Lords Sitting of 26 January 1956

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

VISCOUNT CILCENNIN
The Right Honourable James Purdon Lewes Thomas, having been created Viscount Cilcennin, of Hereford in the County of Hereford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield)—Took the Oath.

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform you that my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, will be making a statement on heroin at 3.45 p.m.

BRITISH RAILWAYS' FINANCE
3.19 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to call attention to the finance of the nationalised British Railways; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last March we had a debate on transport, much of it related to the railways. Many noble Lords expressed various views on the subject, but what particularly impressed me was that the question of finance was hardly mentioned during the whole debate. We were, and are, face to face with the position that the nationalised railways are steadily and heavily losing money and are proposing, with Government sanction, to spend some £1,200 million in the hope of remedying the situation.
By far the greater part of this outlay is to be spent on changing over from steam traction to other forms, principally electric and diesel. In these circumstances it is a matter of the highest importance to take every precaution to
612
ensure that the proposed change-over is likely to achieve the economies desired. So far as I know, no information on this vital matter has been published; no figures of the results of existing lines worked by electric or diesel traction. and no estimates. We are merely told it is to be done and that it will be paid for out of a loan guaranteed by the taxpayers. Some of the modernisation contemplated—such as improved signalling and stronger permanent way seems to be little more than ordinary maintenance. The question of enlarged mineral wagons fitted with continuous brakes is so controversial that I do not propose to say anything on the subject. But when it comes to the abandonment of the steam locomotive and a complete change-over to new forms of traction, surely we should proceed with the utmost caution. I am sorry to say that I see little sign of caution in the attitude of either the Government or the Transport Commission. It is the old trouble —secrecy; the gentleman from Whitehall knowing better than anyone else, and trampling under foot anyone who asks for reasons.
My attention was first directed to the relative merits of different forms of railway traction by what appeared to me to be the efforts of the Southern Railway to avoid disclosing to the shareholders and to the public the financial results of their large electrification scheme, begun about forty years ago. So far as I know—and I have been doing my best all the time to find out—no figures on the subject of the relative costs of steam and electric traction have been published either by the railway management when the railway was a private company or by the Transport Commission. Instead, at general meetings the chairman used to give the shareholders, and enlarge upon, little snippets of information, such as the number of afternoon passengers from Sevenoaks or the economies secured by the absence of coal consumption by standby steam locomotives. But of the overall relative financial results there was never a word. I have attended a general meeting at which shareholders kept on shouting to be given this information but were refused. When we look for figures to support the economy which the undoubtedly considerable change-over from steam traction in many countries to other forms of traction is supposed to have

613
brought about, so far as I know there is nothing at all. As I have already said, I have kept a pretty close watch and have found nothing. If the Government have such figures I hope that they will disclose them to the House.
The United States, France and Germany have all, to a greater or less extent, superseded the steam locomotive. The United States have probably gone further in this direction than any other country. Perhaps the most powerful industrial organisation in the United States is that of the oil companies. Has the enormous influence which they wield nothing to do with it? We hear of the elaborate trouble taken to make sure that every possible step is taken to glorify the oil engine—new tools, new shops, arrangements for ensuring maximum mileage for the oil engine—all quite different from anything that was ever done for the steam locomotive. Some United Stales railways, in their anxiety to help the oil engine, appear to have broken up almost new steam locomotives. France has lately electrified many of her railways, and at the present time runs the best trains in Europe; but whether these magnificent trains depend on electrification is a moot point. I happen to have a lot of experience of French steam locomotives, gained by sixty years acquaintance with them, and my own belief is that the same results could be achieved with steam. I have never seen any figures to show superior economy for electricity. In Germany, also, new forms of traction are much used. But there again there are no figures.
Why is it that the Transport Commission keep on telling us that electric and diesel traction are better than steam traction? All three can do everything that is required on surface lines. In efficiency the differences between them are trifling. As regards electrification, the Commission do not claim that electricity can compare favourably with steam unless the traffic reaches what they describe as a "minimum density"—see paragraph 30, page 12 of their Report—and they give no estimate of what may be expected if "minimum density" is reached. In particular, they do not give figures for lines where electrically-worked traffic has existed for many years. The claim constantly made for electricity, that on eke-trifled lines a much quicker succession of trains can be worked, cannot be accepted, because this is made possible entirely by
614
improved signalling, which can easily be installed on any line and does not depend upon the establishment of enormously expensive conducting rails or wires. It is also claimed that electricity has an advantage over steam because an electric engine does not have to carry its power supply with it. I should have thought that it was exactly the other way, and that the self-contained steam engine has an advantage over the electric engine by being independent of power supply. This is especially so in the case of enemy action or civil disturbance.
With some concern, I notice that the Transport Commission does not seem to know its own mind on the subject of electrification. Electrification started in a muddle. Each of the three companies which were amalgamated to form the
Southern Railway had a system which differed from those of the other two. At considerable expense the differences were overcome, but it now turns out that the system adopted by all three is not nearly so good as one of the various systems now used in France. This system, though promising economics in working, appears to require overhead wiring, for which British loading gauges do not provide enough room; so it would be necessary to reconstruct most of the tunnels and overline bridges. How much would the Severn Tunnel, four miles long and under the river, cost to reconstruct? There is a glorious muddle in the making. Then there is the question of the cost of electric current. It is often said that in a few years atomic stations will be able to supply all we want al a small fraction of present-day costs. My own information is that for a long time to come the atomic stations will be unable to cheapen the supply of current at all. This is a subject that Government must know all about and I hope they will tell us the facts.
As regards diesel traction, diesel locomotives are much more expensive than steam locomotives in first cost, and, although without a boiler, have far more complicated machinery. Diesel exhaust, too, is more poisonous than the smoke which conies from steam locomotives. The claim is made that both electric and diesel motors work more continuously than steam locomotives. This is just what we want to find out, but no facts or figures are given. It is easy, by manipulating timetables, to get any results de-

615
sired. In the United States, the Norfolk and Western Railway have arranged for refilling their boilers with hot water, emptying fire-boxes and putting in clean fire, all in the space of an hour or less. As it appears to be proposed to spend several hundreds of millions of pounds on re-equipping our railways with electric and diesel machines by means of a loan guaranteed by the taxpayers, I suggest that much more information should be published before the scheme is gone on with. Can it be that the whole thing is due to the spectacular failure of the National Coal Board to bring to the surface locomotive coal sufficient either in quantity or quality in a country where the reserves of coal, much of it of excellent quality, are estimated to be sufficient for 400 years? I am unable to believe the rumour that the Government, finding the situation in the coalfields so difficult to deal with, have given up the attempt. Are we so decadent that we must abandon the one industry that above all others has made this country great? Surely our present failure is only a temporary lapse which will pass.
Meanwhile, if the coal really cannot be found, it is always possible to keep the trains running by burning oil in the fire boxes. We are constantly being told that electric traction, dependent upon power stations which can be fed with indifferent fuel because the size of the grates is not limited, will release a large quantity of locomotive coal which is urgently needed elsewhere. We are never told where or why it is needed. Locomotive coal is different from household coal and the two are not interchangeable. Moreover, only about one-third of the trains running require first-rate coal. In these circumstances, I should have thought that by far the most economic way of using locomotive fuel was to burn it in the fireboxes of steam locomotives, thereby rendering unnecessary the expenditure of some hundreds of millions of pounds which the Transport Commission tell us the change-over will cost.
The root of the troubles on the railways, exactly like that of most of our other financial troubles, is that at a time of maximum impoverishment owing to the destruction of wealth by two great wars, we have endeavoured to introduce a general standard of living for which the means are not available. A bankrupt
616
can pretend that he is a rich man so long as he can lay hands on capital to
spend. Our so-called prosperity is brought about by living on
capital—otherwise inflation: inflation and living on capital are very nearly the same thing. The proposal is that we shall increase inflation by spending hundreds of millions of pounds on superseding the steam locomotive. It may create the impression that something is being done and so help to put off for a short time the reckoning which our own proceedings have brought upon us. But at what a price! My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

THE MANUFACTURE OF HEROIN
3.39 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission. I should like to make a statement, which is also being made in reply to Questions in another place, about heroin. The Government's aim in deciding to ban the manufacture of heroin was to co-operate in a widespread international effort, to which more than fifty countries have subscribed, to help to eliminate the abuse of the drug in various parts of the world. Before reaching the decision, the Government had taken the advice of the statutory advisory bodies—namely, the Standing Medical Advisory Committees in England and Wales and in Scotland.
The Government have been advised, however, that it is not possible under the present law of this country to prohibit the manufacture of heroin. There is no similar legal obstacle in the way of prohibiting the export and import of heroin, and the Government have accordingly decided to prohibit entirely, as from the first of this month, exports of this drug to countries outside the British Islands, except for such small amounts as may be necessary for scientific purposes only, and all imports. As regards manufacture, the Government have decided to restrict the manufacture of heroin in this country to the quantities actually required for home medical consumption and scientific use.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House

617
will welcome the statement that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I must say that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, who is absent from the House, would feel that in large degree the case he made to the House before the Recess has been met by the proposal of the Government. It is unfortunate that before the original proposal was made it was not discovered that it was not possible under the law to carry it out. In regard to the proposals made in this statement concerning future action that is to say, the limiting of production for medical purposes here, or with only a limited amount for export—the question arises how that is to be arranged. Is it to be done by the laying of regulations under the Dangerous Drugs Act, or what are the details of the proposals of the Government in this matter?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps I might answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lard Alexander of Hillsborough. There is no difficulty whatever about the control of the manufacture of heroin. It has always been tightly controlled in this country. I believe that only two firms—certainly not more—manufacture heroin: it is done under licence, and there will be no difficulty in controlling it.
LORD REA: My Lords, this matter has never been a Party matter and I hope it never will be. I should like to express what I imagine is the view of most of your Lordships in saying that the Government have acted quickly and satisfactorily in this matter, and we are grateful for what they have done. The question of export to the Commonwealth might possibly arise, but that does not come under the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We are grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on what appears to be an extremely good arrangement, which will meet the difficulties put forward by those who did not want to have excessive use of heroin in this country? This will confine it entirely to its proper medical use, under strict supervision, and it will do much good, especially in Canada.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may l say that the fact that there will be no prohibition of the manufacture of heroin
618
in this country will be received with great gratification by many members of the medical and surgical professions and by suffering patients throughout the country?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about the question of restricting the manufacture? I gather from him, in reply to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that there was no difficulty about restricting, because it was already being done. What does he mean, then, by saying that the Government have decided to restrict the manufacture of heroin in this country? It appears as if that is a new decision and not a continuation of an existing one.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is not quite that. The manufacture was always strictly controlled but, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will probably remember, and as I told him in the debate that we had on this subject in December, we did a large amount of the export of the world's heroin. Nevertheless it was controlled. The control will now be further extended to allow of only the very limited amount of home production which I have just described.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I take it that it is the same control, but exercised in such a way that manufacture will be restricted to requirements within the country?
LORD MANCROFT: Precisely.
LORD SILKIN: It is not a new control?
LORD MANCROFT: No.

BRITISH RAILWAYS' FINANCE
3.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have a short proposition to make that is within the knowledge of most of your Lordships and has a strong financial implication. The proposition is that since nationalisation British Railways have employed more people to give the public a worse service at higher cost and greater risk. I shall not go into the disappearance of all my old friends from the railways, and stories about the enormous increase in the inspectorate staff. The matter was examined in one of the Sunday news-

619
papers last November or December, and the figures were there given. It is well known that British Railways are employing a good many more men than they did before the railways were nationalised, to give the public a worse service. That is a matter of common knowledge.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Which newspaper was it?
LORD SALTOUN: I think it was the Sunday Express, and it went into the matter in some detail. Branches are being closed all over Scotland, and I suppose it is the same in England.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it not a fact that branches were being closed before the take-over of the railways by the nation? It is not a new thing to close branches that are unprofitable. It was often done when the railways were privately controlled, when all kinds of stocks and shares, private money subscribed by investors, were down to 10 per cent. of their par value. I hope that this debate is not going to lead us unexpectedly into a full-dress debate on nationalisation, but we are certainly ready to meet it, if necessary.
LORD SALTOUN: I know that some branches were closed previously, but, at any rate speaking for Scotland. I know there are a great many more branches closed now, and more are in process of being closed, very much against the will of the people. Moreover, as is well known to many of your Lordships in this House, there are manufacturing firms of great output and high standing in this country who, in spite of the extra burden laid upon them by the Road Transport Act, prefer to send their goods to their customers in their own vehicles, and pay the cost of those vehicles returning empty, because if they trust the goods to British Railways they do not know when and in what condition they will get to the consignees.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to refute that straight away. I do not want to have a debate, but I am not going to let these statements go unchallenged. I think that the action of the Government in getting rid of a great deal of the British Road Transport has been harmful to the public.
620
My own experience with regard to the use of railway transport has been contrary to that stated by the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: Most noble Lords will know that that is the case. The fact of higher cost is well known to every one of your Lordships, and fares have gone up again and again. As to greater risk, I have the Government behind me when I make that statement, because they are instituting an inquiry into the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Scandalous!
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN I will give your Lordships one simple instance. Not long ago a pipe burst in a frost at quite an important railway station. In the old days stationmasters were men of some consequence and were trusted. But a year ago, when this happened, the stationmaster had to send forty miles for the man who was appointed and who took nearly two hours to come. That man had to mend the pipe, and then returned to the depöt; and all this rather than pay 5s. to get the local plumber to mend the pipe. That is costly and bad management.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am very anxious to try and work in the smoothest possible way in your Lordships' House in these matters, and I think it would be much more to the advantage of the House if I say to the noble Lord, in the best possible spirit, that if this subject is to be discussed the noble Lord should put down a Motion, and we shall be only too glad to debate it with him point by point. But it is a little unfair, that, having been given no warning of this type of debate, we should have to deal with such questions today, although we are quite prepared to do so.
LORD SALTOUN: These matters bear upon finance. The Government are proposing to guarantee a loan of, I think, £12,000 million—
LORD MONKSWELL: £1,200 million.
LORD SALTOUN: —to British, Railways, and I say that no business could get that money on the market without a British Government guarantee. I say that it is not a proper speculation for public money, and that a business must put its house in order before it goes to the market to get money. I think it is a questionable matter to ask Her Majesty's

621
Government to put up money for a business until that business has put its house in order. The matter is even worse than I have suggested, because we have already had in some quarters the proposition that the wages in the industry should not be met out of that Industry but should be met, to some degree, out of taxation. When there is that sort of outlook for an industry, I think it is questionable whether it is a proper thing for Her Majesty's Government to advance money upon it. That is all I wished to say; and I have said it.
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that some arrangement may be made to have this matter properly debated. If the noble Lord does not wish to have a proper debate in the future, then perhaps we shall take steps to put a Motion down. But such a one-sided presentation of the case as we have had this afternoon certainly cannot go unchallenged. I have not the last two years' figures in my mind, but after our most extraordinary war experiences, in which great sums of public money were spent on the railways during their private ownership, and after a long period in which it was not possible to make the ordinary, replacement of permanent way, stock and the like, the railways were brought to a balance on the right side in 1951. There have been other reasons, as well as those referred to hazily by the noble Lord, which were responsible for losses since 1951 and into which we could go in detail. With regard to the question of going to the public for public money in respect of the nationalised railways, I would point out that before national ownership the railway companies went to the public for money again and again and raised tat money on guaranteed trustee stocks; and many of those stocks which had been guaranteed as trustee stocks were worth about 10 per cent. of their par value when it came to the final stage. I do not think the kind of statement made this afternoon ought to be made without there being some pretest and without a declaration of desire to have the matter debated at some time.
3.54 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I wish to add only a few words, and I want to get back to the terms of the Motion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I know that he is a great believer
622
in the "iron horse," the old steam engine, but the fuel position is becoming extremely difficult, as I think he will agree. Now that we have mechanised mining the coal comes up to the surface much smaller, and there is less and less of the large coal which the engines need. That demand competes greatly (I think I am well-informed on this point, and perhaps Her Majesty's Government will either corroborate my statement or correct me) with the demand for the home market coal, which is in very short supply. We have to look at this question of electrification from a long-term view. The coal under these islands will not last for ever, and we are to spend a visit sum of money on atomic energy plants, which will supply the power of the future. The only way in which atomic power can be successfully turned to the use of the nation is through electricity; by building steam and atomic power stations we can use the power produced for electric traction.
It has been decided by the Transport Commission—and we debated this matter at great length a short time ago—that two northern lines are to be electrified. What has not been decided so far, though it is an important point, about which I hope we shall have further information at an early date, is what type of electrification we are to have. We all know that the French have made tremendous advances in using high-power alternating current and breaking it down in the cabs themselves, thus saving a tremendous number of sub-stations on the line. Earlier it was decided that they would continue with the 1,500 volt D.C. We were told by the Minister who is to reply this afternoon that this matter is
still under urgent consideration and that a statement about the form of electrification we shall have will be made early this year. Therefore I, for one, feel it right that we should go on against the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to-day, although I know his great experience of these matters. He has spent a lifetime studying railways and has been on many more railways than I have. I agree that it is a vast sum of money to spend, and that the railways are losing a good deal of money. Recently, the men have been awarded a further increase in wages which will further increase the deficit. In this new programme we must be very careful that the money is spent to the best advantage.

623
In conclusion, I would say that I think the noble Lord was a little unfair with regard to the Southern Railway electrification, because my recollection (the House will correct me if I am wrong) is that the Southern Railway was one of the few railways which paid a decent dividend to its ordinary shareholders right up to the time of the war—somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4 or 4½ per cent. I am quite certain that the electrification to Brighton and Portsmouth showed quite a good return on the money invested. The company were forced to do it because of the density of traffic which went down to places like Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight: they could not turn round steam trains fast enough.
The French railways have extremely good main lines with electrification. I feel that, with the shortage of coal, it is right to go on with the two northern lines of electrification. I think it is right to have dieselisation down to the West Country. The noble Lord mentioned the difficulty with these great high-tension lines because of the lowness of our tunnels and bridges, and he referred to the difficulty of the tunnel underneath the Severn. I understand the proposition is that the Western line should be all diesel, which will mean, of course, that there will not be difficulty with the headroom. I should like to stand up for the Transport Commission, because I think they have a great programme. There are many things still unsettled about the programme which the
noble Lord mentioned to-day. The form of electrification is important, as also are the safety signalling devices—whether they are going to have the system used by the old Great Western Railway or the improved system on the Northern line. All these matters are so tied up with the whole programme that I hope there will not be much more delay before the scheme is put into operation. I feel certain that, when it is, we shall see some saving in operational costs.
4.0 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I intervene in this debate to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in his rather damaging remarks about the nationalised railways. He stated that the number of men employed on the railways
624
had increased ever since nationalisation came about. When challenged by my noble Leader. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, he referred to some article in the Sunday Express, which he did not produce. When making a speech in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord is usually rather careful in regard to the documentation of his remarks, but it struck me that that was, on the face of it, a remark unlikely to be accurate. Therefore I took the occasion to go to the Library to look at the Annual Abstract of Statistics, which is the official statistical account issued by the Government.
If we go back to 1948, which is about the relevant starting date in regard to this matter, we find that the number of men employed on the railways at that time was apparently 576,000. The following year, 1949, it declined to 559,000; in 1950, it was 548,000—a continuous decline. In 1951, it was 528,000 and then, in 1952, there was a slight increase to 540,000. Then, in 1953, which is the last figure given, the number goes down to 534,000. This is a net decline of 42,000 employees, if my subtraction is accurate.
The noble Lord ought to agree that the figures in this publication are likely to be more accurate than anything he saw in the Sunday Express. I hope he will withdraw that rather damaging observation and also, possibly, some of the other equally damaging observations which were founded on equally flimsy evidence.
LORD SALTOUN: I may answer only with your Lordships' permission. If I am wrong about the numbers, I can only say that I saw them stated in the Sunday Express—I cannot remember the exact Sunday. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. There is nothing else to say because I think that all the other propositions are true. We know that we are paying, more for our railways.
4.3 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, we had a considerable discussion on the subject of inland transport last month and, with your Lordships' permission, I do not want to traverse the ground again, because, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I dealt with the question of long-term finance in a broad general way. I also dealt with a number of other questions of that sort. I should like to say one or two things to

625
the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, which I think should, in fairness, be said, because I feel that none of us would doubt that there are real problems which the British Transport Commission have to face. One should at least try to be entirely fair to them, in the nature of the problems with which they have to deal.
I am informed that up to the present time, for instance, the number of employees has fallen since nationalisation by 70,000. Of course, we are concerned with the question of safety—perhaps not unnaturally at the present time—but if is true to say that British Railways are probably the safest in the world. I know that statistics are proverbially misleading, but I worked out some figures and found that, having regard to conditions since the war, a man who travelled five times a week all through his life would require to live 150,000 years before he was likely to meet with a railway accident—that is, a period about twenty times as great as the age of the Pyramids. So a pretty considerable time would elapse before, normally, people would be likely to meet with an accident.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the statement made recently by the British Transport Joint Consultative Council—he probably noticed that it came out about a week ago. That statement should give the noble Lord real satisfaction, because it holds out hopes of the closest mutual cooperation between all those who engage in the British Transport work, not only on the question of the modernisation plan, but also on the question of safety and general efficiency. On these subjects, complete agreement on objectives was reached between the representatives of the British Transport Commission and of the five unions who were present. I certainly hope, as I know all your Lordships hope, that this is a strong indication of an era of great co-operation throughout the whole field of the British Transport Corn-mission's work.
May I now return to the remarks trade by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell? He made the remark that he did not want his points to be mixed up with the discussion we had last month. I shall deal frankly with the points he has raised. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me, but as the noble Lord has especially asked for figures, I have no alternative but to give figures, which I know are prover-
626
bially dull. As I said a moment ago, I dealt to some extent with the general financial position when we spoke of it last month and to-day I propose to deal not with that but with the 'special points which the noble Lord has raised.
The question he has asked is straightforward: are the Transport Commission justified in this big change-over from steam to diesel and electric traction? I know that the Motion goes rather wider, but that is the question, in essence, which he has asked—almost the sole question in its different facets. Of course, there is an element of estimation, because what happens elsewhere is not necessarily a full answer to what may, or may not, happen in this country. None the less, I can say that the reasons which appear to the British Transport Commission adequate for what they are doing seem to be overwhelming in their force and the British Transport Commission are quite clear that this is an essential and necessary step to take. The noble Lord said that a number of different countries in the world were changing over from steam to diesel or electric traction. He mentioned the United States, France and Germany. He might also have mentioned many others —Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain and Holland; in other words, virtually the whole world is changing over at the present time from steam to diesel or electric traction. The President of the French railways, which are generally regarded as among the best railways of to-day, has said that he has been pressing for electrification for twenty-five years; that within four years' time 60 per cent. of the French railways will be electrified; and, in ten years' time, about:30 per cent.
That is what is happening all over the world. What has been the result? Perhaps I may give one or two facts—again, this is rather solid stuff. In Copenhagen, for instance, since electrification took place in 1929, the population has about doubled. During that time, the number of originating journeys has increased from 6½ million to 46 million, in the year 1947. That indicates a fairly general popularity, at all events, of those services. Now let me take the Northern Line in this country. Before electrification took place to High Barnet and Mill Hill East, the number of originating journeys was 3½ million—that was in

627
1934. By 1947, over the same line, the originating journeys were 12 million. Let me take Gillingham and Maidstone. This line was electrified in 1939. At that time the originating passenger journeys were 4¾ million, and by 1947 they had increased to 8¾ million. Taking the West Sussex scheme—Dorking North. Three Bridges to Havant, Bognor and Littlehampton—we find that the number of railway journeys has increased by 120 per cent.; that is to say, they are more than double what they were in 1937, and the receipts are up by 91 per cent. As to the new Manchester Sheffield-Wath electrification which I mentioned in the previous debate, the passenger journeys have increased by 58 per cent. between the second quarter of 1954 and the second quarter of 1955, and receipts are up by 43 per cent. To take another example, the multiple unit diesel trains which are used in West Riding and Cumberland have been most successful and receipts are up by two and three times.
LORD MONKSWELL: But how many more trains were run?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question offhand. The point at issue, whatever number more trains were run, is that they served the public better because better receipts came in. That is the essence of the matter. The whole point of what I am saying is that these services are more popular with the public, which I think is important.
The classic case is that of the French railways, and I have been to some trouble to get the figures which I am about to quote. Electrification of the line between Paris and Lyons was completed in 1952 and showed immediate and impressive results. During the first summer 10 per cent. fewer trains carried 30 per cent. more passengers than in the summer of 1938, which in itself is, I think, quite impressive. Nearly half a million tons of coal a year were saved, and during one typical 24-hour period one stretch of the track carried 158 trains, as compared with the previous highest figure, under steam, of 134 trains. That seems to be a clear indication of higher utilisation.
The average time for passenger trains for the 317 miles from Paris to Lyons has been reduced from seven to five hours, and the total value of traffic carried per
628
train is about 25 per cent. higher than was possible with steam traction. These are all figures relating to the Paris-Lyons line. As an example of the higher utilisation factor of electric locomotives, I am told that an electric locomotive did the return journey from Paris to Lyons twice daily, a total of 1,270 miles, every day for 61 consecutive days without repair. Previously it had taken three steam locomotives which were changed at La Roche and Dijon. I would add this: that up to the present time in France some 600 steam locomotives have been replaced by 230 electric locomotives capable of working longer hours at a greater speed and carrying a heavier load. I think that is an impressive survey. I can further say to the noble Lord that French Railways claim that the actual profit on the Paris-Lyons line, after taking into account operating and maintenance expenses, has increased by 10 per cent. since this operation took place.
The main case for electrification or dieselisation is more intense utilisation of rolling stock and locomotives, faster speeds and cleaner travel. Those are the main benefits. I should like to outline these points as I go along. First of all, with regard to traction, the power units themselves are available for use for a higher proportion of their lives than steam engines. The figures I have show that diesel locomotives are available for 90 per cent., and electric locomotives for 95 per cent. of the time, but that steam engines are available for only 82 per cent. These are theoretical figures and in practice I find that steam locomotives are available for considerably less than that time. The reason is that steam locomotives require (I apologise for being technical about this point, but the noble Lord has "asked for it") at least 3½ to 4 hours a day for their normal servicing. After every run a steam locomotive has to go away to the depot for refilling with coal and water and has to be turned round because it cannot run backwards at main-line speeds. A diesel or electric locomotive can, of course, operate with equal efficiency in either direction, and it can wait at a station and be serviced there. It does not require to be turned round, but can proceed straight away on its return journey. Experience has also shown that delays through breakdown or minor defects are very much less than

629
they are with steam engines. That is the first point.
The second point is the utilisation of the railway line itself: in other words, that with diesel and electric traction a greater density of track occupation is possible—the noble Lord himself referred to that point. This is largely due to higher acceleration. I think I may make the point clear that electric traction is able to call on the whole resources of the grid during the critical period of moving the train, and of course a multiple unit can apply traction at a number of different points down the whole length of the train. The effect of this is greater acceleration, which enables more trains to be used on any line. The noble Lord referred to diesel engines. The acceleration potential there is very much greater than for steam engines. The noble Lord has suggested, in the notes which he kindly sent me, that this greater track density had something to do with electric signals. Obviously, it is desirable to have modern signals, but electric signalling does not necessarily go with electric traction, because it runs in a separate cable.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is what I said.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It has no connection whatsoever.
LORD MONKSWELL: None whatever.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to know that the noble Lord agrees. In the paper he sent me he suggested that there was some connection between them.
LORD MONKSWELL: No, I did not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord is now in agreement with me I am happy to leave the matter in that position. In any case, signalling is not a factor which limits the frequency of trains in that respect of all. I would only add that improved signalling is being rapidly installed.
The noble Lord made a point about self-contained units. I do not think that is an important factor. After all, it is no good our running the British Transport Commission on considerations of what might happen in a war. The railways will always be a vulnerable target, as they were in the last Nan. But the railways managed to get on last time, whether electric or steam, and I do not think that electric trains are worse off than steam
630
trains in the hazards of war. The noble Lord has introduced the question of minimum density, about which he wanted some information.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is what the Transport Commission emphasised.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord want to make an observation? Perhaps he is not interested in density. I agree that it is a matter for the British Transport Commission. I would only say this: that, by almost any calculation, the lines which it is proposed to electrify carry an ample density of traffic to justify the capital expenditure. It is probably true that there is a higher expenditure figure in the provision, particularly, of diesel electric traction, but we hope that the figure will come down when quantity production takes place in due course. In any case, it is certainly a limited form of economy to buy the cheapest capital equipment.
There is little doubt that the thermal efficiency of both electric and diesel traction is anything up to three times that of steam traction. Of course, that does not take into account the fact that a steam engine is a consumer, not only when it is at work but when it is standing at a station or at a servicing depæt or, it may be, waiting between jobs. To give an example: a number of noble Lords are familiar with Facts and Figures about British Railways which appears as a popular edition of the annual report. On page 28 your Lordships will see figures of the distance which it is possible, on average, for a locomotive to run on a ton of coal. That figure has been rising steadily, which shows the emphasis given by the British Transport Commission to this matter. The figure of about 36 miles per ton of coal has now been reached. It is fair to say that electric trains would run about double that distance, using substantially inferior coal. Taking all factors into consideration, under favourable conditions the cost per train-mile of electric and diesel traction should be about one-third, and certainly not more than two-thirds, of the cost of steam traction.
I should say a word on cleanliness, a most important factor on which the Beaver Report laid considerable emphasis. They said that the only complete answer to smoke nuisance is the replacement of coal-fired locomotives by electric, diesel or other smokeless types of traction. The

631
only complaint of the Committee was that at present replacement was going too slowly; but that of course was before the announcement of the railway modernisation plan. There can be no doubt that cleanliness of the railways under the electric or diesel system is a considerable attraction to the general public. In a recent article entitled "Travellers' Bliss" which appeared in the Railway Review, Mr. Jim Campbell, who is Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, said this:
"The travelling public of Britain would envy the Americans their sleek air-conditioned trains hauled by diesel electric locomotives—no steam, no smoke, no smuts."
It is very difficult for us to conceive just what a railway system would be like without any of those elements, or the advantage, not least to the driver, whose range of vision and general comfort in working a locomotive of that kind would be enormously enhanced. I believe that his efficiency, also would be enormously enhanced.
In referring briefly to the question of coal, I find myself in full agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton. We are very short of coal, and consumption is rising. No doubt it is true that one of the results of mechanisation is that output of large coal is falling; but that is just the coal which is not only best for the railways but best for domestic household use. Incidentally, it is one of the most valuable coals for export, if indeed we had any which we could export. Virtually it is interchangeable with the coal used for locomotives. One of the steps in electrification is the reduction of the volume of coal we require for steam locomotives and, by electrification, the use instead of what is at all events more plentiful—the lower grade coal, used in power stations.
I have given a large number of figures in trying to show that in the fields of operation, efficient use of fuel and convenience to the general public, great advantage is to be gained by the steps proposed by the Transport Commission. It is not easy to give precise financial evidence, for a great many factors vary from year to year, but I would remind the House that the Transport Commission have estimated that the improvement, as between normal costs and receipts, which they hope to obtain by this modernisation
632
will be £30 million a fairly considerable sum. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that this programme has not been entered into lightly or carelessly. It is the strong feeling of everyone who has been into the details of this particular scheme, I believe, that it is essential for the well-being of British Railways; and that goes to the very heart of a strong and healthy economic position in this country. I do not hope for a moment to convince the noble Lord of one word I have said, but I hope that at least he will agree that I have fairly put the figures in front of him for his consideration.
4.28 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl has not said very much about the principal point of my Motion, which was the overall relative costs of different forms of traction. I did not understand that he had anything particular to say on that point, though it seems to me the most important of all. There is not much purpose in pointing out the advantages of different forms of traction under one system or the other if the cost is left out.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not quite see how the noble Lord can expect me to give the overall cost of a complete modernisation.
LORD MONKSWELL: What is the use? The noble Earl does not know, and that is what I wanted to find out. If I am not told that, then it seems to me that the debate comes to an end. I am extremely doubtful whether, if one takes overall costs into account, all these proposed new systems would be an improvement on what we already have. I will not trouble your Lordships by going through the many technical points raised by the noble Earl, but he gave, as one of the advantages of the new programme, the fact that we should be able to export more coal. We are not exporting any.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I did not say that.
LORD MONKSWELL: I thought that was what the noble Earl said, but if he did not I naturally withdraw my comment. Most of the things he said appear to be based on hope and not on fact. I do not think it is of any use going into the matter further now, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at half-past four o'clock.