explosives factory, which is subject to certain rules and regulations, and in a case like this the primary responsibility naturally lies upon the occupier of the factory. The clause as it is drafted imposes a liability upon him if he fails to conduct his factory properly. But, if this particular subsection were not here, then, of course, the owner of the factory, if there were a contravention of this provision, however innocent he was, and whatever steps he had taken to prevent it, could not exonerate himself at all. He would be left without any defence and would be convicted in circumstances which I think we should all agree would be rather unjust.
For example, it is just possible that some malicious person who had nothing to do with the factory might get into it (I agree that this is an improbable case, but it is not impossible) and cause a contravention. There, obviously, it would be wrong that the owner of the factory should be convicted. I think that is the reason why this procedure is brought in. As the noble and learned Viscount said, there are precedents for it, although it is relatively unusual. There is not only the case to which he referred, the Factories Act of 1937, but there are earlier examples of similar legislation. For example, there is the Truck Act of 1887, where a provision is introduced, I think for similar reasons, in very much the same terms. A similar provision appears in the Shops Act of 1912. The example which perhaps is most analogous to this particular case is the Merchandise Marks Act, which relates to the marking of goods also; but there it is for another purpose. There again,
462
there is provision for certain penalties upon the person who is assumed to be primarily responsible for conducting a business, but he is given the opportunity of invoking this particular kind of procedure. The precedents are, therefore, respectable; they extend over a consideraable period of time until recent days, and I have not found that in practice there has been any difficulty about working them.
In addition I may point out that the Food and Drugs Act contains a provision which in some ways is analagous to, though not identical with, this. I think the noble and learned Viscount was referring to the section dealing with what is called warranty. But the procedure there is not the same as under this Bill. I think that under the Food and Drugs Act there have on occasion been some difficulties, but the best information I can obtain is that the sections which provide in the terms now before us have not occasioned difficulty and have worked with smoothness. Therefore, after that explanation I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be content to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I find myself in a slight difficulty because the brief with which I have been furnished says nothing about this Amendment. But I have a memory of the conversations concerned with this Bill prior to the most recent interview between the two sides. My recollection is that it would be undesirable that the occupier of the premises should be by-passed, because, in fact, he is the responsible person. Another recollection of mine is that he could not pass on his responsibility, even in the courts, unless he were able to prove that the precautions he had taken, and the instructions which he had given, really did transfer the responsibility to his agent. However, I will have the point raised, and if I get a little note about it I will draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention to it for discussion.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass from the Amendment may I say this? Of course it ought to be the duty of any department which has to conduct a prosecution, to try to find the guilty party. If in a case like this, the occupier has obviously taken all proper precautions, and it is because somebody else has not obeyed them that these fireworks have

463
gone out unmarked, the occupier having been quite frank with the inspector about it, surely he is not the right person to prosecute; it should be the person who is really responsible. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cannot say that to-day, but perhaps he will be able to say it on Report stage. I would point out to the Home Office officials concerned that there is an extremely good and effective remedy in the hands of the court. Under subsection (7) (b) of this clause they can award costs in any way they think fit. If, in the view of the court, somebody who is clearly innocent from the start is unnecessarily brought before the court, then it would be a very proper case for the court to award costs against the prosecution. Therefore it is also to the advantage of the prosecution to see that only the right person is prosecuted, in order to save costs. I appreciate that there may be cases where both people could properly be brought before the court, but if it is quite clear from the start who is the really guilty person, then I should have thought the Home Office would say "We are going to prosecute the really guilty person, having had all the help from the other person." In many cases it would be to their disadvantage in costs to do otherwise.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think the matter can well be left there. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, for his patient and clear explanation, which I entirely accept; and I thank the noble Lord on the Front Bench for saying that he will have the matter looked into. If it is looked into in the spirit in which Lord Llewellin has just spoken, I have no doubt that a suitable assurance can be given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

MINISTRY OF MATERIALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

PRESERVATION OF PEACE
4.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY THE EARL OF DARNLEY rose to invite His Majesty's Government to make a declaration of their willingness to sponsor a call to men and women of all nations, irrespective of colour and creed, and, in particular, to the labouring classes, whom they claim specially to represent, to unite in friendliness to abolish for ever the barbarous practice of attempting to right human wrongs by recourse to war between peoples, with all the poverty and misery that this involves; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for coming here to-day because I do not bother your Lordships overmuch. But I should like to ask two things of you. One is to acquit me of any desire to sermonise, as it is sometimes difficult to separate the ethical and temporal; and the other is to take it that what I am going to say is a possibility. Sometimes the minority is right. It has been known to be the case. It is not a frivolity that I am bringing to your Lordships to-day, but something which I believe is an actual possibility. Therefore I ask your Lordships to look upon it in a serious manner—in the same manner in which it is presented to you. I would ask you to afford me at least the same toleration as is given to Don Quixote. He only tilted at windmills, and he did it once.
I should like briefly to suggest to your Lordships that these outbreaks that occur in the world today—such as Communism, the happenings at Abadan, and all the other things that we have to endure —are all results and not causes, and if the causes were to be investigated and treated properly there would not be any such results. We have got to have some kind of treatment to put them right. The old failure methods must be abolished in favour of this treatment. If that is done they will gradually disappear and in their place can actually grow up a truer and better idea of the benefits of existence. The old methods which have been adopted for years and years have not made any improvement. Possibly everybody has been right; possibly everybody has been wrong. But these methods have always been adopted. There is no doubt that they are useless and old-fashioned, and if they are continued they may involve the whole globe and everybody on it in

465
complete destruction. Of course, if we are going to find a supplementary plan it must be acceptable to, and understood by, the vast majority of humanity in general. Whilst it is the fact that there are lots of aggressors and dangers about, there is no satisfactory method of dealing with them without ruining the whole world and;he whole human fabric.
I think it was on June 20 of last year that I brought a similar Motion before your Lordships, asking for the founding of a basic plan for changing the processes that bring destruction to the world. Since that time, I have seen every day a greater need for one. The same old things go on from year to year. The same shibboleths, power politics, threats of force, threats of "serious consequences" and meetings of politicians in various numbers from one to thirty. These threats of serious consequences do not carry any weight at all; they do not affect the serenity of the Prime Minister or the dictator or whoever it may be who is threatened. He goes on eating his breakfast of cat sandwich, or whatever luxury the last war has left him, in complete happiness and utter disregard of these threats. It is the poor wretched cannon fodder on both sides who are called upon to implement these threats who really suffer. They will be the ones who will get the "serious consequences," and through them a much greater blow may be struck to the morale of the human race, through the mechanics of the various scientists who are engaged in research and development in connection with atomic energy. The whole matter has got to be seriously reconsidered.
There is at this moment a climacteric, and there is a definite turning point in human life that must be observed and taken for granted. Last year an excuse was offered against basic change—I think the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, put it forward—because of the extreme difficulty of getting would-be adversaries to listen or co-operate. Of course it is difficult—horribly, indecently d ifficult—but you cannot have hundreds of years of warfare and fighting without creating difficulties. The question is not whether it is difficult, but whether the effort is likely to lead to success, or whether it is likely to be the old processes which have failed.
I recently took down in the library at home a book entitled Battle Songs of the
466
Nations. The book was produced in Victorian times, and it shows in various horrific collections of versified words exactly what the nations of the world are supposed to think of each other. I ought to have brought some of it to read to your Lordships, though I do not think you would have liked it very much. In that volume it is shown cluite clearly how much the nations of the world loathe each other. It is shown that the chief thing they think about is the colour of their neighbours' insides, and that they do not bother about whether his skin is reachable in the correct way or not. The only words of sense that I could find were those of little Peterkin in Southey's famous poem, when he says to his grandfather:
"But what good came of it at last?"
The grandfather replies:
"Why that I cannot tell,…
But 'twas a famous victory."
Does not that describe it all? "What good came of it at last?" That little boy had knowledge which was denied to grown up and educated elders. Can you wonder that nations brought up on such bloodthirsty verses as you can find in that book should still loathe each other and look upon, each other as suitable subjects for dismemberment? It seems to me that there has got to be a total volte-face against everything so far held allowable in war before the vista of peace can possibly be envisaged. That volte-face must be made, otherwise there will be a total loss of everything we hold dear.
It seems to me that this effort could much more easily be made if only people would candidly, truthfully and honestly acknowledge how bad the present existence is. You hear a lot of loose talk to the effect that: "It is not so bad after all," or, "It might be worse." Really it is a perfect inferno of misery and frustration for everyone. In fact, it is so bad that a man convinced that he would after death return to this world in a new guise might easily be excused for wishing to come back in the shape of an honest-to-goodness tapeworm or bed bug which, at any rate, do not burn, kill or murder their neighbour's children on the excuse that "The other side started it."
Take, as an example, the ridiculous and terrible Seoul see-saw, in which perhaps one can read a prophecy of humanity's fate. Let us hope to goodness that something which we read to-day means that

467
the present effort to stop it will succeed. The worst thing about this conflagration is that it is viewed in the wrong way. It is looked at as being an outburst by naughty, heathen Communists against the wishes and orders of a lot of benign and benevolent benefactors who wish nothing better than a world at peace. But it is nothing of the kind. The world certainly considers itself to be composed of men of different beliefs and creeds and ethics, but all of these, aided by their spiritual and temporal leaders, have raped, pillaged and fought each other from time immemorial. Anyone could be excused for having doubt as to whether there has ever existed a really and truly ethical nation, although there have been plenty of ethically good individuals. The conquests, burnings of rivals at the stake, wars, getting rid of rivals by murder, by cutting off their heads, and the subjection of savage races, may be expeditious and gallant, but they are not ethical. History, it seems to me, ought to be read in comic form, such as the one on this country illustrated by John Leech, to see what it is really like. If there were one for every nation, which one could read, one would then perhaps get a truer idea of Korea than that which we now think we see. It is just a bubbling over of the international hotpot.
I am not, trying to make out that positions of extreme danger do not arise in present circumstances. Of course they do. But they need not and they certainly must not be exaggerated. There is one at Abadan at the moment. It comes as a result of the nationalisation of something that does not belong to you, which is certainly worse than nationalising something that does. But it cannot be cured until there is a reasonable working plan between the various units of the plan of existence. It is certainly a result and not a cause. Even the added danger of the Sabotage Bill does not help, because, to my way of thinking, all the oil in the world is not worth the death of one single tortured child.
Reading through the Report of the debate in your Lordships' House on May 2, one gets an impression that a collection of atrocities committed by various people; atrocities done by would-be opponents, in some way justify warlike
468
counter action. I should not agree to that. I think these tales of atrocities constitute a crowning disgrace and the condemnation of all nations for having by their concerted actions brought them about. They are attributable to a thoroughly faulty international system. The also are results, not causes. They are results of concerted dangerous and pugnacious actions by all the nations in the world. Human nature, such as it is, carries decency in one hand and bestiality in the other, and if there is a good international system then the hand that carries decency in it is kept in use and the bestial hand is kept gloved. All the search for criminals and atrocity-mongers, such as is often carried on, is useless, misleading and superfluous. It is superfluous, also, to be frightened of the plans of foreign general staffs, which are usually divulged to the world through the medium of the Press by some renegade member who has got the sack. I believe these general staffs have plans for every kind of action that might be necessary all over the world, but they do not intend to use them unless they think their salvation is impossible in any other way. If it could be proved that it was, they would not do anything with them.
I am not, of course, trying to belittle in any way the courage and self-sacrifice of those who have given their lives, their limbs and their all for their country. Of course not; nothing can be finer or braver, and I applaud it just as the rest of your Lordships do. But I am trying to prove that these sacrifices are unnecessary and that the world would be a better place without them. There must be something wrong when all the nations, Christian and non-Christian, find in each other subjects for intense hatred and bitterness, solvable only by murder and destruction. I want to show the cause in its true light, the basic cause which from its name falls first to be altered, however difficult it may be to detail such an alteration. A correct basic cause requires that every nation in the world acknowledge their part in the dreadful state of affairs evident at the moment, and all equally try to make it their business to restore it.
Possibly the most difficult result to deal with is that of Communism. These centuries of fighting and squabbling, advancing in horror hand in hand with science, have created an unlooked-for bogy in the

469
shape of Communism. However we regard Communism, we have in truth to acknowledge that it is the reaction and revolution against the habit of settling affairs by murder and warfare. It is not pretty—Communism in operation. In Russia, it involved the murder of the upper classes and the abolition of religion. It created the anti-body of Fascism, which is also to a certain extent subversive. Communism works through the cold reason rather than the hot arm, though it erupts occasionally, as it has in Korea. None the less, it is a genuine and dangerous stand and rebellion against power polii les and national polemics. It is a result—as much a result as the nasty bit of meat we have to eat every week here. It has to be understood to be this before it can be treated aright.
How are my suggestions to get to those outside? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will get up shortly and say that he does not like pacifism—he may call it that. He will do it very politely: the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, did it very politely year. But this is not pacifism: this is common sense, and possibly also the truth. Can we have a straight answer to this question? Is it possible to save the world from, at best, a relapse into savagery and, at worst, total destruction, by any other means than a total volte face in internationalism, brought about by the abandonment of the accumulated subversive results of the old-fashioned failure methods and the substitution for them of a method in which the human being can believe, trust and act on safely?
I have a suggestion. If you do not think much of it, I hope your Lordships will produce something better: but I would ask you to answer argument for argument, and not to take advantage of purposely misleading generalisations. What the human being at the moment requires to know is that he is part of a scheme for existence, and that this scheme is beneficial in its action and that in it all the hairs of his head are numbered. He has to have what Albert Schweitzer, the Austrian philospher, calls "Weltschauung" or the correct view of life. If he is properly instructed, he will know, without the proof that his limited brain can never give him, that he and this existence are part of an idea conceived in an inconceivable mind; that he has jurisdiction only over the items that surround
470
him by its permission, a permission that is never withheld but without which he cannot even move. He is the exact analogy of an electric bulb attached to a power-house. But though he cannot understand it, he cannot deny its existence, if he regards with any intelligence its manifestations in the world around him or in the skies over him. Therefore, the least he can do towards it is to be grateful for it, keep it intact so far as he can, and combine with his fellow human creature, these fellow human creatures who share the use of these manifestations with him, to do the same. The whole of man's duty resides in these two instructions. I would suggest, with all respect and deference, that these instructions are guaranteed in the line:
"Sufficient is Thine arm alone,"
so often sung and so often completely disobeyed—as witness the hundreds of millions of pounds spent per day on the last war and the many thousands of millions now being collected for the next.
Of course, it is easy to talk; but it is intensely difficult to act in such a way as to create progress for an idea, especially if it is novel and untried. The human being of the world has to be taught to value existence and to share with his neighbours this valuation of existence. How?—especially now, when the world is in such a state of unrest and misery, when a man has little time to think of anything but his next meal and the safety of his family. It can be done by one nation setting an example: by putting into effect the Christian ethic, and expressing a genuine desire to co-operate with every nation, of every colour and creed, to improve the general world conditions, not as a piece of bigotry, but as a sign of appreciaticn of real wisdom when they hear it; and by not allowing this offer to be tarnished by any suggestion of carrying with it any possibility of self-advancement or conquest, or to be motivated by anything but the sincerity of the faith in which they believe.
If such a declaration were to be made in all sincerity and truthfulness by a great nation, it would have a reconciling effect upon Communism and any other submersive miseries which exist and cause danger at the moment. The danger would be by-passed into harmlessness, instead of flaring up into general destruction, now possibly envisaged on a scale

471
large enough to destroy the globe on which the human being lives; and the resulting restoration of security would enable the human being to examine some kind of existence in decent security. If this is not true, let us be honest and tear up all ethics and have done with them for ever. Again, I say, a man's brain is very limited. It cannot envisage the great scheme of existence embracing the universe, but it can have confidence in the orders of its greatest known wisdom, and, by following them, can placate its self-preservation instinct—its chief bugbear—by faith, for a change, instead of by fear.
Such a declaration could well be made to the world by this country. It would be a wonderful innovation, and a wonderful chance. Will the Government, which now by its name professes an interest in the working man of the world, act accordingly? Such a declaration would be worth all the power politics, all alliances, and all the discussions, and would constitute a proper basis for nationalism. I say with all emphasis that if any man to-day can view the results of the last human conflagration and, having reviewed the 36,000,000 dead and missing, the 30,000,000 wounded and the 150,000,000 homeless, and the £100,000,000 spent per day for six years, now represented by heaps of rubble and corpses mixed, the piles of useless and rotting abandoned war material, headed perhaps by the 1,000 Fortresses on Biak Island, each costing many thousands and now abandoned as useless, and smashed by bulldozers to save the expense of removal—if anyone can review these facts and feel that this, and worse, is humanity's only destiny, then I ask him to think again; and, in spite of the apparently overwhelming difficulties, to join in with some scheme for making these things impossible ever again, and thereby give dignity and sapience to the human race. I beg to move for Papers.
5.16 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships, like myself, always look forward to the noble Earl's annual visit to this House, and listen with the utmost respect to the views which he puts forward, because it is quite clear that they are on the highest possible plane and informed by feelings of the greatest sincerity. But, unfortunately, as I ventured
472
to say this time last year, in the present state of affairs they are totally impracticable. What I like especially about the noble Earl is that when he comes down amongst us he is in no mood for half-measures: he sets His Majesty's Government a task calculated to keep them fully occupied until he comes amongst us again in twelve months' time. Last year he called upon His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to rescue humanity, which was in imminent danger of collapse. Well, the Government have done nothing noticeable about that meantime, so your Lordships may feel some surprise at finding yourselves here to-day. To-day the noble Earl exhorts the Government to take immediate and energetic steps to bring about universal friendship, and to get all the nations of the earth to shake hands one with the other. However, although I listened with the utmost care to every word which fell from the noble Earl, I was unable to detect any practical advice that he gave towards the attainment of that highly desirable end. Therefore, in default of practical help from him, we must bend our mundane minds, to the best of our ability, to see how His Majesty's Government can fulfil the noble Earl's exhortation.
Perhaps it would not be a bad thing to start with Persia. The Persians are now intent upon filching from Great Britain, under the name of nationalisation—which, of course, is the official term for filching other people's property against their will at an under-valuation—£500,000,000 of her most valuable foreign assets. The weakness of His Majesty's present advisers, of course, is that they themselves are adept at this particular practice, and they can hardly be surprised if the Persians copy them on an even larger scale. I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that there are other similarities between the attitude of the Persians and that of His Majesty's Government. For example, from his heavily guarded bed in Teheran a week or two ago, Dr. Mossadeq, between one flood of tears and the next, broadcast to the Persian people that "this ends fifty years of British Imperialism." Almost at the same hour the British Foreign Minister thought fit to inform the House of Commons and the world that "the old Imperialism is dead." But neither of them went on to state that, if that is indeed the case, the new starvation is

473
about to begin. For, on the one hand, if we scuttle out of Abadan, the oilfields will come to an end, at any rate, for a long time; the revenue drawn from them by the Persian people will cease; the poverty and starvation of the Persian people will thereby be greatly increased, and the Mtimate results of that are anybody's guess. My own guess is that after Dr. Mossadeq and his friends have been assassinated the Tudeh Party will come into power, and will thereby make Persia a satellite State of Russia. Moreover, even if the Russians do come down to the Southern oilfields and set them working, I do not see how they will be able to sell the oil without the aid of tankers, so that the starvation of Persia of which I speak will be none the less certain.
On the other hand, taking our own point of view, if we leave the oilfields and forsake this, our most valuable foreign asset, does anybody suppose that that is the last foreign asset that will be so treated? Surely we must all realise that the eyes of the world, from Hong Kong to the Falkland Islands, to say nothing of the great Continent of Africa, are closely watching us and our actions in this matter, and that if we do scuttle away, then one by one, in due course and in their turn, other foreign assets will follow. If anybody thinks that this nation can maintain 50,000,000 people on this island in any sort of standard of life without our foreign assets, then he lives in that "Cloud Cuckooland" from which the noble Earl always gives me the impression of annually emerging.
There is still another phrase which the Persians have copied from His Majesty's present advisers. Mr. Makki, the leading delegate of Abadan, in answer to a journalistic question a few days ago about his intentions with regard to that place, said with a sinister smile: "We are the masters now." When that phrase was declaimed from the Socialist platform two or three years ago, we were inclined to regard it, with tolerant amusement, as the effervescence of a bright young attorney, cock-sure that the Socialist millennium had come to stay and little dreaming that, within two or three years, he could be clinging to office literally by his political tail, and certain of defeat as soon as Mr. Aneurin Bevan decided that the time had come for the tail to unwind. How different that phrase sounds when softly
474
sibilated by a sly Persian who is about to filch 30,000,000 annual tons of sterling oil! The right honourable gentleman Mr. Noel-Baker tells us that we need not worry too much about that; that we shall get the oil from elsewhere. But he does not tell us that that oil will be dollar oil, the purchase of which will increase our dependence on the United States. But is this British nation really willing to acknowledge that Mr. Makki is their master? I imagine that we should he quite willing to acknowledge him, or any other body of Persians representing the nation, as partners in this industry, but not that we should become hewers of wood and drawers of water for Persian owners.
It is thoughts of this sort which pass through my mind as I listen to the noble Earl. I wish that I could attain the high idealism that he does but I am afraid that in my mundane state I sigh for the great Foreign Secretaries of the past, one of whom was a hero of my early youth, Lord Salisbury. On July 18 in this House his grandson is to initiate a debate on Foreign Affairs. July 18 is a long way off. By that time I suppose the question of stand or scuttle, fight or flee, in Persia will be settled. However that may be, I pray that on July 18 we may hear a statement of foreign policy to show that there is still one Party in the State which is not afraid either of the Russian bogy or of its own tail; which is willing to stand up for the rights of Britons all over the world; and which is determined, whatever may be said of the old Imperialism, at any rate to try to revive the old spirit which throughout one hundred years of "peace and plenty" in the nineteenth century made the name of Great Britain the greatest and most respected in the world.
5.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERscm): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the last speech before I deal with the Motion or the Order Paper. I do not intend to follow the noble Lord in his references to Persia. He gave no notice that he proposed to raise the matter, and I do not think that some of his remarks have been entirely helpful. I do not consider this an appropriate occasion to discuss, that serious matter. It is not related to the terms of

475
the Motion. There will be other occasions when it will be possible to deal with some of his references to the Government and their policy. I hope, therefore, that he writ not take it amiss if I do not reply to him to-day.
I listened with attention and respect to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. He made an urgent and idealistic appeal, and I am sure that none of us will doubt his sincerity. I admire his constancy and pertinacity. In a similar debate a year ago he reminded us of the old adage: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." The noble Earl himself appears to have taken the adage to heart, for his speech to-day is but the latest of several he has made which have been devoted to the theme of renouncing for ever recourse to war. I agreed with some of the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl but, with all respect to him, I did not feel that he faced up to the practical issues which are involved in trying to organise a peaceful world system which he and we desire to see. For reasons which I shall state, I am not able to accept the noble Earl's Motion.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the feelings which have inspired the Motion. It reflects a common aspiration of peoples everywhere—an aspiration which I believe was never stronger than it is today. The generations to which we belong have lived in a period in which two worldwide wars have occurred. A moral and philosophical approach may lead to a recognition of the folly of war, but I believe that it is the knowledge and experience of what war actually means that produces intense popular hatred of it. Present generations in most areas of the world are only too well aware of what is involved in modern warfare while it is being waged, and of the poverty and misery that ensue. It needs little imagination to realise, with the atomic bomb and other recent scientific inventions, how great a catastrophe another world war would be for the whole human race. I do not, therefore, believe that any people "irrespective of their colour and creed" (to quote the words of the Motion), would choose to start a war of aggression, with all its disastrous possibilities if they were free to decide for themselves.
Unfortunately, as we all know, for some of the countries, where political freedom
476
has been largely suppressed and democratic rights are severely restricted, it is a handful of rulers who decide policy and action in international affairs. That is a serious factor which we cannot afford to ignore. His Majesty's Government and the British people have for their part repeatedly made it plain that the guiding principle of their policy is the preservation of peace. At the risk of emphasising the obvious, I stress that there is no taint of militarism in the British people. No political Party represented in this House regards war as a legitimate instrument of national policy. Aggression upon any country is not the purpose of any treaty to which we are a party, nor is it thinkable that we will ever become a party to anything that has such an object. We are a people who love peace, and love it on a just basis. And when, as at present, we engage in strengthening our defences, the motive is not hostility, not aggression; it is to safeguard peace, our own security and our own free way of life.
His Majesty's Government, and surely, indeed, all right-thinking, people, share the noble Earl's desire to see
"the barbarous practice of attempting to right human wrongs by recourse to war between peoples "
abolished for ever. It would be illusory, however, to believe that a declaration of willingness to sponsor a call to the men and women of all nations would in itself be enough to achieve this aim or even, in present circumstances, to remove the barriers in the road to its achievement. That might sound a harsh conclusion; but it is, I think, a true one. I am sure that His Majesty's Government would be the first to take the initiative for a peaceful solution of the world's problems if there seemed a reasonable prospect of genuine co-operation on the part of the Governments of the countries of the Communist Empire. But there would be no practical utility in His Majesty's Government's coming out with a vague and general call for peace. At the meeting of the Deputies of the Four Powers in Paris we tried very hard to agree on the holding of a conference of Ministers to deal with the existing tension in Europe, but the Soviet Government made it clear that they were interested in such a meeting only on their own terms. This, then, does not seem to give any grounds for supposing that a peace call would evoke an

477
effective response. It is, however, our earnest hope that the Soviet Government will still agree to have a meeting: the offer is still open.
My Lords, I recognise the value of world public opinion making itself felt in support of efforts to break the present apparent deadlock between East and West. We know the strength of feeling behind the issue that East and West should come closer together. We are ready to consider any method of giving practical effect to that feeling. But we cannot, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, consider the particular method suggested by fie noble Earl without looking at the facts of the situation in which our action must be determined. Disagreeable realities are not removed by ignoring them; and I propose to deal with some of them.
The barriers erected and maintained by the deliberate action of Communist Governments against the free exchange of information, and against freedom of access, make it only too likely that the call would never reach those for whom it was primarily intended. The noble Earl suggests that this call should he directed in particular to the labouring classes of all nations. But, unhappily, the experience of the last few years shows that no appeal of this sort, sponsored by His Majesty's Government, would ever be allowed to reach the working masses of such States as the Soviet Union or China. Yet these are the countries to whom, in the first instance, such a call should be addressed, since they are kept in ignorance by their own Governments of the fact that it is the aggressive policies and actions of their rulers which are principally responsible for existing world-wide tensions and fears for the security of peace. Even if it were possible to penetrate the Iron Curtain, it would be self-deception to harbour any real hope that the working classes of the Communist-dominated countries would be able to exert upon their Governments any influence in the direction which the noble Earl desires. His Majesty's Government deplore as much as anyone the inability of the peoples of these countries to make their voices heard in favour of a true and lasting peace, but they cannot but recognise that inability.
It is of no use any of us closing his eyes to the fact that in Communist-controlled countries public opinion is not the
478
potent force which it is in free countries. That this should be so is a great tragedy, but it is one of the disagreeable facts that have to be recognised and taken into account. In these circumstances, it seems to me that a peace call to the peoples of all nations is unlikely to be of any practical effect. The free peoples of the world require no such special appeal. None of them or their Governments, which they democratically control, seeks war; none of them is a potential aggressor; all of them are pledged to peace and the collective defence of peace. They know where the threat to peace lies. They know who have refused to respond to effort after effort to secure effective collective action in the international field. They are, therefore, rightly interested only in deeds for peace by the Communist East, and they are always on the watch for concrete evidence. But they are not to be misled by the highly-publicised world peace gathering which the Communists go to such pains and expense to organise and manipulate.
I need hardly remind your Lordships' House that in the 1930's most of the declarations and assertions of a desire for peace came from Hitler. Hitler's speeches used to abound in such assertions as:
"National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions…Germany needs peace and desires peace."
In fact, the Nazi Party Congress of 1939, which had to be abandoned because of the war, was actually to be called, on Hitler's express orders, the "Peace Congress." We are now becoming familiar with Communist declarations and manifestoes in a similar strain, and we are again witnessing popular desire for peace being exploited in propaganda and harnessed to serve Party aims and State foreign policy. As noble Lords are aware, there has recently been renewed activity in certain areas in support of a so-called World Peace Congress and a so-called World Peace Pact. We are told that millions of signatures have been collected; that peace conferences have been held and peace committees set up. These claims are less impressive when one knows something of the dubious methods by which the collection of these signatures is carried out. In China, for instance, over 258,000,000 signatures have been collected by the simple process of adding up the number of people attending meetings throughout the country. And

479
wherever a Communist or Communist-sponsored meeting is held, for any purpose, that meeting automatically finds itself "voting"—noble Lords will note the word "voting"—for the Peace Pact. But if those who direct this movement really wanted genuine peace, they would not need to whip up support by such a variety of dubious means. They would not need to misrepresent all those with whom they disagree as warmongers. There would be no need to indulge in hostile propaganda against the West. It surely would be more convincing if they honestly tried to reach agreement with the other peoples of the world on whose response they could count, instead of incessantly branding them as their enemies.
How can we look upon these manœuvres otherwise than with suspicion and indignation, when the Governments and peoples of the free world have continually proclaimed their desire and given proof of their desire to live in peace and friendship with all nations, regardless of their political ideas and systems? They have taken a foremost part in setting up in the United Nations the machinery through which, given only good will, peace can be preserved. It therefore seems inconsistent, to say the least of it, that the promoters of the so-called "peace campaign" should ignore this clearly expressed desire for peace and neglect the machinery of the United Nations whilst at the same time organising an immense movement which professes exactly the same aim.
The underlying suggestion that desire and leadership for peace is the sole prerogative of the Communist States does not bear critical examination. It is indeed a piece of political humbug. In August, 1941, it was the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who signed the Atlantic Charter in which they proclaimed their belief that all nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. As noble Lords will remember, the Atlantic Charter was subsequently endorsed by the principal Allied belligerents, including, among others, the Soviet Union. When peace was restored, it served as their guide in the great work of building the United Nations.
The prime purpose of the United Nations, as we are all aware, is the pre
480
servation of peace, or to use the words of the Preamble of the Charter:
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."
The Charter does in fact constitute a declaration of willingness to work for the abolition of war and of all the poverty and misery that war involves. These are not misleading generalities. The real question is how to make that policy effective, to get away from what the noble Earl called "failure processes." I do not believe that the world is in danger because it needs new principles. What it needs is loyalty in practice to proclaimed and accepted principles. There are to be found in the Atlantic Pact and the Charter of the United Nations all the guiding principles that would enable the nations of the world, working in friendly co-operation, to build up an international order of peace and social justice.
If there were universal loyalty in practice to these principles, with their moral and spiritual values, the world by united action would make headway in removing the causes of war—economic causes as well as political. The noble Earl would, know, agree that poverty and misery, which he mentions as the inevitable results of war, are also among the most important of its causes. Remove these causes, and we shall at the same time be taking an essential step towards abolishing war by creating the conditions of economic stability and social contentment which are a prerequisite to lasting peace. That is indeed an important aspect of the policy which the Government are pursuing. The House is aware of the active and generous part which His Majesty's Government are playing, both within and outside of the United Nations, for the promotion of the economic advancement of all peoples, including, of course, those of the undeveloped areas.
What I should like to emphasise is that the Charter of the United Nations is a charter for the renunciation of war for national purposes and for the settlement of all disputes by peaceable means. It provides what the noble Earl asked for: a basic plan for changing the processes which bring on the destruction of the whole world. There can, in my opinion, be no higher treaty obligations than those which sixty nations have undertaken by their membership of the United Nations.

481
If every nation loyally fulfils these obligations, there can, of course, be no further wars of aggression, nor should there be any need for the peoples of the world to fear a Third World War which, we all agree, Would destroy civilisation as we know it.
If there be that fear—unhappily it is there and it is deep-seated—it is not of our making. Neither we nor our democratic partners have such sinister motives in our minds. We are not warmongers. We intend to stand by our obligations for peace, both by deed and by word—our obligation to abstain from aggression ourselves and our obligation to prevent and, if necessary, to resist aggression. That is the firm basis upon which we stand, for it is the United Nations' basis for the collective maintenance of peace.
I repeat, we are ready as always to play our full part in any genuine effort to remove dm root causes of tension and to develop a real understanding between East and West. Such efforts, however, will not succeed if they are one-sided. There must be good will and good intentions on both sides, if hopes are to be fulfilled and if lasting results are to be achieved. That is the way to preserve and strengthen peace, and that is the way His Majesty's Government are always ready to go. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the Motion of the noble Earl and, while these reasons may not have convinced him—because he is, I recognise, moved by deep feelings—I hope, nevertheless, that he will not wish to press his Motion to a Division.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the kindness with which he has received my Motion. I regret that he cannot see his way to accept it. This has not been a long debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, said that I live in Cloud Cuckoo-land which is possibly not a bad place to live in. People who live there are sometimes more right than those who do not. Anyhow, I will go on believing in it, whatever anybody says about this or any other land. I will still go on believing, I think rightly, that there are no limitations; but that results are due to faulty causes, and that until there is a new system human beings will go on knocking each other on the head until
482
eventually they perish. I shall go on saying that. Perhaps once a year I shall emerge from my Cloud Cuckooland and say it. But I hope that, before that time, Lord Blackford will perhaps come to see me, and I will try to persuade him to another view. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUMMER PASSENGER SERVICES
5.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG rose to call attention to the statement made by the Chairman of the Railway Executive concerning the proposed curtailment of the summer passenger services; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, knows that this Motion was down on fie Order Paper for debate some days ago but on his personal intervention I postponed the date. I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to hear that the reason for his request for a postponement was that on the earlier day the noble Lord was celebrating his son's great feat in passing out third in the Foreign Office examinations. I should like to offer Lord Lucas my congratulations upon that success.
My Lords, when there appeared in the Press the announcement of the Chairman of British Railways that the summer services were to be curtailed because there was a congestion of a very grave character on the railways, I could not help thinking of the submarine menace in the First World War, and of the submarine and the bomber in the Second World War. Both menaced our lifelines, but we survived them. In the Second World War we survived them not only because of the courage of the men in the Services but through the close co-operation which existed between road and rail. Our lifelines, were not severed then, though there were many anxious moments. To-day, six years after the wa,. we are suddenly told about this great congestion. This must have been a grave question to decide. People who had made all their plans for the summer holidays were suddenly told that the summer trains were to be curtailed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, first:

483
How great is this congestion? Secondly, in view of the sacrifices that have been made (I am sure quite willingly) by the people of this country, through the curtailment of the services, I should like to ask whether he can give us any good news as to how this congestion is being dealt with.
I turn now to the statement which was made in late autumn of last year. I understand that there is in existence a consultative committee, presumably composed of representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Transport, possibly of the Ministry of Defence and, of course, of the British Railways and British Road Services. In the late autumn an announcement was made to the effect that we were to have a great number of new and better trains, more restaurant cars and so on. I must say, in passing, that it might have been better had they said they were bringing the present trains up to date. But, in actual fact, how many new trains were put into service? Within two months of that statement the Minister of Fuel and Power announced that there must be a curtailment in all industries in which coal was being used. So it does not look as if there was much liaison between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Transport in regard to the first announcement.
Following upon that there came the last announcement in May, presumably made with the full authority of the Minister, that summer services were to be curtailed. It is interesting to note that services which were put on before the spring and taken off, owing to the statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power that there was a shortage of coal, were put on again as soon as that situation eased. As I understand it, some of these services are still running at the present time, despite the announcement of the Chairman (I know that this matter has already been debated in another place), and in the meantime the public are informed that everything in the garden is rosy.
We are referred to "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff." I do not know who "Mr. Biff" is. He may be the Minister, and "Mr. Buff" may be the Chairman of the British Railways. But whoever they are, the public have certainly been "biffed" and bluffed. I need not go into that side
484
of the matter. The Minister has already said that he is not responsible for the publicity of the British Railways, but I want to make an appeal to the noble Lord who is to reply to-day. Will he look again at "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff" in this light: Is it really worthy publicity, having regard to the prestige of our railways? Is it the sort of stuff that the skilled railway worker appreciates? I am sure that if the noble Lord looks again at this publicity he will come to the conclusion that it is very cheap and tawdry, and not worthy of the name of our great British Railways. If he does that, would he then consult with the Minister as to whether or not something better can be put forward?
However, this situation is with us. Despite what the Chairman of the British Railways has said, in June "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff" are telling the public, "Come by train. It is part of your holiday. It is the greatest fun in the world." Then came the real "biff" when we were informed that there were to be no more trains, and that there would be this curtailment of the summer services. It would be interesting to know whether these recommendations were made to the Minister by the consultative committee, and also how many of their recommendations were accepted by him. It is interesting to note that the Chairman of British Railways, who is not responsible (I presume that in the long run the Minister of Transport is responsible), without giving the public a moment's notification announced that there would be this curtailment. The congestion must be very great for such curtailment to be necessary. What does the Railway Gazette say on this matter?—I quote from the publication of June 8:
"For a good many months the freight position of British Railways has been causing acute concern."
My Lords, what were the consultative committee doing? If this crisis was known months ago, why was there all this publicity until the very last moment about everything in the garden being lovely? Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell your Lordships when the Minister realised how grave was the position of our freight traffic on the railways.
Having said that, may I turn for one or two moments to the other side, that of

485
nationalised road haulage? There is a grave crisis in the railways, and I would ask: Has full use been made, as it was in the last war, of road transport? Have the wheels been revolving? I very much doubt it. My information is that in many of the big depôts in this country even now hundreds of vehicles are lying idle. The co-operation between road and rail which saved us in the war no longer exists, I au told. Is it to be wondered at that industrialists all over the country are feeling frustrated because they cannot get their goods for export—and the vital importance of our export trade is constantly being stressed by His Majesty's Government to the industrialists. They are complaining that they cannot move their good to the ports. So what must they do? In many cases, of course, they are buying their own vehicles and transporting their own goods. One hears that that does not meet with the approval of the Minister of Transport, who does not like that idea. He does not want to see an increase in the number of "C" licence vehicles on the road. Perhaps he is thinking of nationalising them. It is clear now how wise were members of your Lordships' House who, when the Bill to nationalise road transport was passing through this House, pointed out that if "C" licence vehicles were nationalised it would be a piece of great folly. The situation which has now arisen underlines the truth of that statement.
I go further, and I say that I believe that, because of the extraordinary situation in which the railways find themselves only six years after the war, in some instances "C" licence holders who own vehicles may even be illegally carrying goods belonging to other people, because they cannot get them moved and the congestion is so great upon the roads. If the situation of which I have spoken is as serious as I believe it to be, is there a reason for it? Possibly I may be able to put forward one reason. Is it not a fact that, before the railways were nationalised, the four boards of the four great railway companies, cost the shareholders of those companies approximately £100,000 per annum? Should I be wrong in saying that the cost of the people who are now doing the work of those four boards is about £750,000 per annum? Is that not one of the reasons for the position: that matters are so centralised at the top that it is not
486
possible to get rid of the congestion? I admit that I may be wrong in my figures.
There is another question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I know well that there is a great shortage of engine drivers, and that the railways are finding it very difficult to keep the men they have. If the crisis is as grave as it has been painted by the Chairman of British Railways, why has the Minister of Defence not been more helpful? Why is it that the Minister of Defence at this moment, when people have to put up with curtailment of services, has refused to exempt 7,000 men on the railways? It does not look as though there is much co-operation between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Defence. Lastly, I wonder whether I can put forward a constructive suggestion to the noble Lord? Why not pay the skilled worker on the railways a higher reward for the great work which he is doing, thus giving an incentive to those who are not skilled workers to strive for that greater reward? I am confident that if that were done, instead of trying to level down—which seems to be the process that is going on at the present time—it would stop men leaving the railways and encourage others to enter that service. The country is gravely anxious concerning this problem. It is not only the public who are concerned: the workers on the railways and on road transport are just as worried as the public. In moving my Motion, I express the hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us at least some idea whether this grave crisis through which the country is passing can be remedied merely by this curtailment of summer services. I beg to move for Papers.
6.8 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend, Lord Long, and I do so in the firm conviction that something is vitally wrong with one of the arteries of this great and powerful but now tired animal that is our country. If the position is as serious as I believe it to be, it is obviously a matter of the gravest national importance. Your Lordships know as well as I do how essential it is that the transport system of any country should work efficiently and at the lowest cost. If it does not do so, the result must be that the general conditions of life and the standard of living of that country go down. The muddle—I nearly said

487
"buddle," thinking of "Mr. Biff and Mr. Buff "—of the curtailment of the summer services is, to me, just one indication of the chaos that is growing in our railway system. I am sure all your Lordships will agree with me that there is not an industrialist in this country who will not tell you that the movements of raw materials and component parts from the producer to the factory, and of the finished article from the factory to the port or shop, are being subjected to undue and unwarranted delays, which increase the cost of the finished article.
I know that people generally in this country, as well as your Lordships, will be most interested in what the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government is going to say in answer to the specific questions which my noble friend has put to him. Who knows but that he may say that the Severn Tunnel can pass only x number of trains a day? Of course, he would be quite correct in saying that. Then he may say that there are 7,000 or 8,000 trucks of coal at places beyond the Severn Tunnel which cannot be brought to the factories of England. If that is true, I say, curtail passenger services through the Severn Tunnel and build the Severn Bridge as quickly as you can, because the patient dies if his arteries harden and the blood cannot get to his heart.
In addition to the statements made by the Chairman of the British Railways Executive to which my noble friend has already referred, there is another remark of Mr. Elliott to which I should like to draw attention. Mr. Elliott is reported to have said in a Press interview in New York that the newspapers are not printing the truth. He was referring to the British Press, and his complaint apparently was based on the fact that the British newspapers did not accept his view that the railways made a profit of £29,000.000 last year. Apparently he was disappointed that they could not accept his curious view—and I think the word "curious" is a fairly mild one that the railways had been earning profits which had been turned into deficits only because they have to pay interest on the 3 per cent. stock issued to shareholders when the railways were nationalised.
It is interesting to note that when the Chairman of the British Railways Execu-
488
tive made this extraordinary statement, the Daily Worker published an article making exactly the same point. With your Lordships' permission, I will read a short quotation from this Communist newspaper. It is as follows:
"Why is there a deficit? Only because the railways are burdened with colossal State charges, running to £33,000,000 a year in the total transport stock, for the inflated capital holdings of the former shareholders."
Both the Daily Worker and the Chairman of the British Railways Executive seem to believe in abolishing interest on capital expenditure, an idea which your Lordships will agree would lead only to national bankruptcy. It is surely remarkable that the Chairman of the British Railways Executive and the Communist newspaper should share the same view. It is bad when a man in his position has to cover up his own mistake by an unwarranted abuse of a great institution, the British Press, without which the aims and views, extraordinary though some of them may be, of both the Socialist and the Conservative Parties would never be known to the public. It is in the worst taste that this comes from someone who is the son of one of the most famous journalists in Fleet Street.
In conclusion, I should like to say that if the position is bad, let the country know it. Tell us the truth. Transportation is vital, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that we must get the railways working at their fullest efficiency. Faced with serious difficulties overseas, everything possible must be done. We must lay Party and political prejudice aside and do the job for the safety and well-being of the country.
6.14 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, perhaps you will be good enough to allow me to acknowledge my indebtedness to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for allowing this Motion to be changed from its original date. The reasons he gave are quite correct, and I must say how appreciative I am of his congratulations. For his information, on the following morning I came to the conclusion that the disparity of years had taken their toll. The noble Viscount has put the Motion before your Lordships in his usual straihtforward and pungent

489
manner. I have no complaint whatsoever. He has said things that I think should be said, and I think should be answered. The whole problem which he has put before the House is a commercial and industrial problem; it is not a political problem, and I am grateful to him for leaving politics entirely out of it.
It is no part of my duty to wrap a white sheet around the British Transport Commission, and I do not intend to do it. The British Transport Commission is an industrial and commercial concern and, as such, must withstand criticism, particularly the criticism of their customers. It is quite right that it should be voiced. The only thing I can say, and I think the noble Viscount will agree with me, is that those who voice this criticism, if they wish to criticise intelligently and objectively should be informed of the facts. There is a lot of loose criticism. I will straight away absolve the noble Viscount from any charge in that direction, but there is no doubt that the railways, their mistakes and misdeeds, seem to be used for Party political purposes far too much. What I propose to do in reply to the noble Viscount is to place the facts before your Lordships, without, I hope, any bias one way or the other, and your Lordships can then assess the position.
The noble Viscount has said rightly that one of the main causes which led up to the curtailment of the summer services was the shortage of man-power. I agree with him. The growing shortage of skilled men upon the British Railways has been apparent now for eighteen months or two years. Although the noble Viscount's Motion relates to summer services, he rightly pointed out that the real problem is freight congestion. I should like to give some figures of the decline in the numbers of men in the four main grades comprising the train crews. These are drivers and motormen, firemen, guards and shunters. At April 21 of this year there were 1,200 drivers fewer that there were at the corresponding date in 1950. There were 2,984 fewer firemen—and firemen are sometimes drivers. There were 896 fewer guards and 881 fewer shunters. Last January there was some very had arid wet weather. I think I can say, with some justification, that the last place I should like to work in weather of the sort which we experienced last
490
winter is on a locomotive or in a marshalling yard. I know of no wetter or windier place than a marshalling yard; and additional sickness took its toll. Again, I am confining my facts to these same four grades. In January and February, 1951, there were 3,627 drivers and motormen, and 2,424 firemen, absent on sickness. In the first case that represents an increase of nearly 1,500 over the number for the corresponding period of the previous year, and in the second case 759. There were 1,861 guards sick, which was an increase of 540; and there were 1,525 shunters sick, which was an increase of 514. The National Service call-up does not affect engine drivers very much, because they are the older men. I have lust one figure which will give the noble Viscount some idea. There were 4,102 firemen called up for National Service last year.
The drift away from the railways has been a most serious thing. It is one of the penalties we have to pay for full employment. There is a greater attraction of labour towards other industries. One of the attractions of the railway industry before the war was that, although the wages perhaps were not comparable, there was security. To-day that is not an attraction, because there is security of employment in every branch of industry. There is no doubt that in the industrial areas of this country there has been a drift away from the railways into other industries, particularly the exporting and rearmament industries. This has been a drift of the skilled classes, and, therefore (I do not say this in any offensive manner), of the more intelligent grades of workers on the railways. These are facts one has to face. May I take a specific example? On Tuesday and Wednesday, June 19 and 20, in the hardest hit industrial areas, we were short of 409 sets of engine men—that is, drivers and firemen—and 502 guards, to cover booked freight services—that is, the goods time-table services. As a result, 254 freight trains were cancelled. That is a very serious matter. By the curtailment of the summer services—it was a postponement just for one fortnight—we have released from 200 to 250 trained crews, comprising the engine driver, fireman and guard, for freight working.
That is the man-power side of the story. We are having this labour difficulty, but there are a great number of men on the

491
railways who are doing a magnificent job. The noble Viscount asked me whether the crisis was over. I think I can say that the jam is mainly over, and has been cleared, except in a few odd spots here and there, mainly in the south, where we are faced with the necessity for building up coal stocks. But the jam is over, and it is largely due to the efforts of a large proportion of the workers on the railways, who have voluntarily worked over the week-ends during this period of crisis. As the noble Viscount knows, there has been difficulty in only certain areas, such as in the Midlands and South Wales. But where you get a jam in a marshalling yard, the effects are felt hundreds of miles away. I will not go into all the details; the noble Viscount knows them as well as I do. But I want to pay tribute to those men who have done a very fine job of work. Unfortunately, we must face up to the fact that there is an all too large proportion who have not a proper conception of their responsibilities and do not face up to them. I do not mind whether labour is in the railway industry or any other industry, if they insist upon working less and less for the pound they get, they cannot complain if that pound gives them less and less. They must realise that. This is a joint enterprise. Management may have its faults—as I said in my opening I am not proposing to cover the British Transport Commission with a white sheet—but first-class management cannot solve this problem unless it gets the wholehearted support of the bulk of the workers in the industry.
I should like to deal with one other factor to enable noble Lords to assess the problem properly; that is, the volume of traffic. In the sixteen weeks up to April 22, 1950, the net ton miles travelled were 6,954,830,000. For the corresponding period this year it was 7,096,761,000 net ton miles, which is an increase of 141,931,000. This increase is due to greater productivity, the export drive, and also to coal imports. Coal imports have presented a great problem. As the noble Viscount knows, there were approximately 1,000,000 tons of coal which came into the ports of this country from the United States of America up to the beginning of May. I thought that he might be interested in these figures. The three points of entry with the largest tonnage were Mersey, South Wales and the
492
Thames and the South Coast. Of the 1,000,000 tons, just over 260,000 tons went to South Wales, and of that amount 200,000 tons had to be transferred from South Wales to Birmingham and the Midlands. Your Lordships can see the problem which this created. Now who is responsible? Here I think the noble Viscount is under a slight misconception. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has very limited powers, and if the noble Viscount will take his mind back to the time when the Transport Act was going through this House (and both he and I sat and heard every word), he will remember that noble Lords opposite were anxious to divest the Minister of every possible power of interference. I remember the debate very well. The Minister, however, as I say, has very limited powers. And, as I have also said, this is a managerial problem, and is concerned with the day-to-day operation of the transport system of this country. I feel sure that if the Minister or I started interfering in the day-to-day management, we should suffer very severe criticism. We are disturbed over the position, and I am going to say something more about that in a minute.
The noble Viscount asked me my opinion of "Biff" and "Buff." I have no responsibility for them; and neither has my right honourable friend; but if it is any satisfaction to the noble Viscount, my personal view is very similar to his own. My commercial experience has taught me that that is not the way to get business.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would it be a breach of faith or Ministerial practice if the noble Lord were to convey the opinion which is shared on both sides of the House to the persons responsible for these two animals?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should imagine that those who are responsible will read in Hansard the report of this debate, and will read the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. If their remarks do not convince the people responsible, then I am sure that any effort that I may make will not succeed. The noble Viscount kept talking about a consultative committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and, perhaps, the Defence Ministry. I do not know

493
of the existence of such a committee. There is not one. Naturally, there are consultations between Ministries, but there is no committee of the kind which the noble Viscount appears to have in mind. The noble Viscount then asked me about these additional trains. He asked: How many additional trains were put into operation at the beginning of this year? As a matter of fact, nine additional long-distance trains were put on, but the total train mileage was not increased because there were compensating reductions in other lightly loaded trains.
I acknowledge the noble Viscount's courtesy in giving me notice that he would put some of these questions, but one of them has rather puzzled me. It is true that, as he said, the remuneration of the directors of the railways before the war ran into about £100,000 a year. Then he asked me whether it was true that the comparable sum paid now to comparable people is £750,000. I do not know where he obtained that figure. I have made all the inquiries open to me, and I cannot get anywhere near that figure. The total remuneration of the members of the Railway Executive, including superannuation and national insurance, comes to £39,868. They are the persons most nearly comparable to the old railway directors, and they do the same kind of work. It is true that to that you have to add a proportion of the remuneration of the British Transport Commission—the hierarchy, as I might call it—as you would have to allocate part of the cost of the Commission to the Road Haulage Executive and to the other Executives. But the total remuneration of the Commission comes to only about £23,000. Therefore, even if half is due to be debited against the railways, it amounts to less than £50,000. Perhaps the noble Viscount has been misinformed or he has in mind something different.
Another question of the noble Viscount concerned the operating stock of road vehicles on road haulage. During the months from January to May of this year the operating stock of road vehicles averaged out at slightly under 40,000. I have another figure which may also be of interest to the noble Viscount. The average vehicle miles travelled per month was in the region of 56,500,000, rising from 54,268,000 in January to 58,355,000 in May. So, while this freight crisis was on
494
the Road Haulage Executive increased their mileage by something in the region of 4,500,000 miles per month.
Those are the facts. I have given your Lordships the facts about man-power. I have given the reasons why this crisis was caused. It was a build-up caused by increased productivity, by a diminution in man-power, and by exceptional circumstance. I am not going to say that there were not other faults of operation. I am not going to stand here and claim that the British Transport Commission or the Railway Executive have reached a 103 per cent. peak of efficiency; I would not insult anybody's intelligence by saying that. There have doubtless been operational mistakes, and I think that these are lessons which they will have to learn. But that is conjecture. I have placed the facts before your Lordships, and it must be for your Lordships to assess as to whether they can be put in mitigation. I have told your Lordships that in general terms the crisis is over, but it could only be arrested by a diminution in the summer services. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has any information I do not possess, but so far as I know there has not been any real inconvenience to the public. I do not know whether there has been any passenger congestion on the railways during the fortnight that these summer services have been cut. If there has, I am sorry, but that is the price which has to be paid.
I am not, however, so much concerned with the crisis which is just over, but about next winter. I am very worried about that, because, standing a little outside the scene and being able to assess the thing as I see it, and not being actively engaged in the day-to-day operations of the railways, I can see the problem perhaps more clearly. We have been told that there will be considerable consumer goods shortages. I am afraid that you cannot have a £4,700,000,000 rearmament programme and a huge export programme if you keep up a supply of consumer goods. If we have this drift away in the direction of better employment in other industries—I mean more attractive employment, especially to the younger men; if we are to see the increased productivity that we hope for, then I am afraid that, allied to a shortage of consumer goods next winter there will be a considerable reduction in rail passenger transport in this country. Frankly, I must warn the

495
public here and now that that is what they must be prepared to face if we are going to keep out of the position in which we have been this year as regards freight movement. We simply have not the trained crews; they are not coming in—in fact we are losing them. The noble Viscount asked whether we could not release these men from their National Service obligations.
VISCOUNT LONG: I did say, if the crisis is as grave as it has been painted by the Chairman of British Railways.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Noble Lords, especially on the opposite side, have a great knowledge of defence matters. They know very well that if His Majesty's Government relax the call-up for National Service for one industry there will be a queue of other industries standing outside the Defence Department asking for similar treatment. Think of the number called-up from agriculture—about 17,000 men. Where are we going to stop? If we are going to have a Defence programme we must have a real Defence programme. I am afraid that all these shortages are straining our economy, both in man-power and in material, so much that we ordinary consumers have got to tighten our belts another two or three inches. That is the only remedy. That is my answer to the noble Viscount. I have given him the facts. I hope he will not accuse me of complacency, or of not facing up to the situation, or of finding excuses. I have given your Lordships the facts as to what is likely to happen in the future and how they have to be met. I hope sincerely that what I have said will satisfy the noble Viscount and that he will not press his Motion.
6.43 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question before the noble Viscount, Lord Long, replies. Lord Lucas told us that many of the operating staff had worked very well indeed, and had worked wonders in clearing the jam on the railways. He also said that other members of the staff had not shown that pride in their job or that sense of craftsmanship which it might be thought we have the right to expect. Speaking as an agent for the railways I may say that in some cases we receive very good service, whereas on other occasions we find the opposite. For instance
496
we find that promised extra coaches are not attached to a train. May I ask whether anything is being done to reward men for the good work they have done, by early promotion or otherwise? They surely deserve some recognition. It seems to me that the individual may well be lost sight of in these vast undertakings. I am sure that it is right that the men who give the best service to the Railways should have that service properly recognised, thereby giving encouragement to others to do likewise.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. What I had in mind when I said that there was an all-too-large proportion of those engaged in the National Transport system who had not faced up to their responsibilities were the silly and ridiculous strikes that occur from time to time. That was all. As regards the noble Lord's second point—whether these men who have worked and contributed so much to the easing of this jam will be suitably rewarded in one way or another—I should think that intelligent management would always take notice of loyal and exceptional service. If the management does not do so, then it must not expect to get the co-operation it desires.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for the full statement he has made in reply to my Motion? I find myself in some little quandary at this late hour, in that I should have liked to go into other questions arising out of his reply which do not really concern my Motion. In fact, I am not quite certain that I did not go outside the Motion to begin with. The chief point the noble Lord has made is, as I understand it, that the crisis is over, or nearly over. I sincerely hope that this question will be carefully considered in the future and that trouble will not suddenly burst upon us as it did this year. In thanking the noble Lord again, I would add that I hope that when the accounts of the Transport Commission are published your Lordships' House may have an opportunity of debating the whole question of the result of the year's trading. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am asked to inform you, before you adjourn, that there will be a formal sitting of your Lordships' House to-morrow, Friday, at 2.30 p.m., to receive Bills from another place.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CITY AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES BILL ABINGDON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.