Sitting of 29 November 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Huddersfield Corporation) Bill.
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADIAN WHEAT (IMPORTS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any communication has been received by the Government from His Majesty's Government in Canada relative to the preference to Dominion wheat being extended to consignments passing through the United States; and, if so, what reply has been made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of Canadian wheat imported to this country from United States ports and the total imports of Canadian wheat into this country for each of the crop seasons ended 31st July, 1930, 1931 and 1932?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The precise information asked for is not available. The only particulars recorded of imports into the United Kingdom of wheat of Canadian origin relate to the year 1931, when suet imports amounted to 29,595,685 cwts. During the same year imports of wheat registered as consigned from the United States exceeded the imports of wheat of United States origin by 2,306,282 cwts., this balance representing presumably wheat of Canadian origin.

    COTTON EXPORTS (EASTERN MARKETS).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the export of cotton piece goods of Japan for October compared with those of this country; and what steps he is taking to help the trade of this country to recover its position in Eastern markets?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The official statistics regarding the export of cotton piece goods from Japan for the month of October have not yet been received by the Board of Trade, but my attention has been drawn to reports that have appeared in the Press on the matter. With regard to the second part of the question all possible steps are being taken to assist the export trade and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recovery in the exports of cotton goods which has taken place during the current year, particularly to India and China.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the export of cotton piece goods from Japan for 'September is greater than the export from England and is not that such a serious state of affairs that we should examine the steps which should be taken to help our export trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. We are keeping an eye on the situation, and we will keep these facts in mind.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large increase in the exports from Japan to Africa and the West Indies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right Gentleman say in greater detail the steps which have been taken to help the export trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not in answer to a question put in those general terms across the Floor of the House.

    BROMINE (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of bromine was imported into the United Kingdom in the period June, 1931, to October, 1932?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the period from June, 1931, to October, 1932,

    619
    inclusive, 15,367 cwts. of bromine and bromides were imported into the United Kingdom.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the principal sources of supply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I could not do so without notice.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of bromine was exported from the United Kingdom in the periods October, 1930, to May, 1931, and from June, 1931, to

    The following table shows the total quantity of bromine and bromides exported from the United Kingdom, distinguishing the principal foreign countries to which these exports were consigned, as registered during the undermentioned periods.

    —

    October, 1930, to May, 1931, inclusive.

    June, 1931, to October, 1932, inclusive.

    Cwts.

    Cwts.

    Domestic exports from the United Kingdom

    47

    793

    of which consigned to:

    Egypt

    (a)

    11

    Colombia

    (a)

    9

    Other foreign countries

    2

    8

    Exports of imported merchandise from the United Kingdom.

    296

    838

    of which consigned to:

    Sweden

    1

    7

    Norway

    1

    5

    Netherlands

    —

    7

    Java

    3

    4

    Belgium

    —

    40

    Egypt

    1

    4

    Siam

    2

    10

    China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories).

    5

    21

    Brazil

    3

    24

    Other foreign countries

    10

    33

    (a) Less than 1 cwt.

    IMPORT DUTIES (EMPIRE LABOUR CONTENT).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of Empire labour content the Government have decided to specify in respect of imported goods receiving preference under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The existing rule prescribes that manufactured goods consigned from the Empire, in order to enjoy free entry or preferential treatment, must
    620
    October, 1932, respectively; and to what foreign countries was this bromine exported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. KNOX: As bromine is an ingredient in poison gas, is there any means of controlling the exports from this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that there are. I should not like to give a definite answer without notice.
    Following is the answer:
    contain at least 25 per cent. of Empire labour and material. The only exceptions hitherto made to this rule have been in regard to sugar and tobacco, to which special considerations apply, and in respect of optical glass and optical elements which is also a special case for which a requirement of 75 per cent. has been laid down. The question of increasing the 25 per cent. requirement in respect of certain classes of goods is at present under active consideration.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety on this question and that unless the Empire content is increased much more than 25 per cent. a great deal of the value of the duty imposed by the Imports Duties Act will be lost to this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have been in such close contact with all interests concerned that I am well aware of the anxiety. It is not a simple matter, but we are going ahead as fast as we can.
    Mr. PIKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no truth in the allegation that the Canadian corridor is being used by the United States as a means of evading the duty?
    Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reply to the typewriter trade, which has been exploited for months by an evasion of the duty imposed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The typewriter case is one which we have under active consideration. With regard to the other question, perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the Order Paper.
    Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when this trade, which has suffered so long, may expect to have a reasonable and satisfactory answer?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: At an early date.
    Mr. REMER: Is the President aware that Dominion Governments impose an Empire content of 50 per cent. on British goods going into their countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not a uniform rate. There is a great variety of rates, as we learned at Ottawa.

    COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. A. RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what countries are now seeking to enter into a new commercial agreement with the United Kingdom; and if he can state the progress of such negotiations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the first part of the question I wuold refer to the answer given on 25th October by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain
    622
    Macdonald). The negotiations referred to in that answer are still in their early stages and I cannot say when it will be possible to furnish the House with information on the subject.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the position that the country has now changed over to tariffs, and will he consult the House before he enters into new commercial arrangements with foreign countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that the House can do anything more than contribute in its individual capacity to the information we possess, and we shall be glad to have any information which the hon. Member may be able to bring to us.

    SWITZERLAND (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. A. RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what representation has been made to the Swiss Government regarding the Swiss import quotas on British manufactured goods; and what reply has been received?
    Mr, RUNCIMAN: Representations have been addressed to the Swiss Government regarding the limitation of the quantity of certain goods that may be imported from the United Kingdom into Switzerland at the normal rates of duty. These representations are based on the most-favoured-nation rights accorded by the Anglo-Swiss Treaty of 1855 which His Majesty's Government consider have been infringed. No reply has yet been received from the Swiss Government but steps have been taken to expedite the matter.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the conduct of these negotiations into his own hands instead of acting through the Foreign Office, which results in interminable delay and never seems to achieve any result?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information about further restrictions and quotas which are threatened?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not without notice.

    ITALY AND JAPAN (TEXTILE EXPORTS).
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any subsidy is granted by the Govern-

    623
    ments of Italy or Japan for the export of textiles from those countries; and, if so, what is its nature and amount?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information regarding any subsidies granted by the Italian or Japanese Governments in respect of exported textile goods.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: In view of the increased cost to this country owing to a depreciated exchange, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the suspicion in the textile trade that false sets of invoices are being sent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any evidence on that point will of course be considered.

    AUSTRALIA (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent the Australian Government have reduced duties on British goods as a result of consideration by the Australian Tariff Board, in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements;
    (2) the number of instances in which tariffs have been raised and reduced against foreign countries as a result of the Ottawa Agreements in respect of Australia?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Commonwealth Government have made a, number of reductions in the duties on Empire and foreign goods since the Ottawa Conference. It is understood, however, that as a result of an election pledge they are precluded from making any extensive reductions except on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. Consequently, in the Trade Agreement concluded at Ottawa, they were only able to enter into definite commitments as to the margins of preference applying to United Kingdom goods over foreign goods. The Commonwealth Government also undertook in that Agreement that all the existing protective duties on United Kingdom goods should be reviewed by the Tariff Board. This review, I have no doubt, will begin as soon as possible.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the review has already taken place, and whether any reductions have already been made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The review is now proceeding.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the information given by the British Broadcasting Corporation that in 400 cases the duties have been raised on foreign goods and reduced on 20 only?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I do not gather my statistics from the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Would my right hon. Friend publish a list giving correct particulars, not British Broadcasting Corporation particulars, of the concessions we have had from Australia?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A good deal of information on that point was given during the Debate in the House. If hon. Members require any further information, they should kindly put their Questions on the Paper.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Would it not be better if some of these hon. Members occasionally attended and listened to the Debates
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the information given by the British Broadcasting Corporation is Government official information?

    MEDWAY OIL AND STORAGE COMPANY.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the oil refinery of the Medway Oil and Storage Company, in the Isle of Grain, manufacturers of power petrol, has closed down, with resulting unemployment in that neighbourhood; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take any action calculated to bring about the manufacture in this country of a larger proportion of the petrol consumed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to my information this refinery has not yet been closed, but it will be closed in the near future when the present stocks of semi-refined oils, which form the raw material for this type of oil refinery have been used up. As regards the second part of the question, I am fully alive to the considerations involved. This matter, however, involves a question of revenue and I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of the employés have been dismissed on account

    625
    of the closing down of this refinery? Are the Government giving sufficient consideration to this important matter from a national point of view, particularly concerning its effects, including defence?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, sir, but the case of this refinery, like a good many others, is bound up with the whole problem of liquid fuel production in this country.

    MANUFACTURED ARTICLES (IMPORTS).
    Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the large increase which has taken place in the imports of certain manufactured articles since the issue by him in April last of the order withdrawing the duties imposed under the Abnormal Importations Act; and what steps he proposes taking in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that imports of certain manufactured goods have increased since the revocation of the Orders made under the Abnormal Importation (Custom Duties) Act. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, that legislation was a temporary measure and it is now open to any trade to take advantage of the procedure laid down in the Import Duties Act which replaced it and to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for such a rate of duty as their case merits.
    Sir H. CROFT: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the fact that since the 50 per cent. duties on cotton piece goods were reduced the imports have increased from 556,000 square yards to 1,457,000 square yards, and will he look into the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will certainly look into those figures.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the fact that the average monthly imports of cottons are now three times as great as in the first four months of this year, when the 50 per cent. duty was in operation
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That may well be, but the 50 per cent. duties were temporary duties, put on for a temporary purpose.
    Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the imports of woollen tissues—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put on the Paper.

    DENMARK (DELEGATIONS).
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can give the names of the trade delegation which is visiting Denmark; and whether any officials of the Board of Trade are members of the delegation or are accompanying it in an official capacity?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A delegation from the iron and steel industry arranged by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers has visited Denmark and is now in Sweden, whence it will proceed to Norway. Another delegation from the coal industry is now in Copenhagen. Two officers of the Department of. Overseas Trade and an officer of the Mines Department accompanied the delegations to Denmark to render any necessary assistance. They are not, however, members of the delegations. As the lists of members of these delegations are rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the work of this delegation going to undo the damage which has been done by reason of the restrictions on imports in regard to Denmark?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We regard it as highly important to recover the markets lost through the coal stoppage of 1926.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman a ware that there was a very good market until the recent restrictions were put on?
    Following are the lists:
    Iron and Steel Delegation

    Mr. F. C. Fairholme, Chairman, Vice-President of the Federation of British Industries; representing the Sheffield industries.

    Mr. G. Knaggs (pig iron).

    Mr. J. H. Pearce (galvanised sheets).

    Mr. J. I. Piggott, O.B.E., M.C. (heavy steel).

    Mr. G. R. Russell (pig iron).

    Mr. G. Burton Stewart (tubes).

    Coal Delegation:
    Coal Owners:

    Mr. Evan Williams, D.L., J.P., Chairman, President of the Mining Association.

    Mr. A. W. Archer (Yorkshire).

    Sir John Beynon, Bart., C.B.E. (South Wales).

    Mr. James Jack (Scotland).

    Mr. Ridley Warham, J.P. (Northumberland).

    Mr. S. E. D. Wilson (Durham).

    Coal Exporters:

    Mr. Lindsay Carlow, President of the Coal Exporters' Federation.

    Mr. Sidney Little (Yorkshire).

    Mr. John Powell (South Wales).

    Mr. Alfred Rayner (North East Coast).

    Mr. H. B. Williams (Scotland).

    RATIONALISATION.
    Mr. RANKINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the failure of rationalisation as an economic principle when applied generally to industry, he will consider referring to a Treasury committee, such as that formerly set up to check the amalgamation or rationalisation of British domestic banks, every proposal in future for the amalgamation or rationalisation of British commercial and industrial undertakings of important magnitude?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I must not be held to accept my hon. Friend's hypothesis; and I certainly am not prepared to adopt the proposal in the second part of the question.

    TEA DUTY.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the bonds in £ sterling given by the proprietors of approved warehouses to pay the Excise Duty for all tea lying in these warehouses at the date of the reimposition of the Tea Duty; and what amount in£sterling was received in Excise Duty on teas otherwise stored?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The aggregate amount of the penalties of the bonds given to secure the payment of Excise Duty on tea lying in approved warehouses at the date of the re-imposition of the Tea Duty was approximately £1,540,000. The amount of Excise Duty
    628
    collected on tea otherwise stored was approximately £958,000.

    GLASSWARE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the great increase in imports of glassware due to the fall in the rate of duty, he will take steps to enable the old duty of 50 per cent. to be reimposed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is within the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider any application from the British industry for an increase in the rate of duty on glassware.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the difficulty experienced by small firms in applying to the Committee? It is easy for large firms, but difficult for small firms, and will he take special steps to see that these people are advised how to make their applications?
    Captain SPENCER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that application was made some weeks before the Summer Recess, and will he endeavour to expedite a decision?
    Sir H. CROFT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these imports have been increased by about four times since the duty was reduced, and that this is a serious question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is, I believe, a number of applications at present before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and I have no doubt that they will expedite their decisions as much as possible.

    LINSEED OIL.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have been made for drawbacks on export of linseed oil crushed from linseed in this country or imported from abroad used in the manufacture of linoleum?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No arrangement for a drawback on the export of linseed oil crushed from linseed in this country can be made until there is a duty on imported linseed. There is at present no drawback on imported linseed oil used in the manufacture of linoleum, but an application in this respect has been received by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

    OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (MERCERISED COTTON YARNS).
    Mr. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that six months before the Ottawa Conference the Canadian Government entered into a, private agreement with the Aberfoyle Manufacturing Company of the United States, promising to place a tariff of 25 per cent. on mercerised cotton yarns imported from foreign countries on condition that this company established a branch plant in Canada; and whether he was informed of this agreement at the time of the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have no information as regards the matter referred to in the first part of the question. I would point out, however, that under the Agreement between this country and Canada mercerised cotton yarns of counts of 40 or finer from the United Kingdom are granted entry free of Customs duty into Canada, the duty under the intermediate and general tariffs being 25 per cent.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no information, but is he aware that the statement was publicly made in the Canadian Houses of Parliament? Is he further aware that this state of affairs has completely vitiated the advantages of the Ottawa Agreement in this respect?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with what statements were made either in the Press or Parliament, but, if my hon. Friend will study my answer, he will see that the Ottawa Agreement is given effect to and that we are getting benefit in this particular respect.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PARENT COAL CARBONISATION TRUST, LTD.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will request the Official Receiver appointed under the compulsory liquidation of the Parent Coal Carbonisation Trust, Limited, to ascertain and report whether the directors of this company have been members of boards of other companies which have turned out to be failures involving contributories and investors in loss, in order that when the facts are known future legislation may be
    630
    prepared to protect the public against directors who take no active part in the management of their companies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no power to direct the Official Receiver to inquire into the conduct of individual directors, that is to say, conduct which is not related to the affairs of the particular company in compulsory liquidation.
    Sir J. LAMB: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has come when action should be taken to protect the investing public from being exploited by guinea-pig directors?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is the object of the Companies Act, and, in so far as it requires amendment, we are constantly considering suggestions that are made to us.
    Sir J. LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the compulsory liquidation of the Parent Coal Carbonisation Trust, Limited, in which the Official Receiver states that the board ought never to have gone to allotment, and that there is a deficiency of £604,612 as regards contributories; and will he state whether proceedings are to be taken against the directors?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to the observations of the Official Receiver on the Statement of Affairs of this company. The Official Receiver has, however, not yet completed his investigations and I am therefore not in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken as a result of such investigations.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total tonnage of coal that has been exported from Great Britain to foreign countries and the total exported to the Dominions during 1932, to the latest date; and the total exported to foreign countries and to the Dominions during the same period of 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total tonnage of coal exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the first 10 months of 1932 as consigned to foreign countries and to the British Dominions was 28,426,000 tons and 3,185,000 tons, re-

    631
    spectively. The corresponding figures for the first 10 months of 1931 were 31,965,000 tons and 2,941,000 tons, respectively.
    Mr. LUNN: Is there still an import duty of 1s. 7½d. a ton against British coal entering Canada? What preference have the Government obtained for British coal at Ottawa?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will try to get the correct information for him.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Secretary for Mines whether in his communications with Denmark for the purpose of furthering the sale of British coal to Denmark, he will see that the interests of South Yorkshire are given equal consideration with those of Durham and Northumberland?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I presume my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the coal trade delegation to Denmark, the object of which I described in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 15th November, and which began its discussions in Copenhagen yesterday. The interests of South Yorkshire are, of course, represented on the delegation, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that in these discussions and in the subsequent official negotiations in London the interests of all the coal exporting districts will receive equal consideration.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that statements have been made publicly in Yorkshire to the effect that at the instigation of his Department the delegation has been persuaded to further the interests of Northumberland and Durham coal at the expense of South Yorkshire coal?
    Mr. BROWN: I have received certain anonymous letters, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will understand, I do not always attach importance to such communications, or accept the accuracy of anonymous contributions to the Press. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular point in mind, I shall be glad to discuss it with him and furnish him with our views upon it.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman deprecate any
    632
    attempt to increase the feeling as between one district and another?
    Mr. BROWN: I attach enormous importance to any attempt made to expand the export market in coal.

    HYDROGENATION.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state the Government's policy with regard to the hydrogenation of coal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to add anything to what was said on this subject by the Prime Minister on 7th November during the Debate on unemployment.
    Miss WARD: When may we expect a decision as to the Government's policy in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot say.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Have the Government any policy at all on the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN indicated assent.
    Mr. DENMAN: Will my right hon. Friend say that no extravagant scheme will be undertaken which involves either a heavy subsidy or a heavy loss to the revenue?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We shall keep those criticisms in mind.

    OWNERS AND MINERS (CONVERSATIONS).
    Mrs. WARDasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information regarding his meeting with the Miners' Federation?
    Mr. E. BROWN: T have now received a reply from the Mining Association to the letter which I recently addressed to them on the subject of machinery for discussions on a national basis of questions affecting the coal mining industry. The reply is as follows:
    "While, for the reasons which have been explained in the course of the exhaustive discussions which have taken place with representatives of the Government in the recent past it is not possible for the Mining Association to deal with questions of wages or other conditions of service, the Committee agree that there are a number of matters falling within the purview of the Mining Association which might suitably form the subject of discussion between representatives

    633
    of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation. It is accordingly proposed to invite representatives of the Miners' Federation to meet representatives of the Mining Association to consider jointly what matters might form the subject of conversations between the two bodies."
    Mrs. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information as to when the meeting is likely to take plate?
    Mr. BROWN: I understand that a communication has been addressed by the Mining Association to the Miners' Federation and is now under consideration by them.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the interests of those miners and coalowners who are not represented either by the Miners' Association or the Coalowners' Association?
    Mr. BROWN: All these points will be borne in mind, but the hon. Member will understand that a meeting on this basis will be a long step forward.
    Mr. LAWSON: What steps are being taken by the Minister in this matter?
    Mr. BROWN: I think if my hon. Friend reflects on the course of events in the last five weeks he will see that the initiative came from the Minister.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of adult manual employés now engaged in the ordnance factories at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The number of adult employés, male and female, of industrial grades is 4,895.
    Mr. HICKS: Is the hon. Gentleman able to state that the discharges from Woolwich Arsenal have now reached the limit?
    Mr. COOPER: No, I am afraid that I cannot make that statement.

    15TH/19TH HUSSARS.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state for what reason the title of the 15th King's Hussars and the 19th
    634
    Royal Hussars (Queen Alexandra's Own), lately combined as the 15th/19th Hussars, has been changed to the 15th the King's Royal Hussars; and whether officers of the 19th Royal Hussars were consulted before this change was made?
    Mr. COOPER: The change was made as a result of a request made by the colonel of the combined regiment, who stated that the new title was unanimously desired by all ranks serving.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that this recommendation was made by the colonel and the lieutenant-colonel of the combined regiments? Are they not both ex-15th Hussars? Was this idea communicated to any officer of the old 19th Hussars, except Sir Philip Chetwode, who has long since ceased to have any connection with the regiment?
    Mr. COOPER: The suggestion was communicated to an officer who was considered to be one of the most distinguished of the old officers, and, on the grounds stated in my reply, it was recommended by the colonel, who stated that the whole regiment desired it, and it was thought right to make the change.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this change has wiped out the whole service for 200 years of the 19th Hussars, and that that is bitterly resented by the old officers of the regiment and by the Comrades' Association as well?
    Mr. COOPER: It has not wiped out the whole service in any way.
    Sir A. KNOX: The regiment no longer exists.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is it not a fact that when these regiments were amalgamated they were given a promise that their identity would be kept separate? Is this the way that promise is kept? The Old officers of the 19th Hussars are very much upset about it. They were not even consulted on the matter at all.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this action will cause despondency and alarm in every one of the cavalry regiments?
    Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    TANKS (INVENTOR'S AWARD).
    Major MILNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. John Anderson Corry, of 37, Burley Village, Leeds, was the first person to submit precise details of his invention of a tank, then described as a land ironclad, to the War Office; that the date of such submission was the 14th November, 1911; that to ensure secrecy in the national interest Mr. Corry did not make his invention public; that he has been unable to obtain any compensation and is now unemployed; and whether he will take steps to see that Mr. Corry receives appropriate recognition and compensation?
    Mr. COOPER: I am aware that Mr. Corry submitted on 14th November, 1911, a description of a land ironclad, and that his project was mentioned in the Press at the same time. There was no novelty in the principle of his proposal. Mr. Corry's claim for compensation has been investigated by both the War Office and the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, and the decision that he is not entitled to any award has been consistently upheld.
    Major MILNER: Do I understand that, although it is admitted that this man was the first to submit the idea to the War Office, the War Office is not willing to consider the payment of some compensation to him?
    Mr. COOPER: It is not admitted that he was the first to submit the suggestion.
    Major MILNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that another military officer has been awarded a very substantial sum on the ground that he was the first to submit this idea, and that the date was July, 1914, whereas the date of Mr. Corry's submission was 1911?
    Mr. COOPER: There was no novelty in the proposal put forward by Mr. Corry. As the hon. and gallant Member is probably aware, suggestions of this kind have been put forward for the last 2,000 years.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the War Office is always sucking people's brains and never paying for them?
    Major MILNER: If this idea has been common property for 2,000 years, why have the Government already paid another individual £15,000 as if the idea was something novel?
    Mr. COOPER: Because he put forward a practical suggestion which really assisted the invention as finally made.

  SCOTLAND.

    HIGHLANDS (VISITORS' HOSTELS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Board of Agriculture, as owners of shooting lodges in Skye and other parts of the Highlands, will be prepared to let the said lodges as hostels for visitors instead of retaining them for sportsmen; and whether the Board will make undeveloped ground on their estates available for hostels for tourists?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Department will be willing to consider any proposals of the nature suggested in the question which may be submitted to them, but it must be kept in view that the Department have a statutory duty to conserve their revenues for land settlement purposes.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now make a further statement with regard to the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am glad to say that the Board of Directors of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation has now been completed by the appointment of the Treasury representative. The further stages in the formation of the Corporation will now. I hope, be carried through at an early date.

    HOUSING (BLANEFIELD).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the village of Blanefield, Stirlingshire, as to the attitude of the county medical and sanitary authority towards the complaints made regarding housing conditions of the village, and that some time ago the county council of Stirlingshire caused to be affixed at the local Post Offices in Strathblane and Blanefield lists for the signature of heads of families requiring sanitary housing accommodation; will he say how many signed; and what steps are being taken as a result of these petitions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The only information in regard to dissatisfaction with housing conditions in Blanefield which has been received by the Department of Health for Scotland is contained in the complaints referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on the 17th instant. I am informed that the Local Authority have inserted advertisements in the press and have placed notices in different parts of the County to assist them in ascertaining the number of persons in the County requiring houses. Fourteen applications have been received for houses at Blanefield and 22 at Strathblane. As regards the last part of the question, the Local Authority had erected over 1,500 houses up to November, 1930. As part of a three years' building programme since that date, they have already undertaken the erection of 708 additional houses, and have recently decided to build 300 more in different parts of the County. The number of houses to be allocated to meet the needs of Blanefield and Strathblane has not yet been definitely determined.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: As the reply states that houses have not yet been allocated to those who require them in Blanefield, may I ask when will that demand be met?
    Mr. SKELTON: That is a matter primarily for the local authority.
    Mr. CAMPBELL KER: May I enquire as to when Blanefield was transferred from West Stirlingshire to Dumbartonshire?

  ASSIZES (NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND DURHAM).
  Mr. McKEAGasked the Attorney-General if he can give any particulars as to the cost to the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the delay and inconvenience occasioned to all concerned, by reason of only one judge being sent to conduct the assizes at Newcastle-upon-Tyne and at Durham; whether he is aware that an urgent request had to be made for a commissioner of assize to assist; and whether, in view of the volume of work usually required to be done, the practice of sending two judges to these assizes will be restored?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no information
  638
  as to the cost occasioned to the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne by reason of only one judge being available for the trial of cases at that city for the Autumn Assize. I am aware that owing to an unusually heavy list of cases it was necessary to make urgent representations for the appointment of a commissioner, and I understand that a commissioner was appointed as soon as the Lord Chancellor was satisfied as to the necessity for doing so. In reply to the last part of the question, the arrangements relating to circuits are made in accordance with the scheme set out in the Schedule to the Order in Council of the 14th May, 1912. This scheme provides for the attendance of one judge only at Newcastle and Durham for the Autumn Assize. Two judges attend to deal with cases at Newcastle and Durham during the Summer and Winter Assizes, but if any permanent addition was to be made for the Autumn Assize it would undoubtedly result in depleting the number of judges available for the trial of cases in London.
  Mr. McKEAG: Is it not a fact that on this occasion, the most casual scrutiny of the causes, both at Newcastle-on-Tyne and Durham, would have revealed the necessity of sending two judges?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not studied the cause list, and I cannot answer that question.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that arrangements will be made in future to prevent a recurrence of this very undesirable state of things?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot give an assurance in that broad and unqualified way. I cannot control the number of cases to be tried, nor can I control the number of judges available to try them.
  Mr. TURTON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at the next assize town, which is Leeds, there was a calendar of 156 prisoners and 44 civil cases and that only one of His Majesty's judges was sent and one commissioner; and would he recommend to the Lord Chancellor that two judges should be sent on the North-Eastern Circuit?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will certainly call the Lord Chancellor's atten-

  639
  tion to the facts to which the hon. Member has referred, although those facts are not within my personal knowledge at the present moment.
  Mr. LINDSAY: In view of the fact that congestion exists, not only on the North-Eastern circuit but on other circuits, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the time has come to ask this House for another King's Bench judge?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I shall be glad to take note of the opinion of the House on that question.

  NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY PYLONS).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the question of pylons over the New Forest?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 15th November.
  Mr. PERKINS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when this matter will be dealt with and settled?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I wish I could. I will tell my hon. Friend as soon as I can.

  POLICE (PAY).
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Government failed to accept the considered and unanimous view of the Police Council and decided to impose the second cut in the pay of the police; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that it has caused, both in the ranks of the service and amongst police authorities generally, and also of the general opposition to the cut as expressed by responsible bodies of citizens, he will defer the imposition of the cut until the matter has been discussed by this House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The second instalment
  640
  of the cut in police pay is already in operation. The reasons which impelled the Government to decide that it should be imposed are set out in the statement prepared at the time and published in the Press, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In view of the inevitable decline in the efficiency of the police force—
  HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and" 'Withdraw! "
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order.
  Later—
  Sir J. LAMB: May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to cast aspersions on the national police force and not to be allowed to withdraw the aspersions, especially seeing that they were made in a supplementary question which had not been scrutinised by you?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I stopped the hon. Member the moment I heard what he was saying. I do not know that I can do any more than that.
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: As tile hon. Member concerned is not here, may I point out that if he had been allowed to give his question in full, it would have been shown that he intended to make no aspersions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No hon. Member has a right to begin a question in the terms in which the hon. Member started his. Whether it was in full or not makes no difference.
  Sir M. WOOD: May I ask, in fairness to my hon. Friend who was sitting beside me, whether he did not in point of fact ask to be allowed to make an explanation at the end of Questions so that the position might be quite plain?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is true that he did ask me if he might make an explanation, and as there did not seem to me anything to explain, I said I thought he could not.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL BRIDGES.
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the need for the reconstruction of many railway and canal bridges which cause danger to the public and inconvenience to trade, and

  641
  that in many cases reconstruction is being help up on grounds of public economy; and if he will take steps to enable the resumption of the grants in aid of urgent bridge reconstruction works which were promised to local authorities in connection with the 1929 programme?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEAD LAM: I would refer the hon. Member to a recent reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel), of which I am sending him a copy.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the useful educational work carried out by the Tyneside Sunday Lecture Society during the last 50 years, and that they have applied for and been refused permission for the use of the cinematograph and other up-to-date methods of illustrating the geographical, historical, and scientific points in the lectures on Sundays; and whether he will amend the Sunday Entertainments Act so as to free from these restrictions all established lecture societies and similar educational bodies?
  Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend is not aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but if he will send full particulars, my right hon. Friend will consider the matter. As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend can hold out no hope that the Government will propose further legislation on this topic.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that while restrictions are operating in Newcastle, to the great detriment of the citizens and to their disturbance generally, outside Newcastle these films can be seen, and there are no restrictions whatever?
  Mr. STANLEY: I hope any hon. Friend will send me particulars, but I would point out that the legislation which we passed last summer only removed restrictions and did not impose any.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the proposal of the
    642
    Ministry of Labour to introduce 150 boys and girls as employment grade clerks and whether, in view of the fact that there are ex-service long serving temporary clerks who are desirous of becoming permanent servants and are willing to do and capable of doing the work of employment grade clerks, he will consider their appointment rather than going outside the service in recruitment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Over 1,400 male temporary clerks now employed in the Ministry, nearly all of them ex-service men, are being appointed to the permanent staff in the new" S" class. The legitimate expectations of the temporary staff are being met in this way and will not be prejudiced on account of the proposed recruitment by examination. Such recruitment is, in my right hon. Friend's opinon, essential for the future efficiency of the service.

    "S" CLASS (PAY).
    Mr. LEES-JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that discontent exists among members of the "S" class in the Civil Service owing to the refusal on the Treasury's part to apply to this class the scale of pay recommended by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service; and whether he will arrange for negotiations to be entered upon between the Treasury and the appropriate staff associations on the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The" S" class comprises some 10,000 temporary and unestablished clerks who are now being specially admitted to the pensionable establishment in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. In the course of the negotiations leading to the grant of pensionable status the Government representatives stated that in view of the national financial situation they were not in a position to make any proposals for an improvement in pay for the" S" class in addition to the grant of pension rights on a non-contributory basis.
    Mr. FLEMING: May the answer be repeated, as I for one did not hear a word?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend will be able to read it.

  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEME, BIRMINGHAM.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the Glover Street, Birmingham, clearance area, and particularly to the case of John Prew, an ex-service man, who, having invested his savings in purchasing his house, because he is a leaseholder is not entitled to any compensation under the Act; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Act to prevent similar hardship in future?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; an amendment of the law in the sense suggested is not at present contemplated.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: Will the Minister intervene in this matter in order to prevent what looks like confiscation?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have no power at all to intervene. It is a question of the existing law.
  Mr. PIKE: Does the Minister consider that an amendment of the law is desirable?
  Sir H. YOUNG: That is a question I could not possibly answer in reply to a supplementary question.

  TYPHOID FEVER, YORKSHIRE.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health what is the present position of the outbreak of typhoid at Malton; and whether, in the view of the medical authorities, it is now or has been at any time dangerous for anyone to visit the town or to buy or consume goods produced, manufactured, or offered for sale in the town of Malton?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The outbreak has followed a course characteristic of outbreaks due to such causes. A small number of secondary cases are still being notified amongst persons who were nursing, or were otherwise intimately associated with, primary cases before the latter were removed to hospital. Up to and including the 26th November, the
  644
  total number of cases was 265, of which 18 were fatal. The daily notifications during the last week of that period were 2, 6, 0, 2, 0, 0, and 2, respectively. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that the cause of the outbreak was a polluted water supply. The special danger from the water was removed on 27th October, and there is no evidence that at any time any article of food (other than water) or any article of commerce shared in the conveyance of infection.
  Mr. TURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there exists a virtual boycott of this town, because people are frightened to visit it or to buy goods at it, and will he take every opportunity to see that the facts which he has just announced to the House are published in that locality?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have no doubt the answer I have now given to my hon. Friend's question will secure that purpose.
  Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent any of his inspectors into the area to make inquiries?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Yes. A senior and specially qualified medical officer of the Ministry of Health has been present on the scene throughout since the outbreak was first notified, and the principal medical officer of health of the Ministry also visited it in the early days of the outbreak.
  Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is at all times dangerous to visit Malton owing to its narrow and congested streets?
  Mr. LEVY: How often is it the practice for these reservoirs to be tested as to purity?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The local authority, of course, is responsible for the water supply. If my hon. Friend desires any particular information upon the subject, perhaps it would be better to put down a question, or I could reply to him directly.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRAINING CENTRES).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to make special arrangements for allowing

  645
  representatives of organised labour to visit training centres for unemployed persons established by public assistance committees; and will he make arrangements so that such visits can be permitted without notice?
  Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. Even if I have the power, I should not regard it as proper or desirable to interfere with the discretion of the responsible authorities in the manner suggested.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if the Government will be prepared to reconsider the question of the construction of a Channel tunnel?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir.
  Mr. MANDER: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to test the feeling of the House?
  HON. MEMBERS: No.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making an allowance in respect of Income Tax to those parents who pay children's educational fees?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the existing provisions of the Income Tax law for relief in respect of children. In the case of a child over 16 the relief is subject to the condition that the child is receiving full-time instruction at a university, college, school or other educational establishment. The parent is relieved from tax on £50 in respect of one child and on £40 in respect of each subsequent child.
  Mr. FLEMING: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House if there are sufficient places in State-aided elementary schools for such children if their parents decide to have them educated at the public expense instead of privately?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

  MEAT IMPORTING COMPANIES (TAXATION).
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the meat importing firms that have agreed at the request of the Government to limit South American meat imports are domiciled in Great Britain and subject to British taxation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot supply my right hon. Friend with this information. In accordance with their invariable practice, the Board of Inland Revenue are precluded from disclosing any particulars which would indicate the Income Tax position of particular concerns.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter and see if the foreign meat importing companies pay their fair share of British taxation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend may rest assured that I have investigated that matter.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CORPS OF CUSTODIANS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the new custodians of the Houses of Parliament will commence their duties?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The 1st January next.
  Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. Gentleman urge the reconsideration of these appointments to see if it is possible to find suitable men among the unemployed who have no income, rather than among men who have pensions?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was much impressed by the apprehensions that were expressed by that side of the House, and perhaps my hon. Friend has seen a statement that it is proposed to engage only a nucleus of police pensioners for this service, and that the rest will be other unemployed persons, preferably ex-service men.
  Mr. LUNN: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman has the information now, will he tell the House how many of these men are receiving pensions and the amount of the pensions?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member's question only asked me for the date, and I have given it. I shall be only too happy to provide any further information that is required.
  Sir P. HARRIS: How will these appointments be made? Will they be through advertisements or the Employment Exchange?

  WARING AND GILLOW, LIMITED.
  Mr. JOHN MORRIS (for Sir JOHN HASLAM)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade, in accordance with its practice during the past three years, has yet referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions the result of its examination into the profit-and-doss accounts of Waring and Gillow, Limited, over the period 1925 to 1930, as shown by the investigations of the Official Receiver in the compulsory winding-up of that company?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Official Receiver has not yet completed his investigations into the affairs of the company, and the question of what further steps may be necessary must await his report.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL,
  "to prohibit night work in bakehouses and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Banfield; supported by Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Thorne; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  PROTECTION OF DOGS BILL,
  "to prohibit the vivisection of Dogs," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Bertram Falle, and Mr. Groves; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  BANK OFFICERS' PROTECTION BILL,
  "to regulate the employment of bank officers," presented by Mr. Gurney Braithwaite; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go m the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended for the London Passenger Transport Bill; the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is a purely formal stage; and the Motions relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Gas Undertakings (Basic Prices), and to the Committee of Privileges. The Government hope that good progress will be made in Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill. It is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit inordinately late.
Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has studied the Amendment Paper and the length of the Bill, which includes 14 Schedules and 107 Clauses? There are already 40 pages of Amendments, mostly Government Amendments. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of days he proposes to allot to this Bill, and whether he means to suspend the Rule on every allotted day? It seems hardly fair, when a Bill comes into the House in such an undigested form that the Government themselves have to put down so many Amendments, that the House should be kept up late for many nights. At the same time many of us who have constituencies on the edge of London are compelled to take part in the Debates and to put our points of view, and I ask that ample time should be given to discuss this important Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's last observation exactly indicates the Government's mind. We will see how things go. I cannot say that I have read every Amendment, but I have read a certain number of sample Amendments, and they are very largely of a merely drafting character. I should like the House to get as far as it can before it rises to-night, because on that will determine how late other sittings have to be.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that it is a very unusual thing to move the suspen-

649
sion of the Eleven o'Clock Rule for a Bill which has not been discussed in the House at all, and that this is aggravated in the case of the present Bill where there has been no Second Reading, and further aggravated by the fact that a large number of new Members in the House have never heard the Bill discussed on Second Reading, and are consequently unaware of the reasons for which the Government desire the Bill to be pushed through the House. Surely it is undesirable that the Eleven o'Clock Rule should be suspended before we see how the Amendments are going.
Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one Amendment appearing on the Order Paper to-day for the first time occupies nearly three pages of it; and will he give an assurance to the House that in no circumstances will the House have to sit all night to deal with a Bill of this character?
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, I cannot give any assurance. That must depend upon progress being made—the reasonableness of the progress—but I do assure the House that it is not our intention to use the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in an unreasonable way.
Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any precedent for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in the case of a Bill which has never been discussed in any way in the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question before I give a reply.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I raise a point of Order on this subject? I am not going into the merits or demerits of the Bill, or whether some Amendments which appear on the Order Paper for the first time are important Amendments or not, because those are not matters for the Prime Minister but are questions for the House. The point I wish to put is that so many Government Amendments have been put down that they would alter in some degree the character of the Bill as it was when it was introduced. Apart from the merits of this particular Measure, I am raising this as a point of Parliamentary procedure, because I feel that it is right to preserve the safeguards for other Bills. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that these Government Amend-
650
merits are of such a wide range as really to alter the character of the Bill. Knowing the Chair has always been the custodian of the rights of ordinary Members, I wish to ask whether you cannot rule that this Measure should be withdrawn and be reintroduced as a new Bill?
Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the very evident feeling in the House, he will not allow the Debate to begin in the ordinary way, and then see whether progress is adequate, instead of forcing us at this moment to take a decision to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
Mr. LANSBURY: Before the Prime Minister answers that question, is it not quite easy for hon. Members who feel as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) feels to vote with us?
Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a very unusual thing for a Government to closure its own Members?
Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time for me to give any Ruling on this matter is after the Bill has been through Committee and when we arrive at the Report stage. If there is then any question that the Bill has been so altered that it is not the same Bill as was originally read a Second time, of course it will be my duty at that time to point that out to the House.
Mr. THORNE: I would like to ask the Prime Minister, or someone representing the Board of Trade, whether the Lords Message does not come into conflict with the Committee which has already been sitting for 12 months?
The PRIME MINISTER: I take it that question refers to the Resolution dealing with gas undertakings?
Mr. THORNE: Yes.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that there is no conflict. It is a new point.
Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the feeling of the House is not now quite obvious to him, and whether he will not, even at this hour, withdraw the Motion altogether?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven o'Clock Rule, as I said before, is to be suspended for this and other things. If

651
there is any intention to take the opportunity of this Division to defeat the Bill altogether—very well; but we feel it is perfectly reasonable to ask the House to begin to-day the Committee stage of the Bill, and let us see how far we can get within a very reasonable time.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 60.

Division No. 2.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Despencer-Robertton, Major J. A. F.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Dickie, John P.

Iveagh, Countess of

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.]

Doran, Edward

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Drewe, Cedric

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Albery, Irving James

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Duggan, Hubert John

Ker, J. Campbell

Apsley, Lord

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Eales, John Frederick

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Knight. Holford

Atkinson. Cyril

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elmley, Viscount

Law, Sir Alfred

Bainlet, Lord

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Leckie, J. A.

Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lees-Jones, John

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Levy, Thomas

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Liddall, Walter S.

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Fermoy, Lord

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Bernays, Robert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Blaker. Sir Reginald

Fleming. Edward Lascelles

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Blindell, James

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Borodale. Viscount

Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Bossom, A. C.

Fox, Sir Gifford

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Boulton, W. W.

Fraser. Captain Ian

MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Fremantle, Sir Francis

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Brass, Captain Sir William

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McKeag, William

Briant, Frank

Gibson, Charles Granville

McKie, John Hamilton

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Gledhill, Gilbert

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd,, Hexham)

Glossop, C. W. H.

McLean, Major Alan

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Glucksteln, Louis Haile

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Brown, Brig.-G en. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W,

Magnay, Thomas

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gower, Sir Robert

Maitland, Adam

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Burnett, John George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Graves, Marjorie

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Grimston, R. V.

Martin, Thomas B.

Carver, Major William H.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Castlereagh, Viscount

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chisw'k)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hanley, Dennis A.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Christle, James Archibald

Harbord, Arthur

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Clarke, Frank

Hartland, George A.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Clarry, Reginald George

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Munro, Patrick

Colman, N. C. D.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)

Conant, R. J. E.

Heneage. Lieut-Colone Arthur P.

Nunn, William

Cooke, Douglas

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Cooper, A. Duff

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

Copeland, Ida

Holdsworth, Herbert

Palmer, Francis Noel.

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Patrick, Colin M.

Courthope, Colonel Sir Georga L.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Peake, Captain Osbert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hornby, Frank

Pearson, William G.

Craven-Ellis, William

Horobin, Ian M.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Horsbrugh, Florence

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Petherick, M

Cross, R. H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Crossley, A. C.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Curry, A. C.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Potter, John

Davies, Ma]. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Denville, Alfred

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Pybus, Percy John

Scone, Lord

Turton, Robert Hugh

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Ramsden, E.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Rankin, Robert

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Rea, Walter Russell

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Weymouth, Viscount

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Soper, Richard

White, Henry Graham

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Robinson, John Roland

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Rosbotham, S. T,

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Host, Ronald D.

Stewart, William J.

Womersley, Walter James

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Storey, Samuel

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Rothschild, James A. de

Strauss, Edward A.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Worthington, Or. John V.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hillton (S'v'noaks)

Russell. Richard John (Eddisbury)

Thompson, Luke

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Salt, Edward W.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

Savery, Samuel Servington

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Warrender.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Maxton, lames

Banfield, John William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

North, Captain Edward T.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Price, Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ray, Sir William

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Harris, Sir Percy

Remer, John R.

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Hicks, Ernest George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Thorne, William James

Cove, William G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Kirk wood, David

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Wedgwood, Rt Hon. Josiah

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Leonard, William

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Everard, W. Lindsay

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of London Passenger Transport Board.)
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I beg to move,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    3.56 p.m.
    I move this Motion to keep myself in order, because it has been represented to me that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if a short explanation of the Amendment and of the general principles of the Bill could be given. When I entered the House to-day, it was intimated to me that a great many hon. Members knew very little about this Bill and that, if a statement could be made of certain principles of it, many who were hearing about it for the first time would appreciate such an opportunity. The first thing I should like to say is that there have been many claims in the Press and elsewhere as to the authorship of this Measure. My own view is that the word" authorship" does not apply to the Bill at all.
    Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN:It is like Topsy—it growed.
    Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Member has stated the point that I was about to make." Entrepreneur," if you like; "editor," if you like; but this Bill is the result of at least 15 years of hard work by a Royal Commission, committees, Ministers of Transport in successive Governments, and last, but by no means least, the earnest and industrious work of the civil servants in the Ministry of Transport and elsewhere. The Bill sets out to do a very great work indeed. It sets out to co-ordinate under a unified control and ownership the passenger traffic of the greatest urban population of the world. It differs from previous Measures in one respect in that it unifies the ownership in addition to co-ordinating the control. The changes which are proposed I shall deal with in a few moments, but, as I am anxious not to occupy much time, I will very briefly describe roughly the basic principles.
    658
    The Bill provides, first, for the establishment of a public Board charged with the duty of providing adequate travelling facilities throughout the London traffic area; secondly, the vesting in the Board of all the local passenger transport agencies serving that area, excepting those belonging to the main line railways; thirdly, it provides—and I wish the Committee to take particular notice of this—for the provision of such safeguards and machinery as would ensure that the Board would be kept in touch with, and be receptive of, public opinion with regard to the facilities to be provided and the fares to be charged. It. provides for the setting up of a Joint Committee of representatives of the Board and the main line railways operating suburban lines. Changes are being proposed by these Amendments to the Bill since it last appeared in this House. They are of considerable importance, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will deal with two of the chief ones. I refer to the method of appointing the Board and the composition of the Board itself. The first Amendment is preliminary to those which follow, and provides for the setting up of a body of Appointing Trustees. The adoption of this procedure makes it necessary that they shall act expeditiously. This Amendment, together with the remaining Government Amendments to Clause 1, give effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper circulated last July, and in addition, provide for the establishment of a Board.
    4.4. p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are we to understand that on this Motion to report Progress we have a right to discuss the whole merits and principle of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. But I think it is in Order and for the general convenience of the Committee to outline the main intentions of the Government in the Amendments which they have on the Paper.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask whether, in those circumstances, it will be equally open to Members of this House to enlarge upon the merits of the Amendments which they themselves have on the Paper?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question of the merits of the Amendment, should be gone into in this discussion at all.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The Minister is giving us a general sketch of the Bill and a general outline of alterations which he is making. Those alterations raise matters of very great moment, and I submit to you that if we are to have what practically amounts to a Second Reading speech, other Members in this House should be allowed the opportunity of stating their general attitude to the changes.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): On that point of Order, may I say that the course which my hon. Friend adopted of moving to report Progress was adopted for the general convenience of the Committee. It was intended—and I hope that the Committee will assent to this—to remind hon. Members that the Bill had been before a Joint Committee of this House—[HON. MEMBERS:" No, the last House"]—of this House of Commons and the other House, and that two main Amendments are proposed to be made. I hope it will be agreed that that is a much more convenient course, but if the Committee desires immediately to proceed to the first Amendment without any indication of the main Amendments which the Minister proposes to make, we shall be quite agreeable, with your consent, Sir Dennis, to adopt that course, though I hope the Committee will realise that the course which my hon. Friend has taken was intended for the convenience and for the assistance of the Committee, and not with a view to burking any Debate which, of course, will arise on the Amendments when we reach them.
    The CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), it is quite obvious that we cannot have anything like a Second Reading Debate on the Bill on this Motion. It is equally obvious, I think, that we cannot have a discussion on the merits of the Amendments, which will be discussed when we reach them. But it is by no means out or order, nor is it, I think, uncommon in this House, where a Committee is dealing with a somewhat complicated Measure for the Minister in charge of the Bill to move to report Progress, in order to make a statement which is rather wider than he could make on the
    660
    particular Amendment in question, so that the Committee may understand the connection between that Amendment and other Amendments which follow. I do not propose to allow—and naturally the Minister would not expect to be allowed —to go into any question on its merits, but as he has moved to report Progress, he is quite in order in making his statement, which is not in the nature of a controversial statement, or otherwise it could not be made.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: As the Minister, in what he has said, already has shown that the alterations to the Bill are so different from anything in the Bill which went before the Joint Select Committee, shall I be in order in moving that the present Bill be recommitted to that Select Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. and learned Member certainly could not do it now. We have already entered upon the Committee stage.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: May I point out to you, Sir Dennis, that the Motion to report Progress was made before we entered upon the Committee stage? My suggestion is that I should be in order, either now or at the conclusion of the Minister's observations, to move that the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: In the first place, the hon. and learned Member is not quite accurate. As it was my duty, I called Clause 1, and therefore we have entered upon the Committee stage. It would not be in the power of this Committee to order that this Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee. That is a thing which can only be done by the House and not by this Committee.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Shall we be allowed on this Motion to discuss the origin of this particular Bill'?
    The CHAIRMAN: On this Motion to report Progress I cannot allow any discussion which enters into any question of the merits of the Bill. I have already indicated that, in my view, the statement which the Minister proposes to make on this Motion should not be of such a controversial nature.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If the Motion were that the Bill be not further proceeded with, it would be competent on

    661
    that Motion to give reasons for not further proceeding with it which would relate to the structure of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: That would not be the appropriate Motion. The hon. Member has got his opportunity if he chooses of dividing and voting in favour of the Motion to report Progress.
    Colonel GRETTON: In accepting your Ruling which, of course, I do, there has been no complaint of the Motion before the House for merely an explanation, but may I ask at what stage can the House debate the general effect produced by the first important Amendment which the Government propose to move? Will you be able to allow a wide Debate on the effect of the first of the Amendments, which will alter the general structure and the general principle of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot, on the first Amendment or any other Amendment, allow any discussion on this Bill wider than in the Committee stage of any other Bill. It seems to me, if I may say so, that hon. Members have got in their minds ideas of doing things which might be done by the House but certainly could not be done in Committee.
    Colonel GRETTON: Obviously, as very wide changes are being made by the Amendments which the Government propose, the Committee should have some opportunity of discussing those changes and their effect on the Bill. Can you indicate at what point such a discussion might take place?
    The CHAIRMAN: Where there is a series of Amendments directed to one end, it is quite clear that there must be ample discussion on the effect of the Amendments as a whole. I may remind the right hon. and gallant Member also that there will be an opportunity for discussion on each Clause of the Bill on the Question," That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask for your guidance on this question of reporting Progress? Will Members of the Committee be permitted, not, of course, to discuss the principle of the Bill, but to give reasons why they consider it to the advantage of the House and the Committee that we should report Progress definitely on this matter to-day?
    Mr. SMITHERS: While this Motion is before the House, will it be in order for Members of the Committee to continue the discussion along the lines and the width already initiated by the Minister of Transport?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it might take almost as long to answer as some hon. Members' speeches if I endeavoured to say what could be said and what could not be said. I can only indicate to some extent the lines which I consider relevant on this particular Motion. I think hon. Members must leave it to me to see how far they can be allowed to go.
    Mr. PYBUS: At the moment when the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) intervened, I had reached the stage of saying that we were prepared to make changes in regard to the method of appointment of the board through the appointing trustees, and that we were proposing to increase the number of members of the board from five to seven and to provide that two of those seven should be persons with special experience in local government work. That was as far as I wished to go, and I made that statement because I thought it might be for the convenience of Members of the Committee. There is no idea of taking advantage of this Motion in any way, and I trust that the Committee will agree that my statement has been brief and also to the point.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that, if we were in a position at the present minute to report Progress, we should be able to get on with the work of the House of Commons on some other matter. This Motion to report Progress affords a definite means of ending a Debate for a certain time, and then the usual channels can come into operation and things can be arranged either in one way or in another. I have no wish in any sense to delay the work of this particular Government. I do not say that I have always been innocent in these matters in the past, but from what I hear from a good many people, and particularly from new Members, I think it is very difficult for the average Member of Parliament to realise the position to-day, when we are suddenly called upon, in the most extraordinary circumstance of this Bill being carried over from a previous Session, to

    663
    deal with the Bill in the way in which we are now asked to deal with it.
    There is on the Order Paper a large collection of Amendments. I do not pretend to have read them, but I have tried to see where they lead, and it seems to me that before we can deal with those Amendments—I will not discuss the principle of any one of them at the present moment—it is absolutely essential that we should be given the clearest understanding as to why the Government think it is necessary to proceed in any way with this Bill at the present time. As far as I understood the original Bill, there was very great feeling in our party about it. If I may state one point as to the popularity or otherwise of the original Bill, which in due course we may or may not amend, I believe that, while there were eight or nine Members who spoke in favour of the Second Reading of that Bill, only one of them survives in the House at the present time, and that is the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). His position is a unique one as far as 1 know, and probably he is the best recommendation that the Government have for carrying on the Bill at the present time, if not the only one. As one who has given the Government and the party to which I belong fairly whole-hearted support, as one who at any rate believes that there is a great future for the present Government, and as one who, I would say with the very greatest respect, believes in certain clear and definite principles which this Bill cuts right across, I hope, in the interests of the Government as a whole, that they will accept this Motion to report progress, which they have moved themselves, and will allow the House to proceed with the business that we were elected to deal with, and that they will not endeavour in any way to force this House of Commons into an attitude and state of mind which can only ultimately be bad for the Government as a whole.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is now getting a little beyond the lines of the discussion that I can allow on this question, and is beginning to go into the merits of the Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir Dennis, I am afraid that I was, perhaps, getting closer to the merits of the Bill than I intended. I will only add a single sentence.
    664
    I hope that the Government will accept their own Motion, as I am sure, for what my judgment is worth, that it would be in the interests of the whole position of the Government if this Bill could just pass quietly away.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I do not want to follow quite the same line as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who has given the Government his support by exercising his great gift of silence for quite a number of days, but I want to ask the Minister for a little further light on the Bill. When he rose, I thought he was going to give us some outline of the general effect of these masses of Amendments, but he seemed to be scared by the rising of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and to cut short the remarks that he would otherwise have made. He told us, it is true, of the principal changes, but he did not give a very clear outline. I think that, without going into the merits, he might have given us a clearer description of what exactly is proposed to be done by the major Amendments. It would have been a help to the Committee if he could have told us something about the changes that have taken place in the negotiations with the various interests which have caused the putting on the Paper of so many detailed Amendments, proposing that this or that authority or undertaking should he removed from this or that Clause or Schedule, and so on. When the Minister rose, I imagined that he was going to make a fairly full statement with regard to the long list of Government Amendments, and not merely to deal with only one or two points.
    We are in a rather difficult position on this Motion to report Progress. It seemed to me that the Minister, when he started, was going" all out" to make a Second Reading speech, and he was rightly checked. He was giving reasons why we should accept this change in the Bill. The main change indicated, namely, the change in the nature of the authority that is to be set up, obvicusly arouses the biggest controversy in the whole Bill, and numerous Amendments are coming in from certain groups of Members to deal with it. It seems to me that, if we could have had a discussion on the question of what should be the authority, it would

    665
    have been of great advantage in clearing the mind of the Committee. As it is, it seems to me that we shall get into a discussion first of all on the question of the time when the authority shall come into force, then into another discussion with regard to the name of the authority, and then into still another with regard to the number; and each of these points is bound up with the question of what kind of constitution is to be given to the board, and what kind of board is to be set up. I do not know whether you would be able, Sir Dennis, to consider that matter while the discussion on the Motion to report Progress is going on, but I think there is a great deal of force in the suggestion which has already been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), as to the need for a general discussion on that point, because otherwise we shall have, on most of these Amendments, discussions involving the same principle again and again.
    Colonel GRETTON: I desire to support the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). Certainly it seems to be a very extraordinary procedure to move to report Progress in order that a few scanty remarks may be made upon two only of the Amendments. What the Committee needs, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, is a general explanation of the effect of the Government Amendments. There is a great mass of them, and some of them are rather obscure. Surely, it is treating the Committee with scant respect the Minister to sit down, as he did, after having made some very short remarks upon two points and leaving great masses of Amendments unexplained. I do not want to delay any stage of the proceedings on the Bill, but I would urge upon the Government that the Committee is entitled to a more full and adequate explanation than any that has yet been given. It might facilitate the proceedings at this stage if we could understand the general effect of the proposals which the Government have set clown on the Paper.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I think it is the feeling of the Committee that, the Minister having taken the very exceptional course of moving to report Progress, he ought to give more justification for his Motion than the few very short remarks that
    666
    he made. I must admit that I myself was taken completely by surprise. I was prepared to go on with the discussion of the first Amendment on the Paper. The Minister started well, giving us very good reasons for his action. He told us that he was going to clarify the position for new Members. I do not know why he should refer to new Members in particular, because old Members are equally justified in wanting to know the effect of the large number of Amendments which have been put down. If hon. Members will turn to page 101 of the Amendment Paper, they will find a new Clause running over three or four pages, and dealing with a large number of by-laws and provisions—[HON. MEMBERS:" Read it! "]—I wish to pay due respect to the time of the Committee, but hon. Members will find there a whole page dealing with provisions regarding certain stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company, and I understand that those provisions will materially alter the whole foundation of the Bill. That proposal may be good or bad, but I thought that, as the Government had taken this step, they would show how the Bill was to be remodelled and readjusted to meet the general criticism of the House. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) referred to the ancient history of two years ago—it is a long time to look back to—when I voted, as I plead guilty to having done, for the Second Reading of the original Bill. He said that I am the only survivor, but I think that that is an exaggeration—
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg pardon; I said that the hon. Baronet was the only one of the speakers in favour of the Bill who had survived.
    Sir P. HARRIS: If the hon. Member had studied my speech, he would have found that it was a very qualified support that I gave —
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is now reaching the point at which I called the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to order.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I only wanted to make my point clear by asking the hon. Member to refer to my speech. As we are in Committee, I assume that the Minister can speak again, or, failing him, the Attorney-General, and I think we should now have a complete survey of the whole

    667
    Bill, showing how far greater safeguards for the travelling public are provided, what effect the Amendments are likely to have on finance, how the new electoral college will operate, and how far there is agreement among the new electors as to the exercise of their functions.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that would involve going into the merits of the Bill to an extent which I should not be able to allow.
    Sir P. HARRIS: That makes it very difficult. It seems that, although the Government and the Minister have had over a year, it is only at the eleventh hour that they have made up their minds how to meet criticisms from various parts of the Committee. They are putting us in a very difficult position at short notice without adequate consideration, without an opportunity to consult various interests outside—local authorities, companies, and so on. The Minister will be well advised to persist in his Motion to report Progress and have a White Paper explaining the effect of the Amendments.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I heartily support the Motion that we report Progress and ask leave to sit again at a more suitable time when we really know where we are. The whole position is one of chaos. It is the first time in my experience of the House, which is now a considerable one, where a completely new Bill is being put before us without any explanation of any kind or description. There is no doubt whatever that, as my hon. Friend suggested, the intention of the Minister was to make something in the nature of a Second Reading speech within the Rules of Order as near as he could, but he found that was not possible. We know nothing whatever about the general reasons for the Bill nor why it is being produced, nor why the finances that were submitted to the House two years ago are suitable for the Committee to come to a determination upon. now. There is the further point that was really indicated by Mr. Speaker before you, Sir, took the Chair, that he himself would have to consider very seriously when these Amendments had been passed, if they were passed, whether the Bill was not a completely different Measure from that which had its Second Reading in a previous Parliament. It is very desirable,
    668
    in order to save the time of the Committee, that the Government should go into the matter with Mr. Speaker and get some ruling in advance, so that we may not sit here, apparently into the small hours of the morning, for an indefinite time discussing Amendments which it is likely cannot be proceeded with because, when they are passed, they will prove not to be within the scope of the Bill and will make it a different Bill from that which received its Second Reading in another Parliament. Seldom has a Motion to report Progress been better justified than the present one, and I hope it will be carried by a large majority.
    4.33 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope the Committee will allow me to intervene in the discussion in order that we may all fully appreciate the position that has been reached. I think some of my hon. Friends have overlooked a Motion that was carried last Session and have also overlooked the history of the Bill. It is what in Parliamentary language is called a hybrid Bill. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend seems to have made an interposition which has very little to do with my statement that this was a hybrid Bill, which was my point at the moment. In consequence of the fact that the Bill is a hybrid Bill, it had necessarily to be referred to a Joint Committee of this House and the other House, although this House was then differently constituted, to be considered in all its details. It emerged from that Committee in a very different form from that in which it was originally introduced by the late Minister of Transport, Mr. Morrison. Substantial Amendments were made as the result of over 30 days' consideration in the Joint Select Committee. The Amendments having been made by the Joint Select Committee, the Bill would in the ordinary course have been considered in Committee by the same House as that in which the Motion for the Second Reading had been passed. In consequence of the decision of the House, the Bill has been carried forward and has been dealt with in exactly the same way as if it was going forward in the same Parliament in which it was introduced. May I read the Resolution that was carried:
    "That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be further suspended till the next Session of Parliament:

    669
    That on any day in that Session a Motion may be made, after notice, by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, that proceedings on that Bill may be resumed:
    If that Motion is decided in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to call upon the Minister in charge to present the Bill in the form in which it stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended, and the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and all Standing Orders applicable shall be deemed to have been complied with and the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a Second time and to have been reported from a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons and shall stand re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
    Mr. REMER: Was that in the last Parliament?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In this Parliament. In those circumstances, it would have been quite improper for us to suggest, even if you, Sir, had been minded to allow it, to have anything in the nature of a Second Reading Debate, because the House has already decided that the Bill shall be treated as if it had had a Second Reading Debate, has been through the Joint Select Committee and has been recommitted, and in those circumstances, in view of the fact that the House so lately passed this Motion, I think we should have been fully justified in proceeding to the Committee Stage and taking the Amendments one by one. The Minister thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to mention two or three of the important changes proposed to be made in the Bill by Amendments on the Paper. The position now is that, if we proceed to the Amendments, these matters will be brought out into the full light of day, upon which there are so many differences of opinion. I quite understand that Members in all parts of the Committee, irrespective of party, hold many divergent views upon the Bill and upon many of the proposals that are to be made to amend it. This is a case, if ever there was a case, when the old saying solvitur ambulando will help us to get over our difficulty as to the appreciation of what is in the Bill. If we can proceed to one or two of the important Amendments, there will be ample opportunity for every critic and every friend of the Bill to disclose the main purpose of the Bill and the main proposals which will be made for its Amend-
    670
    meat. On the very first page of the Order Paper, on Clause 1, there are at least three Amendments which raise question of principle in the most obvious form.
    I hope the Committee, unless it is minded to prevent the discussion of the Bill—which I am sure is not the case—will allow us to withdraw the Motion, because it was made for the general convenience of the Committee and was never intended to be a peg upon which to hang a prolonged Debate which will prevent us, getting to the point at issue on which the critics want to meet the Government and the Government want to meet our critics. I do not know whether that is optimistic on the part of a junior member of the Government who is charged with duties in relation to the Bill for the purpose of assisting the Committee, but I hope we may proceed to one or two of those important Amendments, the first of which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan). Upon that Amendment, and on one that stands a little later in the name of the Minister,' there will be such a full opportunity for discussion, which will be in the nature of a Second Reading discussion having regard to the points of principle that are raised, that I hope we may now be allowed to proceed to that important discussion.
    4.40 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind, in regard to what he said about carrying the Bill over on 27th October, that of course the House at that time had the Bill before it in its original form and had not been presented with 40 pages of Amendments, some of them thrust upon us at the last moment. That is surely a strong reason why the House should proceed to carry the Motion to report Progress and to ask leave to sit again on some more appropriate occasion. If that is not done, may I ask that some representative of the Government will carry a little further the rather short analysis of the proposal that has been given us. The Minister referred to the authorship of the Bill, to the great area. that it covers, to the fact that it aims at unified ownership, to the changes to be made in regard to the composition of the Board and to the increase in the number of the Board from five to seven, but I think he made no reference to the fact or

    671
    to the nature of the important negotiations that he has been conducting with private interests between the time that has elapsed since the Bill left the Select Committee stage and now appears before us. If we might at this stage have a fuller statement in regard to those important aspects of the Bill, the Committee would be much more ready to permit the withdrawal of the Motion than I believe it to be at this moment.
    4.42 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I think the Committee finds itself in some little difficulty as regards being able fully to appreciate the issues that are likely to be raised by the individual Amendments. Obviously, the Minister intended, when he got up, to make a prolonged statement with regard to the general aspect of the Amendments in his name, how they interrelate one with another, and what their general effect will be. I am sure the Committee is anxious as soon as possible to get to-grips with the real issue and not to spend time in discussing such a Motion as this. If the Attorney-General's suggestion met with your approval, Sir, that on the second Amendment on the Paper we might be permitted to go beyond the exact terms of the Amendment into a wider discussion on the principles that are raised by the question of the body which shall in fact control London passenger transport in future, I feel certain that a great many Members, at any rate, will be anxious to pass from the present stage and get on to some of the Amendments. Some of us feel that, in view of the Ruling which you gave, each Amendment can only be dealt with so far as the precise content of that Amendment is concerned, and that we shall not be allowed to go outside those very narrow limits and discuss the more general propositions which must in reality arise. We feel that, if we go straight on with the Amendments now, there will never be any opportunity for discussing the main and general principle in a wide manner. If, perhaps, you could assure us that on some convenient occasion, on an early Amendment, some such opportunity will be given, the Committee will be anxious to get on as soon as possible.
    4.44 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman has rather misquoted what I said in my Ruling. At any rate, I did not intend to say that the discussion on each Amendment must be strictly confined to the actual contents of that Amendment. What I said we must do is to confine it to what is relevant to that Amendment, because it is the common practice of the Committee in cases of this kind to discuss the implications of what one may call one Amendment which is technically contained in a number of different Amendments. As to the actual Amendments on the Order Paper, I think that the earlier ones referred to hardly raise the main principle. The main principle on the chief alterations proposed to be made in Clause I would probably arise and be discussed more conveniently on the main Amendment in the name of the Minister—in page 1, line 13—rather than on any of the other earlier Amendments on the Order Paper.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am not clear why the Minister moved to report Progress, because he did not seem to use the opportunity afforded him. I was under the impression that we were to have a non-controversial, but nevertheless full exposition of what the Bill would be like if all the Government Amendments were passed. Instead of that, he was just getting into his stride when the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) interrupted him, and his speech came to a mysterious end. I think that we have been robbed of an opportunity of having the Bill explained to us. A tremendous number of things have happened since the Bill had a Second Reading. I know that it is a hybrid Bill, which, I understand from the biologist, means" the progeny of different species." That is what a hybrid Bill really means in its widest sense, though it has a narrow sense in this House. I do not believe when three weeks ago the House had the Bill submitted to it, and in view of the 20 pages of Government Amendments, or at least such Amendments as the Government had then decided upon—there are 17 new Amendments on the Paper of which they had not thought until yesterday—the Government at that time knew what Bill it would be desired to carry forward.

    673
    It is appalling that we should be trying to do this job under such disabilities. I have never heard of a better Motion from the Government Front Bench than the one which is now before us to report Progress. If they instruct their tellers to tell against the Motion, which, I think, is very probable, the first Amendment to be taken will be one which the Minister only discovered last night. The first Amendment in page 73 is starred, which, I understand, means that it was handed in on Monday, 28th November. It is really not quite respectful to the Committee to treat it in this way, and I sincerely express the hope that the Government will be successful by a large majority in carrying the Motion.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I would like to ask the Minister the reason why he decided upon the course which he took at the opening in moving to report Progress in order to give a full explanation? We have not had that full explanation. I should like to know, looking at the thickness of the papers on the Despatch Box, why the Minister suddenly stopped, using those voluminous notes. I should not have minded so much if he had carried out what seemed to be his original intention. It is obvious that the Government felt, that there was some necessity for making an explanation, and it was a kind of qui s'excuse s'accuse that they moved the Motion to report Progress in order to be able to give the explanation. The learned Attorney-General rightly referred to the decision taken a fortnight or three weeks ago that the Bill should be carried over to this Parliament. That decision of the House has been carried out, and the Committee stage of the Bill has actually begun. Having carried out the spirit and the letter of the Resolution which was passed in the last Parliament, rod the Committee stage having begun, -the matter is now re-opened, and it is up to the Committee to decide within the Rules of Order what further progress should be made. Some of us who support the Government have been put in a very difficult position indeed. I am certain that if the Bill could be taken as a whole, and the Whips were taken off, it would never go through. On the broad aspect of the Bill—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the Bill.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I do not wish to discuss the Bill. I want the Bill to be killed as a Bill, without any Amendments being taken at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is not the time to do it. By Order of the House it is the consideration of the Bill in Committee which is now before us, and the only question before the Committee is whether it should proceed with its work or whether it should report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Mr. SMITHERS: May I appeal to the Committee? Here is a heaven-sent opportunity for us not to vote against the Government but with the Government. I beg of the Committee not to let this opportunity slip by on the Motion we are now discussing. The real feeling on the Bill is obvious. I beg of the Government to let their Motion go forward, and I beg of the Committee to support the Government on this occasion.
    Mr. COCKS: The Committee is now in a state of absolute confusion. What we want is a Cabinet Minister with a gift of lucid and clear explanation, and I suggest that we should send for the Prime Minister.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether he heard Mr. Speaker rule at the end of Questions, just before we entered upon the Committee stage, that he (Mr. Speaker) would seriously have to consider the Bill when it came before him on the Report stage if all the Amendments were carried? I think that what Mr. Speaker meant was, that if all the Government Amendments were carried, he would have to take into serious consideration whether it was not a new Bill, and not the Bill which received a Second Reading in the last Parliament. Therefore, would not he have to rule on the Report stage that all the proceedings on the Bill would have to start de novo,and is not it an absolute waste of time for the Government to go on with the Bill? It really is a waste of time—to-day and on Thursday the House of Commons is to devote time to the Bill—if the Bill is to be a new Bill, which, I believe, it will be one with all the Amendments which have been put down by the Minister. There are pages of them. If these are adopted by the Com-

    675
    mittee, as they will be if the Government Whips are put on, in spite of any resistance that there may be, it will be a new Bill. Will the learned Attorney-General give his considered—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now anticipating what may be the action of the Committee. The Committee has not dealt with the Bill at all yet.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: If the Government Amendments are carried—that is not anticipating, I think—will it not then be a new Bill, and will not Mr. Speaker then be obliged to give very serious consideration to what he said after Questions?
    4.54 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I intervene only with the indulgence of the Committee as my hon. Friend his addressed question directly to me. I cannot answer it. It would be most improper to attempt to anticipate the decision of Mr. Speaker on a question which my hon. Friend says he will seriously have to consider. I cannot read into the statement of Mr. Speaker what my hon. Friend reads into it. If the Committee make such Amendments as they are minded to make, the question may or may not arise whether it is the same or a different Bill. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) asked as to the reason for the first Amendment which appears on the Order Paper—in page 1, line 9, after the word" shall," to insert the words" as soon as may be after the passing of this Act." Hon. Members will observe that my hon. Friend the Minister put down the Amendment, which is the first Amendment on the Paper, with a view to making the statement which, I think, you, Sir Dennis, were prepared to say could more properly, and, indeed, could only be made on a Motion to report Progress, and not on the rather limited Amendment which had been put down for the sole purpose of making such a statement as the Minister intended. The first Amendment is merely a formal one to provide the opportunity which has now been provided by the Motion to report Progress. I do not know whether the Committee will so far bear with me as to allow me to say what are the three substantial Amendments. I am very anxious to avoid
    676
    anything in the nature of a provocative statement which naturally might make Members anxious to reply to me. Therefore, let me tell the Committee baldly the three chief Amendments in the Bill as it emerged from the Joint Select Committee.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not on a Motion to report Progress.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I heard my right hon. Friend say that it is not in order. Here I am being asked to make a statement on the three main Amendments, and when I proceed to do so in a few sentences, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) says that I am out of order.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we should all be most anxious to hear what he has to say. The Committee are most anxious to hear, not only what he has to say, but what the Minister of Transport has to say. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that by the unalterable working of the rules of the House and their impartial administration these necessary processes appear to be beyond us at the present time.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I am not sure whether or not the learned Attorney-General is in possession of the Committee, but, if he is, I understand that he is now going to deal with three Amendments on the Paper. I only ask, in order to protect the rights of the rest of us, whether we shall be entitled to discuss those Amendments
    4.58 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that that point has been amply covered by the Ruling which I gave some time ago to the effect that the Minister—and the same applies to any other Member of the Government making a similar statement—will only be allowed to make a non-controversial statement explanatory of the intention of the Amendments, and neither he nor any other Member can discuss them until we reach them in the ordinary course.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I very much want to discuss these matters both in a controversial and a non-controversial way. What puzzles me is, what is controversial and what is non-controversial?
    The CHAIRMAN rose—
    Mr. LANSBURY: You will allow me, Sir Dennis. This is a very important matter. The three Amendments with which I expect the learned Attorney-General is going to deal are very vital, and if he is going to put the point of view of the Government—[An HON. MEMBER:" No."] Whose point of view is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to put? The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak for himself when he stands at that Box; he speaks for the Government. He is going to put, I understand, the point of view of the Government upon these matters and explain to the Committee the implication of the Amendments. I think that some of us would very much like to put our view in regard to those Amendments. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his explanation, I wish to join with the Noble Lord in trying to protect the rights of the rest of us to put our non-controversial point of view on the subject.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to have it, made clear that I understand you are not ruling that any distinction should be drawn between the rights of a Minister and the rights of the rest of us in this regard. I have always understood that, according to the Rules of Debate, a Minister has not the right to introduce any subject if it is not open to private Members for discussion. I gather that the Ruling you have laid down as to the Minister's powers with regard to definition on the point in question will also apply to anyone of us who chooses to give a definition or an explanation of a definition of the statement made by the Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord and the Leader of the Opposition have both hen trying to stretch my Rulings further than I intended them to go. The point of difference between the position of the Minister and that of hon. Members is clear. What I was prepared to do was to allow the Minister, or a representative of the Government, to state briefly, but in a non-controversial manner, the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government with regard to these particular Amendments is not a matter which can be stated either by the Noble Lord or by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the difference between them and the Minister. I do not propose that the Minister should be allowed in a state
    678
    ment to go into any controversial matter as to whether the Amendments mean a particular thing or not.
    Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect, the intentions of the Government are controversial. It is the intention of the Amendments that we want to discuss.
    The CHAIRMAN: The proper time to do that is when the Amendments are moved.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is a matter of importance to every Member of the Committee. If the Government spokesman is going to explain the intentions of the Government he must explain the Amendments. I respectfully suggest that we have a right to discuss the intentions of the Government and the explanation that the Minister gives, and to put forward our view of the Amendments and our intentions in regard to them. I suggest that if the Attorney-General makes his statement we should be allowed to discuss it in the same spirit that he puts forward the intentions of the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the Minister or the spokesman for the Government in the course of his statement enters into any question which other hon. Members of the House may wish to discuss, and it is a proper subject for discussion on the Motion, I shall, of course, allow the discussion to take place. It is my intention to confine the spokesmen for the Government in any statement that is made to remarks which do not raise any question of controversy at all.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If the Minister states the intentions of the Government, will other Members be allowed ed to state their intentions on the Amendments? Naturally, I and every Member of the House accept your Ruling that the Government should only lay down their intentions, without giving reasons, but other people have intentions with regard to this matter.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In view of what I gather is the general desire that nobody should be allowed to explain or state anything. I am not at all anxious to state, even in the three sentences which I was going to use, the three main changes proposed to be made. As the Committee does not desire me to use

    679
    those three sentences, I will refrain from doing so, and perhaps the Committee will proceed to the first Amendment on the Order Paper, after this Motion has been dealt with.
    5.4 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is perfectly clear from the position that we have now reached how well advised the Minister of Transport was in moving to report Progress. Everything that has taken place in this discussion has clearly shown that that is the proper course for the Committee at this moment. The Minister of Transport got up and desired to unfold to the Committee a statement vital to their coherent and competent consideration of the Bill. For some reason or other he found himself unable to do so. Then the Attorney-General rose, with all the weight of his office behind him, to assist us, in the interests of the Committee, in the interests of discussion on this Motion, and draw our attention to three Amendments and the Government's intention in regard to those Amendments. He had information which he wished to convey to us, just as the Minister in charge of the Bill had information which he wished to convey. But we have got no information, and it is perfectly clear from the Ruling of the Chair that the information which they wished to confide can only be of a limited and restricted form and could not convey any clear or intelligent impression to those who heard it. We are discussing whether we should report Progress, and I think the Government would be very well advised to follow up that happy thought. Obviously the House ought to be in possession of this important Ministerial statement before it addresses itself to the discussion of the detailed Amendments. Obviously, it cannot be in possession of that information, owing to the Rules of Order. There must be, therefore, a great failure in our Debate to-day if we are called upon to embark upon these Amendments without having received the indispensable information which the Government wish to confide and which they have already endeavoured to confide to us.
    There is really no hurry about this Bill. It would be very natural, after the long delay which has intervened in its various stages and its mixed parentage, to which my hon. Friend referred, and
    680
    it would be very necessary that there should be a general Debate on the principle of the Measure, its history, its position and its character, before we embark upon the long pages of Amendments, some of which are so newly printed, on the Order Paper. The Government have a hundred facilities open to them to get the Committee out of a difficulty. The difficulty is apparent; it is a patent deadlock, but the Government can easily resolve it. They can carry out what are evidently the wishes of the Minister in charge of the Bill. All they have to do is to report Progress upon this Measure, instead of using an enormous deadweight majority to carry things through whether the House likes them or not. All that they have to do is to accept the Motion which the Minister himself has made, and for which I certainly intend to vote, to proceed to other business on the Order Paper today, and to put down on the next occasion when this discussion is resumed some Motion or Resolution, which can quite easily be done, a simple Motion for the Adjournment, for instance, which would enable the whole question to be discussed quite freely. Then we could embark upon these pages, these folios of Amendments, with the whole matter put into its proper form and concept by the Minister in charge of the Bill, in accordance with what the Government consider is best calculated to enhance the efficiency and the dignity of our Debate.
    5.9 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: So far as we are concerned on this side of the House there is so obviously a deadlock that we shall feel obliged to vote in favour of the Minister's Motion. Would it not be possible if the Committee reports Progress at once, for an immediate Motion for the Adjournment of the House to be made by the Minister? Thereupon, a general discussion could ensue upon that Motion and the voluminous notes which the Minister has before him, dealing with the general principles of the Bill, could be dilated upon. I suggest that we should adopt that course.
    5.10 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: As the Attorney General referred to me or to others who take a certain view of his speech, I should like briefly to reply to what he said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said

    681
    that the Committee was apparently not prepared to hear him state the intentions of the Government. That, at any rate, is not the position which I take up. I am anxious to preserve the rights of private Members. I am not suggesting, Sir Dennis, that you do not desire to preserve them, but I am not quite sure that the Attorney-General is prepared to do so.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly.
    Earl WINTERTON: I want to preserve the right that anything that is said by a Minister should be open for discussion by any Member of this House. The Rule applies both ways. The idea that it would be possible for the Minister to make a statement and that that statement should not be discussed is really contrary not only to the Rules of Debate but to the whole concept of discussion in this House. There are only two occasions which are exceptions to that Rule, and that is when a Minister is answering questions or when there is a personal explanation. I do not think there are any other exceptions to the Rule, and it is a most important Rule which we ought not to allow to be abrogated.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite agree. I never said otherwise.
    Earl WINTERTON: I distinctly understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that Members of the House seemed to object to his making a statement of intentions. We do not object to that, but we object to a statement of intentions which we cannot discuss. I would support the very powerful appeal made from several quarters that we should either report Progress, or that the Government should devise some means whereby we can discuss this matter. We obviously cannot do so in the present circumstances. We are in a time of great crisis in this country, events of the most critical importance are being discussed behind the Speaker's Chair,. and, without a single Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench—we know that they cannot be here because they are engaged elsewhere—we are asked practically to pass a Socialist Measure, without the Government themselves having any clear idea of the procedure to be pursued. I would ask the Government to follow the advice
    682
    given by my right hon. Friend, to carry the Motion to report Progress, take some of the other business on the Order Paper and put this Bill down for discussion on some more felicitous occasion.
    5.14 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to intervene again, but I must defend myself this time from suggestions that I want to curb discussion. My Noble Friend, I think, was rather afraid that I wanted to make a statement and to prevent anyone else afterwards from discussing it.
    Earl WINTERTON: No.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If that is not the question, then let me say nothing more about it. It is for you, Sir Dennis, to say how the Debate shall proceed. I have throughout been anxious to do what is for the greater convenience of the Committee. I neither want to burke discussion of what I say nor refrain from making, I hope, a sufficiently clear statement of the matters embodied in these numerous Amendments. I did not want to discuss them and I did not want to defend them, I might say that I hardly wanted to explain them, but I intended to state three main changes that are proposed by this very large body of Amendments, the great bulk of which when these three particular Amendments are made will be found to be consequential and drafting Amendments. I am so entirely in the hands of the Committee that I do not know which course to take in order to meet their wishes. I know which course is for the convenience of the Committee, if they will allow me to take it; and that is to state in three sentences the three main Amendments to be made, not to explain or defend or argue them, but to state them for the general information of the Committee.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether if the Attorney-General carries out his benevolent purpose it is perfectly clear that the repercussions of these Amendments on the general character of the Bill can be discussed by the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and I would agree on the same definition of the word" repercussions," but anything similar to

    683
    that stated by the Attorney-General will of course be in order. What I want to guard the Committee against is a discussion, on the merits of one particular Amendment, of the type which should take place when a particular Amendment is called. If the statement is made I shall do my best—and I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the House will give me the credit for trying to do my best [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear "]—to allow hon. Members to make whatever consequential statements may be properly in order as a result of the statement made from the Government Bench.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If it is desired I will state in the briefest form the three main Amendments in order that the Committee may get a general impression of the Bill as a whole, if and when these Amendments are incorporated in it. The first is the Amendment to substitute what are called the" Appointing Trustees" for the Minister as the body which is to appoint the Board. That is the first main Amendment, and it requires a vast number of drafting Amendments to put it into the Bill. The second Amendment which it is proposed to make is that the jurisdiction over facilities and fares to be provided and charged by the Board shall be in the hands of the Railway Rates Tribunal instead of being left to the Minister of Transport. That again is an Amendment which requires I think scores of drafting Amendments for the insertion of the words" Railway Rates Tribunal" for the words" Minister of Transport."
    The third main change in the Bill is to incorporate the arrangements which have been made, subject to the approval of the Committee and the House, with the Metropolitan Railway Company. Up to the time when the Bill left the Joint Select Committee the Metropolitan Railway Company was not prepared to come to an agreement as to the terms upon which their undertaking should he taken over. An agreement, subject to the approval of the House, has now been made, and to incorporate that agreement in the Bill makes a substantial change in some parts of its structure. When we come to the Amendments necessary to incorporate these changes there will be ample opportunity for their further explanation, or defence or attack. I hope
    684
    that I have kept my word that I would make no provocative or argumentative statement. There are no other changes in anything like the same class as these three. They are the three changes which, if accepted by the Committee, will be followed by a great deal of hard work by the Chair in the form of putting the drafting Amendments to which the Committee will readily assent because they are merely drafting. My task is done, and it is for the Committee to make such arguments as Mr. Chairman will allow on the statement I have submitted for their consideration. We shall be prepared to give a much fuller explanation when in the ordinary way he comes to the separate Amendments embodying these three changes.
    Mr. SMITHERS: In regard to the third main change, can the Attorney-General say if the arrangements made with the Metropolitan Railway Company have received the consent of the shareholders of that company?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is certainly a question which should be postponed until we reach the Amendment.
    5.20 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: I think the Committee should accept the Minister's Motion to report Progress, especially after the very lucid speeches of the Attorney-General. It will be remembered that in October, When the House was discussing this Bill, that the Colonial Secretary. said that we should have the fullest opportunity for discussing it. In my view it is not carrying out that pledge for the Prime Minister to announce the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule to-day and indicate that unless we go a long way we should sit late to-night.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): The Prime Minister never made any such statement. He said that it was not his intention to ask the House to sit late.
    Mr. REMER: Can we have an assurance that we shall not be asked to sit late on any night?
    Captain MARGESSON: I am dealing entirely with what the Prime Mniister said at Question Time, that it was not his intention to ask the House to sit late.
    Mr. REMER: I am much obliged, because I know that many hon. Members were under the impression that the Debate would continue if we did not make considerable progress. The Motion to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule has given great offence to many hon. Members.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now transgressing the Rules of Order. He is discussing a decision of the House an hour ago.
    Mr. REMER: I am sorry, and I will not pursue it. There is an easy way out, and the Government by accepting the Motion to report Progress would give great satisfaction to hon. Members and provide an opportunity for hearing a clear definition of the position on a Motion that the House do now adjourn. The Minister could then give his explanation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that quite unintentionally he is misleading the Committee. A matter involving legislation cannot be discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. REMER: I am sorry that I was in error, but I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Chief Whip to find some means whereby the Bill can be discussed in the form of a Second Reading Debate. There is one Amendment which appears for the first time to-day of four pages long and of a most technical character. It is unreasonable to ask hon. Members to discuss such important matters when we have not had the slightest opportunity of examining them. I hope that the Committee will report Progress, and that we shall find some way of having a clear statement from the Minister of Transport or the Attorney-General on the whole Bill.
    Sir W. DAVISON: The Attorney-General in his reply to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that he was in the hands of the Committee, and that as representing the Government he only desired to do what the Committee wished him to do. He suggested that he should make a short statement giving an idea of the scope of the Bill and that the Committee should then proceed. But his short statement only touches the fringe of the matter, and it is evident that the Committee prefers to report Progress. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear! "] Those cheers I
    686
    think indicate the view of the Committee, and as the Attorney-General says that he does not wish to dragoon or bully the Committee—
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not use those words.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I am putting those words into the Attorney-General's mouth because it would be dragooning and bullying the Committee if the Government forced their view upon us. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was that he was in the hands of the Committee and was prepared to do what they desire.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must interrupt the hon. Member. I said that I was prepared to make or not to make a statement to the Committee on the important changes as the Committee thought fit. That was the matter upon which I put myself in the hands of the Committee.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I give the Attorney-General the credit that he does not desire to dragoon or bully the Committee. As the Committee has shown unmistakably that they are not satisfied with the way the Bill has been presented the Government should accept their own Motion to report Progress and consider the way in which they can meet the views of hon. Members who desire that there should be a general discussion on the whole Bill. There is plenty of business to occupy the House until 11 o'clock tonight and I hope that the unmistakable view of the Committee will be accepted by the Government and that the Motion to report Progress will be accepted.
    Major JESSON: As one of several hundreds of new Members of this House I rise to ask that some statement on the Bill shall be made, especially after the speech of the Attorney-General referring to three important Amendments. You do not put a roof on a house before you have laid the foundations. There is in this House several hundreds of new Members who constitute a reservoir of ability. That reservoir must be tapped. I was sent here as a humble supporter of the National Government, and I want to continue to be a supporter of the National Government, but I have no information here except a statement made by the Minister of Transport, who said that the

    687
    Bill was to unify the ownership of public transport. Coupled with that is a statement by the Minister of Transport in the Socialist Government with regard to the Bill. Therefore I plead with the Minister that if he cannot accept the Motion to report Progress—
    HON. MEMBERS: He moved it.
    Major JESSON: I plead with him to give us a short statement letting us know what is the purpose of the Bill.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: As an inexperienced and modest Member of this House I would like to say that there are two points that seem to stand out in this discussion. The first is that we have not had an adequate exposition from the Front Bench of the merits of this Bill. I would ask, is there no one on that Front Bench who is capable of giving us such an exposition? It has been asked for from all quarters, and nothing has yet occurred.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must remember my Ruling that a Second Reading speech on the Bill now is out of order.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Then may I ask your advice, Mr. Chairman, on one other matter? I understand that we are going to discuss this Bill in all probability all to-day and also on Thursday, and that having done so, Mr. Speaker, in going through the various Amendments, may decide that this is not the same Bill as that originally introduced.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss the action Mr. Speaker may take in the House.
    5.34 p.m.
    Captain FRASER: I think every Member of the Committee will agree that the two or three hours we have spent on the Motion before us have been extremely good fun, but I question whether really the amount of noise in the House, in cheering and applauding the baiting of the Government, reflects the feeling of Government supporters as a whole. I was one of those who rather disliked this Bill. I had hoped that other counsels would have prevailed, but when the decision is come to, with the whole weight of the Government, with Cabinet authority and consideration behind it, to bring this Measure here in
    688
    the only way in which it can be brought —[HON. MEMBERS:" No "]—in the only way in which, having regard to all the circumstances, it can be brought—[HON. MEMBERS:" No! "]; when the Government have decided that the inquiries which have been made ate such as justify the Bill being brought forward, and when in fact it is brought forward, it does seem to me that it is making Parliament foolish for one Member after another to get up and indulge in opposition of the kind which normally comes from His Majesty's Opposition and keeps us up at nights, sometimes night after night. I can recall occasions in another Parliament when hon. Gentlemen who are not now here kept the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) up for hours, in the early hours of the morning, with clever Amendments and interpolations and points of Order. Surely those who always meant to oppose this Bill are satisfied that they have tested their strength. I do not believe that they number more than two or three score.
    If the Government have the courage to say that this Measure is a right Measure, that a monopoly in traffic is desirable, and if they ask the House to support them so that they may get on with the business, I believe that they will secure the support of a majority of the National Members. I believe, moreover, that the general feeling in the country, unless we get on with business, will be one of shaken confidence in the Government. There will be a general feeling that the Government have mishandled the business of the House to-day. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear hear!"] I do not consider that that is so; I think that a series of circumstances which are singularly unfortunate have helped. First of all, perhaps the Minister of Transport did not handle his Motion with the utmost possible tact and discretion. But that is no reason for the line that some hon. Members are taking. The Government must include representatives of many parties, and that is no reason for those of us who believe that the principle is right to permit a course to be taken which does definitely damage Government prestige. There happened to be discussions going on which prevented counsels being taken which might have averted this trouble. There are some sitting on the benches near me who like

    689
    the embarrassment of the Government and who have joined in this fun to-day with malicious delight.
    In these circumstances it seems to me that the sensible thing for the Committee to do is to reject the Motion to report Progress. It is a good joke to say that the Minister moved it. It is a good joke to say that Members can vote with the Government because the Minister moved this Motion; but everyone knows that it was moved for the convenience of the Committee, that it was not moved in order to embarrass the Committee, but for the Committee's convenience. Then, caught on the horns of a dilemma, the Government found that the explanation which was to have been made for the convenience of the Committee could not be made. The Minister of Transport has had enough already, I think, and to carry the matter to its logical conclusion and to bait him further because he is in that dilemma, does not seem to be fair play to him. The decision which some hon. Members have asked us to take, to report Progress, seems to me to be one which will stultify the Committee. I suggest that the Government should have the courage to ask the Committee to defeat the Motion, and I believe they will get the support of the majority.
    5.38 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM RAY: I think the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has given the real reason why the Motion to report Progress should be carried. He stated that if the Government of the day deemed it desirable to establish a monopoly in traffic they should proceed with the Bill. Surely that is the one
    thing, the one principle, that wants explaining to the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: I allowed the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) to go too far, and I was on the point of pulling him up. I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue discussing the same matter.
    Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. If very controversial statements are made, is not another hon. Member allowed to deal with them?
    The CHAIRMAN: On this occasion. no.
    Sir W. RAY: I am sorry to think that I have contravened the rules of Debate, but I thought we had gone a little outside the original latitude allowed. The only point I wish to make is this: This Parliament contains probably a greater number of new Members than any Parliament on record. This Bill is of profound importance not to London alone. It is a matter of profoundest importance to industry throughout the whole country. It does seem reasonable to most of us that a House called to discuss a matter of this type should not proceed with the Committee stage without a real explanation from the Government Front Bench of the fundamentals of the Bill. I say no more lest I should contravene your ruling again, Mr. Chairman, and I want to have your indulgence later in the evening.
    Question put," That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 223.

    Division No. 3.]

    AYES.

    [5.41 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gluckstein, Louis Halie

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cape. Thomas

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Apsley, Lord

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Chaimers, John Rutherford

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Banfield, John William

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Belt. Sir Alfred L.

    Copeland, Ida

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Borodale, viscount.

    Cove, William G.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Bracken. Brendan

    Cripps. Sir Stafford

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Briant. Frank

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Daggar, George

    Harvey. George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hicks. Ernest George

    Buchanan. George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Burnett, John George

    Edwards, Charles

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

    Maitland, Adam

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Janner, Barnett

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Selley, Harry R.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    John, William

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd &Chisw'k)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Thorne, William James

    Kirkwood, David

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Knebworth, Viscount

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Lawson, John James

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lees-Jones, John

    Potter, John

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Leonard, William

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Levy, Thomas

    Price, Gabriel

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Cruydon, S.)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Ray, Sir William

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Lunn, William

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Renter, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Sir William Davison and Sir Kenyan

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Vaughan-Morgan.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Elmley, Viscount

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Leckie, J. A

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Leighton, Major B. E. p.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Bernays, Robert

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

    Blindell, James

    Fade, Sir Bertram G.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mabane, William

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McKeag, William

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Magnay, Thomas

    Burnett, John George

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Cayzer. Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Moore, Lt.-Cot. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.'

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Munro, Patrick

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nunn, William

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Cook. Thomas A.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cooper, A. Dull

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pearson, William G.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Peat, Charles u.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hornby, Frank

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Petherick, M.

    Curry, A. C.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verth'pt'n, Blist'n)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Despencer-Robertton, Major J. A. F.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Raikes. Henry V. A. M.

    Dickie, John P.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Doran, Edward

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ramsden, E.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rankin, Robert

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Knight, Holford

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

    Robinson. John Roland

    Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Soper, Richard

    Warrrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Russell, Alexander Welt (Tynemouth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmoriand)

    Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Storey, Samuel

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Thomas, St. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Thompson, Luke

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Scone, Lord

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A, (C'thness)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    The CHAIRMAN: Mr Pybus.
    Mr. PYBUS rose—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. I wish to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. I propose to do 343, in view of what has just taken place and in -order to ask the Government where they now stand after the Division, the result of which has just been announced. As I gather, the Government have been defeated on a Motion proposed by the Minister. Some of us have exerted ourselves to our utmost in order to avert that stultification of the Ministry, but we have been unsuccessful because the sense of those Members of the Committee, who have not heard the discussion, has been undoubtedly hostile to the Government with the result that the Government's Motion has been defeated. On the Motion which I now submit to you, Sir, there is an opportunity for the Committee to escape from the dilemma in which it now obviously finds itself. We desire very much that the discussion on this Bill should be inaugurated by the most informing speech possible from the Minister in charge of the Measure. Upon the Question that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair, might we not, if it is the general wish of the Committee, have a statement from the Minister, not at all as a precedent, but as carrying out the general wish of the Committee on this occasion that they should be put in possession of the information which is sought before the discussion proceeds.
    The CHAIRMAN: In the exercise of my discretion in the Chair, I decline to accept that Motion. It would amount to having a discussion in almost the same terms as the discussion which has just taken place on a similar Motion.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that when a
    694
    Government has been defeated in the past, it has been usual to afford some opportunity for a statement by the Leader of the House as to what that Government propose to do? We cannot in this case take into account the way in which the Government have been defeated. The fact remains that they proposed a Motion which has been defeated in the Lobby. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) may be wrong in urging the Motion which he suggests as an opportunity for discussing the Measure itself, and I understand that your Ruling against that Motion has been based largely on the reasons given by my right -hon. Friend for discussing the Measure itself. But would it not be in order on a Motion of that kind to have a statement by the Leader of the House as to the position and intention of the Government. I do not know who is the Leader of the House at the moment, but I presume it is the Attorney-General, and I submit that we ought "to hear from him as to what action the Government are going to take. If the process which I suggest is not adopted, we shall be in this position—that for the first time I think in the history of the House of Commons a Government will have been defeated and no statement will have been made by the Leader of the House as to what action they are going to take. Future Parliaments will not be able to judge if they use this case as a precedent—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is now, I understand, putting a point of Order. In my opinion the Government were not defeated. According to the best of my knowledge and belief the Tellers nominated by the Government reported a majority.
    Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. May I submit that the Minister in charge did not ask the leave of the Committee to

    695
    withdraw the Motion but insisted on the Motion, and the Committee therefore were justified in believing that the Government were behind the Motion?
    Earl WINTERTON: With great respect, may I point out that the precedent concerns not the action taken by the Whips but the quarter from which the Motion emanates? There is no doubt that the Motion to report Progress was moved from the Government Front Bench by a responsible Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a certain amount of discretion in the Chair in matters of this kind, and as I have discovered no particular willingness on the part of the Government to give the explanation which some hon. Members appear to desire, I do not think that, in the circumstances which I have already indicated in reply to the Noble Lord, there is any reason for dealing further with that question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. My Friends and I are to some extent outsiders in this—shall I call it" schemozzle "—but I wish to suggest to you seriously, Sir Dennis, and I am saying this very respectfully, that you should make an effort to get us out of this difficulty.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must keep the proceedings a little bit in order. There is no question at the moment before the Committee. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order but he has not yet put such a point.
    Mr. LANSBURY: There is a custom in the House of Commons when a deadlock of this character arises for hon. Members to make suggestions to try to get out of the difficulty.
    The CHAIRMAN: I had called upon the Minister of Transport to move the first Amendment on the Paper—in page 1, line 9, after the word" shall" to insert" as soon as may be after the passing of this Act." The hon. Gentleman rose to do so when he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (-Mr. Churchill) on a point of Order and the subsequent discussion has been on points of Order, but there is no point of Order before the Committee now.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I suggest that the discussion has been on a Motion that you should leave the Chair?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. That Motion has been disposed of. I declined to accept it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That Motion was put forward as a suggested means of enabling the Committee to do what I think is the wish of the great majority of the Committee and I would ask, even now, would it not be worth while for the Minister again to move to report Progress and for you to accept that Motion, and to allow him, with the consent of the Committee, to make a full statement.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be out of order for several reasons of which I need only give one. As the Minister of Transport has moved that Motion already he cannot move it again.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I respectfully suggest that it could be moved by the Attorney-General in order to enable the Minister to make the statement which we are all nearly dying to hear.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. The Government moved to report Progress and did not ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw that Motion. May I ask at what particular point the change in the Government's position took place?
    The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises in that connection.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move in page 1, line 9, after the word" shall," to insert the words:
    "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act."
    This Amendment is a preliminary to the appointment of the proposed Transport Board by the Appointing Trustees as dealt with in a later Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask are we to have no further explanation of this Amendment beyond a couple of sentences from the Minister which many hon. Members have been unable to hear owing to the noise made by other hon. Members in leaving the Chamber? The Minister gets up and says this is the first Amendment and that it is necessary as a preliminary because some board is to be

    697
    appointed, and then he sits down. The Minister should tell us a little more than he is telling us. Not all of us know every detail of the Bill, and while we admit that the Minister is well versed in the matter and understands it all, some of us want a little fuller explanation of the Measure. I think it will save a great deal of time in the future if the Minister will give us a little more explanation than he has given.
    Mr. PYBUS: What I said was that this Amendment was an essential preliminary to the appointment of trustees. It is important when the Bill becomes law that the instruction should be given at once for the appointment of trustees to proceed as soon as possible to appoint the I card. That is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why was that not put in the Bill? When the Bill was first drafted it was not necessary; why has it become necessary now? It either shows terrible draftsmanship in the beginning or that a new position has arisen.
    Mr. PYBUS: No new position has arisen, except that the draftsman, looking at the matter, thought it, safer to have this Amendment in than to leave it out.
    Mr. ATTLEE: As the Minister has said that these words are only inserted as part of his new proposal, which is contained in three Amendments, the first regarding time, the second with regard to numbers, and the third with regard to the nature and the constitution of the trustees, is it not possible to discuss the whole of this proposal on this Amendment? I think this has been done before.
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter is really in the hands of the Committee. I would suggest that it would be very much more convenient that we should have a general discussion on the Minister's more important Amendment later on.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I call your attention to the fact, Sir Dennis, that we have had an Amendment which is described as an essential part of the appointment of the appointing trustees? On the other hand, there is an Amendment on the Paper to put in the words:
    "As soon as may be after the receipt of a report,"
    and so on, and that sets up a different kind of constitution. Therefore, the
    698
    whole question of the nature of the constitution is raised on the Amendment now before us, because it is only being inserted with regard to the appointing trustees. If, as we maintain, the Bill should be as originally drafted, these words are otiose.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question for a discussion on merits, but I still adhere to my own opinion, for what it is worth, that the discussion should take place on the later Amendment. With regard to the one which next follows, I was going to suggest to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) that if the Minister's Amendment is carried, it will be necessary for him to make a slight modification of his Amendment in order to make it read. It would merely be to leave out the words" as soon as may be," and to add the rest of his proposed Amendment at -the end of the Minister's Amendment.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This is a long Bill, and we are told that the Amendment is necessary drafting because this board will not be appointed in the direct sense, but by a process of indirect appointment. That that process was to be adopted had apparently been known for a long time, and I want to know when they discovered that these words were necessary. I do not believe they are, but I may be wrong in my draftsmanship. My view that they are not really necessary is, however, reinforced by the fact that we were told half-an-hour ago that the Amendment was put down because it was believed that it would enable us to have a general statement on the Bill. Then they thought that that would not do, and they decided to try the other step of moving to report Progress. I do not much mind which is the reason for moving the Amendment, but it is a pity that two entirely discordant reasons should have been presented by those in charge of the Bill, and I think we should be told whether these words are vitally necessary. If they are, we shall vote for them with great pleasure, but if they were merely put down for the purpose of a Debate which was not allowed to take place, I do not think we should waste time and printing by inserting them in the Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Nobody would presume to say that these words are vitally necessary, which are, I think,

    699
    the words used by My hon. Friend. The words are clearly desirable in order to make it plain that the action which is intended by the Bill shall be taken immediately the Bill becomes law. They are words which are found at the beginning of similar Acts. It is true that I said a few minutes ago that the Amendment was put down and that it was hoped that on it there might be a discussion of the general points in respect of which the Bill was changed, but if the Committee will accept the words as desirable, without asking me to state that they are absolutely necessary, which I certainly cannot tell the Committee, we shall be able to proceed to the next Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has disposed of the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). It is clear that the Amendment was put down to enable a statement to be made by the Attorney-General, but it was not found possible to make that statement, and my right hon. and learned Friend now says it is desirable to put in the Amendment, but that it is not necessary to do so. I should have thought the real explanation was that the main object of the Amendment was to enable a statement to be made which was not made, and that now the Amendment should be put in because there is no particular harm in doing so. It fills no particular need, and the Bill would be as strong without it as with it. That, I think, is the answer to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), whose speech has never been answered by the Government. The Amendment was put down in order that we might have a discussion on the main principles of the Bill. It was not found possible to carry out that purpose. Therefore, I do not think there is any need for the Amendment, but it would be rather cruel to press the Government in the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted. to insert the words:
    "and after the receipt of a report upon the financial structure and effect of the provisions of this Bill by the Government actuary or by the Treasury."
    700
    6.9 p.m.
    The purpose of the Amendment, as no doubt is clear from its wording, is that before the board is actually set up the Government shall receive and report upon the financial implications of their present proposals. We have received quite lately a White Paper, Command Paper No. 4204, containing certain statements and figures, which give very little of the required information which the House deserves to have if it is properly to consider the full import of the Bill. My first criticism of the financial proposals of the Bill is that since the Bill left the Select Committee certain important interests have been reconciled, certain undertakings have been entered into, and certain engagements have been undertaken. These financial considerations cannot but materially affect the financial prospects and basis of the Bill itself, and I have grave misgivings as to the nature of the changes which have been made, so far as the financial responsibilities of the Transport Board are concerned. My anxiety is not from the point of view of the interests which have been taken care of—properly, no doubt, from their point of view—but from the point of view of the travelling public, and it is important that the Government should have before them the fullest information, and only if they are satisfied as to the nature of that information and the result which it shows should they proceed to further consideration of the Measure or the setting up of the Transport Board, as the case may be.
    Hon. Members will observe that on page 3 of the White Paper certain financial calculations are set out, but their value is hampered by the fact that the estimated net revenue is based on the average annual earnings for the three years ended the 31st December, 1930. Consequently these figures do not take into account changes which have occurred since then by reason, for example, of the falling off of receipts or of the rise in the cost of certain purchases of these undertakings. A further question arises as to whether the Government and the Committee are satisfied that fair financial compensation has been accorded to all the undertakings which have been compulsorily acquired and whether the same or corresponding financial compensation has been accorded to some of the smaller undertakings as compared with some of the greater. But that is not the main

    701
    purpose of my Amendment, and I desire again to refer to the underlying importance of it from the point of view which I venture to represent.
    Unless the financial basis of the Bill is sound, one of two things must occur. Either the Transport Board will not have the revenue required in order to meet the charges, or, which I believe to he far more likely, it will be compelled to resort to the unfortunate result of raising fares and curtailing the facilities; and for that reason the traveling public is bound to suffer. Not only so, but in the event of that expedient being resorted to, it must also have the result of further curtailing the receipts and further complicating the financial basis of the Bill. For these reasons, among others, it is of the first importance that the constitution of the Board should not further be proceeded with unless and until the promoters are satisfied that their financial basis is broad enough, sound enough, and accurately enough estimated to warrant the step being taken.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I realise that the Government might regard this as a dilatory Amendment.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: It is not.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I accept that, but I say that it might be regarded as such. In the interests of London traffic some decision will have to be come to as soon as possible as to its organisation, ownership and control. Delay is fatal, because every day's delay holds up the management of the whole system. This is a splendid opportunity for the Minister to make part of that long expected statement, for which we have been waiting 2½hours, as to the finances of the undertaking. There is a substantial difference in the Bill because of the new agreement which has been entered into with the Metropolitan Railway. The Metropolitan Railway have been very clever; they have been very cute and shrewd. They have looked after the interests of their shareholders, quite rightly, and have endeavoured to make a hard bargain. As the result of long negotiations, the Government now come forward at the eleventh hour with a complicated and tricky proposal which is embodied in a proposed new Clause. When the original Bill went through the Hybrid Committee,
    702
    the Committee did not have the advantage of seeing the bargain made by the Metropolitan Railway. This is an opportune moment for the Minister to explain in detail the effect of the agreement made by the Metropolitan Railway. How far does it disturb the finances of the proposal, and how far does the Metropolitan Railway get a, better bargain than, for instance, the London County Council, the District Railway and the Underground Group?
    With my limited knowledge of finance and stocks and shares I find it impossible to understand the long and intricate Clause relating to this railway, but I have no doubt that it has been drafted with great skill to protect the public, and to see that the agreement is implemented. The whole success of the undertaking depends on finance, and if it is overloaded at the beginning, if we are to pay more for the various undertakings than they are worth, and if the shareholders and various interests drive hard bargains, the success of the new board, however constituted—whether nominated by the Minister or by the proposed Committee—will be hindered from the beginning. If we do not have a statement from the Minister, I shall support the Amendment. The Minister could make clear how the finance of the undertaking is affected by the new agreement which has been come to with the Metropolitan Railway, and also how, with the declining receipts of the undertakings, the prospects as anticipated by the Government accountant are likely to be fulfilled. The statement which has been presented to the Committee was brought out as late as 25th November, so that it was prepared apparently only a week ago. I assume, therefore, that it makes full provision for the Metropolitan Railway agreement. The success of this undertaking depends on whether we can make two ends meet. If the two ends do not meet, we shall simply have higher fares. This is the right moment for the Minister to explain the effect of the finances of the Bill, and how they will be affected now that the Metropolitan Railway has come into the concern.
    6.20 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: So far from this Amendment being a dilatory Amendment, it is vital to the success of the Bill if ever it becomes an Act of Parliament. As a member of the Joint Committee which

    703
    sat for 30 days hearing evidence at inordinate length on all matters connected with the Bill as it was then before us, I say that it is a well-held opinion to-day among a large number of business persons, valuers, accountants and experts who are dealing with this matter, that the financial structure of the Bill is such that the new board will start, not insolvent—I do not say that—but financially insufficiently provided so as to make it impossible to carry out the duties that are being put upon it. When before the Joint Committee, the then Government relied on Sir William McLintock as the accountant to put the financial position before the Committee. He put in a pro forma balance sheet which showed, on the Bill as then constituted and on the figures as then known, a mere balance, after paying interest on all the stock which it was estimated would have to be met down to C. stock, of only £132,000 on a capital which, in his last figures, Sir William showed as £122,000,000. That is a mere bagatelle and insufficient for the purpose for which it is intended.
    These figures are based on the accounts for the three years ending 31st December, 1930, of the component bodies—the tubes, the trams, and everything that is coming into the combine except that, I believe, the accounts of the local authorities were taken to 31st March. Since that time there has been an immense decrease in all the revenues of the component bodies. I am not in a position to give the exact figures for 1931, and it may be, if you take Lord Ashfield's combine for instance, that some saving was effected in expenses; but I do know that these companies had to reduce their dividends, and that the other bodies which form the component parts of this Bill also suffered losses. I have taken out from the" Times" of last Thursday what are estimated to be the further losses in the 46 weeks of this year. It there appears that on the Metropolitan Railway the traffic returns alone have decreased £96,100; that on the common fund companies, that is, Lord Ashfield's companies, there is a diminution of receipts of £475,300. No figures are given for the subsidiary transport companies. There has been a diminution of £54,000 in the London Suburban Traction Company. I
    704
    have no figures of the decrease on the London County Council trams, but they are very considerable, too. These decreases in the last two years are absolutely sufficient to knock the bottom out of the financial statement which has been put forward. To-day, by an accident, I find that the Minister of Transport is endeavouring to bolster up the case he is making by putting in a further financial statement—
    Mr. PYBUS: The White Paper which was circulated, and which the hon. and learned Member describes as an attempt to bolster up the case, was issued in response to a Parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), so that the hon. and learned Member will probably withdraw that suggestion.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: If I used too strong words of the Minister of Transport, I certainly withdraw them, but I was assuming that the Minister was going to use this in support of his case. I do not wish to use strong language at all; I am only too anxious that the facts should be ascertained and known. I have no interest in London transport one way or the other. I am an outsider, but I am very anxious that Londoners and those who live in Greater London, in this area of 1,800 square miles with a population of 9,000,000, should know exactly what the Government are proposing to do with their traffic arrangements. The objection I have to the use of this statement is this: We are debarred by the procedure adopted from sending this Bill with its alterations to a further Select Committee, where Sir William NcLintock's statement could be subjected to investigation and cross-examination as it was in the Committee that dealt with the matter before. How on earth he can put forward figures to-day showing a slightly better result than he did two years ago and than he did when under examination before the Committee, after there have been two years of bad traffic receipts which have affected every transport undertaking, I will ask the Committee to understand if they can, because I cannot.
    Why is it so important that this body when it comes into being should start off on a sound basis? It will consist of seven paid officials who will have no financial interest in the management of this matter

    705
    except their own salaries? They will he put there to manage it as a commercial undertaking. They will be there to be shot at by every one who has a complaint to make, and they will have put iota their hands the easy remedy of raising fares. How can such a body work a business involving £122,000,000 of capital with a beggarly margin of £130,000? There is a further point. One of the reasons put before the Committee, the country and London for this Bill was that it is vital to the transport of London to have three new tube railways—one going north-east, another east and another south-east from Liverpool Street. It has been suggested that this Bill will enable those tubes to be built. It is said to be quite impossible, in present conditions, with tube construction costing £1,000,000 a mile, for any tube to give a reasonable return on the money spent on it, and so existing undertakings cannot obtain the capital. But it is suggested that this body of seven paid officials, with its margin of £130,000, and limited in the way of management as I have described, will be able to raise the money to build these tubes—I am told £30,000,000 will have to he raised. Is there an hon. Member who believes it to be possible?
    In my view, the financial position is insecure, is unsafe and needs most careful, independent investigation before the Bill is put into operation. A short time ago, Captain Bourne, when your predecessor was in the Chair, I asked if it would be possible at any stage for this Bill to go back to a Select Committee for further examination. I got no affirmative reply, and I am doubtful whether that could he done; but if that were possible hon. Members would at least be satisfied about these matters of the very greatest importance which I have ventured to put before them. Now we are doing the best we can by seeking to require the Government themselves, by their actuary or by the Treasury, to investigate the financial structure of the Bill before it proceeds. Common prudence demands that the Amendment should be carried.
    6.32 p.m.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I think that every hon. Member will be grateful to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) for raising at this early stage the question of the financial basis of this Bill. It is vital that the position should be
    706
    examined critically and carefully, because supporters or opponents of the Bill will agree that very largely it must rest or fall on the result of that financial criticism. I venture to suggest at once that the Bill is financially sound. It has fallen to my lot to be fairly closely associated with London transport for eight years, and to be fairly closely associated with many of the financial problems which arise in connection with this Bill, and I will put certain considerations before the Committee upon which, I think, they will be able to come to a decision to oppose the Amendment. We arc on common ground in saying that the financial basis of the Bill was laid down with reference to the average of the three years ending 1930, and the criticism has already been advanced that since 1930 traffic returns throughout the London traffic area have fallen.
    I can give my hon. and learned Friend some additional figures in support of that fact. The figures of 1931 fell short of those of 1930, and the figures for 1932 are going to fall short of those of 1931. The London County Council will probably show the traffic receipts of their tramways in this financial year to be something like 3.5 per cent. down, the Metropolitan Railway will show their receipts to be 5.9 per cent. down, the Common Fund of the Underground, Lord Ash-field's group, will show a reduction of 3.7 per cent., and the London and Suburban Traction group will show a reduction of 2.8 per cent. What difference can the Bill make to shareholders, or to the financial stability of London transport, if, as is evident, present day conditions are affecting all undertakings alike? They are all suffering a reduction of receipts. What difference can it make to the financial basis whether they are treated as units or are joined, as is proposed, in a common merger? As is well known, there are practically only two groups outside the financial scope of this Bill—Tilling's group of omnibuses and the Independent group of omnibuses. In Clause 14 (8), an arbitration tribunal is set up with power to settle the terms of acquisition of any party in respect to which terms have not yet been agreed, upon the terms already comprised in the Bill. So that, again, will not affect the financial stability of the Measure, because those who are still outside will be brought in on the same terms as those

    707
    who have already agreed to the financial proposals.
    I am sorry to have to repeat the story of the Metropolitan Railway, but I do it for the benefit of the hon. Baronet. The settlement with the Metropolitan Railway has not affected the financial basis of this Bill by one penny. Since the Bill left the Joint Committee, of which my hon. and learned Friend was a member, the Metropolitan Railway have come to terms with the Ministry, but the position is identical, so far as the finances of the board are concerned, with the position of the District Railway, the London Electric Railway and the Underground Railway. The financial basis is the same. The only difference is that the amalgamated railways—the great four—have decided, out of their own funds, over which they have complete control, to guarantee the Metropolitan ordinary shareholders a fixed interest return over a number of years. That is a private arrangement between the amalgamated four and the ordinary stockholders of the Metropolitan Railway—[HON. MEMBERS:" Why? "] I am only arguing whether the Bill is financially sound, and I am saying that the settlement between the Metropolitan Railway and the board is precisely the same as between the board and the London Electric Railway and the others. What the Metropolitan have done is to make an arrangement with the main lines for a guarantee over a number of years, but that does not in any way affect the finances of the Bill. I hope I have persuaded my hon. Friends that, whatever may have been the agreement between the main lines and the Metropolitan, as far as the finance of this Bill is concerned, which is the point raised by the Amendment—
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does that appear in any form in the Bill, or is it a private agreement?
    Sir H. JACKSON: If the hon. Baronet will read the White Paper which the Minister circulated three months ago he will find it all set out there. This is really the practical point: whether the ordinary stockholders of these various transport undertakings are receiving their proper share of" C" stock. The shareholders' meetings have all agreed. This will provide the risk of the board's undertakings. There
    708
    is one important exception to this finance; I have already stated it, but I am afraid I must again set it out. The only exceptions to the guaranteed stockholders are all local authorities owners of tramways—the London County Council and the county boroughs, who are put in a very high state of priority in regard to the payments for their undertakings. They are coming immediately after the debenture holders, between the debenture holders and the preference shareholders, and there, again, there is the substantial return of 4½ per cent. as a practically guaranteed dividend. Of course, we are all sincerely hoping that as a consequence of this merger economies will be possible. You cannot have a great merger without economies. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh ! "] I am reluctant to drag in personal questions, but I think it will be agreed that the Underground combine, under Lord Ashfield's management, has been one of the great outstanding transport successes of the world. That is a very great merger, and this is an extension of it. I would say to my hon. Friends of the Labour party in particular that there is no intention of making any material reduction of staff as a consequence of this great merger. They know as well as I do that with the efflux of time wastage takes place, and the result of those wastages will be that better use will be made of the existing staffs. This in two or three years will effect material savings.
    I think one should say this in conclusion: It has been said by every one of the speakers that this Bill means an increase of fares. I suggest that unless the Bill becomes an Act there will he an increase of fares, or, alternatively, there will have to be subsidies from the rates. Increased fares will take place if the present conditions continue without the control or review which will be possible under this Bill. The London tramways have once again gone on the rates. They were on the rates for many years, they were off the rates for two years, and now they are back on the rates, and, as far as we can see, the subsidy from the London ratepayers will get greater and greater—at least the only alternative would be to increase fares. So I would reply to my hon. Friends who put up this bogey of increased fares that the way to keep

    709
    fares down, the way to guarantee cheap- ness of London transport, is by adopting the sound finance in this Bill. It is common ground that certain great transport undertakings are not commercially successful in this sense, that they have to be helped by other forms of transport. It is common knowledge that the London omnibuses have been helping to keep the London tubes, and if the receipts go down it may well be that those services which have a low-earning capacity, and which are so necessary for the development of transport, may have to be withdrawn or considerably reduced. Therefore, in the interests of the travelling public, for which my hon. Friends have so earnestly pleaded, and in the interests of getting cheap fares and maintaining existing facilities, hope the Bill will become an Act, because its finance is sound. Its soundness has been shown by Sir William McLintock, and it was accepted by the Joint Committee, and nothing has happened since the Bill left their hands to make the position less secure than before.
    Captain NORTH: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Central 6.43 p.m. Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). There is a great deal of doubt about this Measure in the minds of hon. Members, and when it comes to the finance of the undertaking doubts change to consternation. We all want to know, Is this undertaking financially top-heavy, or is it not? The success of any scheme of this kind roust depend entirely upon the purchase price of the undertakings you acquire. it would like to know whether the price at which these undertakings have been acquired is a commercial price or is in some way, shall I say, a commercial price and a price of expediency, because obviously a very great deal depends upon that. Another thing I should like to know is the basis of calculation by which this issue of transport stock, as set out in the Second Schedule, has been arrived at? On how many years' purchase are those figures based? I should like to know who negotiated this transaction and how long ago this agreement was reached. I think that the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth said 1930. Since 1930 the whole finances of this country have very considerably altered. The price of money in 1930 was very different from the price
    710
    at the present time, and, obviously, what was considered a right price then no one would say is a reasonable price at the present moment. One has to remember that we have had a Conversion Loan, which makes a certain amount of difference.
    The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth mentioned the question of the profits of these undertakings, and said that the receipts had gone down since 1930. I should have thought that that was the very best argument for paying less money than you would have paid in 1930. If you are going to buy on a commercial basis, you have to be quite certain that you can make them pay. If the interest on the purchase price which you pay for the commercial undertaking is larger than the profits of the undertaking itself, that must result in a loss. The moment that it results in a loss, what happens? You have either to raise fares or to take traffic off the streets. A number of hon. Members believe that the result of this Measure will be that prices will immediately be raised. If that is so, it is not the Transport Board who will be blamed but the Members of this House. I think we ought to be quite clear about that. The Transport Board are, no doubt, excellent gentlemen, but they live in a comparatively sheltered backwater compared with us. The public will be extremely indignant to find that their fares are raised. I heard the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth say that in any case if this Bill did not go through fares would be bound to rise. I understand that his argument was that the undertakings could not go on making a loss. That is the finest admission from anyone that, the moment that this Measure goes through, fares will be raised. We should like from the Minister a clear and lucid explanation as to these financial matters. We should like to know exactly the sum of money for which these varied companies have been acquired and the number of years' purchase which has been paid. We still very much press the point that it would be a great deal better to set up a finance committee to investigate the finances of this Bill before the House of Commons passes it.
    Sir W. RAY: A good many people in London and in the Greater London area would be much more satisfied 6.50 p.m. if this Amendment were carried. One can scarcely see

    711
    any reason why the Minister should not satisfy the heartburnings of a large number of people by giving some satisfaction of their doubts as to the financial stability of the proposed undertaking. Long before the National Government came into existence, many people in the Greater London traffic area had their doubts as to the financial stability of the proposed undertaking. The statement made this afternoon by the hon. arid learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who was one of those who examined the Bill carefully in its Select Committee stage, makes us more apprehensive than ever that the doubts of those who were interested were based upon something. I fail to see how the argument of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) proved that we have all the financial stability that we require. His argument went on the lines that if the undertakings were losing money by anything from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., then as long -as they were all losing money, the financial condition was satisfactory. That is how it sounded.
    Sir H. JACKSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not misquote me. What I said was that if all these undertakings are losing money now, are they going to he any worse off by being put into a merger?
    Sir W. RAY: That was not the argument. That was not the line at all. The argument was that as long as they were all losing anything from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., it was not so bad as if one were losing and three were gaining. Now the hon. Member says that so long as they are put into a merger things must be more satisfactory. We have heard of mergers—
    Sir H. JACKSON: My hon. Friend really must not misquote me again. I am quite within the recollection of the Committee, and hon. Members will be able to read what I said in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I said quite definitely that they are all losing now and that they would not be any worse off in a merger. In a merger economies might be effected.
    Sir W. RAY: It is quite true that if they are all losing and they go into a merger none of them might be any worse, but the London travelling public could
    712
    be considerably the worse and this great financial undertaking could be considerably the worse, by amalgamation of organisations that were not paying. I submit that there is ample case for the Amendment being accepted by the Minister of Transport. It is not in any way antagonistic to the principles of the Bill. If the examination proved the soundness of the undertaking, that would settle the doubts of a great many people who are interested in this matter. As the Government will not allow us to have a reexamination of the financial conditions by a Committee of the House, the least they can do is to give us the satisfaction of knowing from their own actuaries that the doubts that some of us have are without foundation. In view of the extremely scanty margin of profit that was estimated, namely, £130,000 on a capital of round about £100,000,0000, if we had doubts, we now have colossal doubts, knowing how the receipts of the undertakings have fallen. Is it not the duty of the Minister of Transport—at all events it would be acting in the best of faith—to give us the information that is asked for in this Amendment?
    6.54 p. m.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I am not opposed to this Bill, but I am seriously disturbed about its financial prospects. From the statement which has been distributed, it is obvious, on the face of it, that this concern is going to start insolvent. There is an item," Estimated Net Revenue," of £5,798,602. Even with that revenue, there is scarcely any surplus, but we know for certain that it is not the estimated net revenue and that the net revenue will be something very much smaller. We are told at the bottom of the page that the figure I have quoted is arrived at by taking the average annual earnings of companies for the three years to 31st December. 1930—three very good years. I suppose that 1929 was one of the very best years. Therefore, we know that the figure with which this statement starts is definetely wrong, and that it is not what it is described to be. It is not the estimated net revenue. This document has been given to us to satisfy our doubts, but it creates doubts. Look at the huge sums for stocks in respect of which interest has to be paid. I do not know what would happen if the interest were not paid. There is certainly

    713
    no possibility of the interest being paid out of the revenue.
    There is nothing in this document to tell us how much of this money would be available for capital expenditure, or how much is going to be used for taking over the various undertakings. We cannot possibly judge of the scheme until we know what money will be available for taking over the undertakings. The moment you begin to spend money, you have to borrow more, and you have to pay interest on what you borrow. The money is not there to do that, and there is nothing to give us that information. We know that the price which is being paid to the Underground Group is hopelessly too big, because it is based, I understand, on the figure which would give the shareholders the same average income which they enjoyed in the year ended 31st December, 1930. That is going to handicap this scheme from the very start. I do not see any reference in the statement to depreciation. I see a reference to provision for maintenance and renewal, but that is not the same as depreciation, We are entitled to a very full answer to these points, because this Committee cannot approve a scheme for the setting up of these undertakings without every Member realising what will be the result.
    6.57 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: I want to urge that this is an Amendment which goes to the very root of the matter. There are many of us who do not care a bit about the political implications, but who are anxious to get a good working arrangement for London. The only speech against the Amendment was one of despair. We were told that. every undertaking is losing money to-day, but that when you put them altogether there is every hope that there will be greater efficiency and that a loss is going to be turned to a profit. Suppose you do not do that. Under this Bill the unfortunate organisation will have to work upon commercial lines. It cannot fall back on to State funds, or upon the rates. If an undertaking with such a small margin—if we are to take notice of what was said by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson)—cannot hold out hopes of a profit, how are you going to raise money from the public? I can speak with the experience of one who had
    714
    the responsibility of the London County Council tramways for six years. We had to see how best we could meet the difficulties which arose, and we had to come back on to the rates to help ourselves out. We came to a definite conclusion, that if there is a prospect that you are going to raise revenue by putting up fares, disturbing the public and causing a regular upheaval in London, you will not achieve the result. As a matter of fact, you can put up fares until you reach a point where putting up fares interferes with your increased revenue. As a matter of fact, if you put the small fares up people will walk instead of ride. We thus find ourselves in a great dilemma. Speaking as a London Member, I am one of the last to put difficulties in the way of the Government or the Minister, but in London this is a vital matter. If, as a result, fares immediately go up, and services are cut down, then the good bargain you made for the purchase of the tramways will be put out of account, and, if the travelling public are irritated from morning to night, they will turn round and hit someone, and I say that they will hit those who support this Bill.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In this White Paper, on page 3, it states that the revised figure of net revenue takes into account" The earnings (including Government grants)." I want to know what that means. I can imagine it meaning several things, and I want an assurance that there is no particular Government grant anticipated in any way whatever.
    Mr. REMER: In this White Paper can find no allowance for the amount which will have eventually to be paid to Messrs. Tilling, and also to the independent omnibus owners. I am also unable to find anything which may have to be paid, under Clause 6, as compensation to the Associated Equipment Company in the event of that company not getting a contract under this Bill. It seems that neither of these two things is definitely mentioned. Will the Attorney-General tell us how these two items are dealt with in this White Paper?
    Mr. DENVILLE: May I be permitted to ask how it will affect the workers on the four large railways? I see that by this Bill the four large railways are guaranteeing the C stock. If so, will this be taken out of the funds of the rail-

    715
    ways which are complaining that they they have not sufficient money and are reducing the wages of the workers.
    7.3 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No one could complain of the raising of this question of the financial structure on which the Bill is based. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has for a long time taken a keen interest in London traffic, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) served on the Joint Select Committee on which, I think, he had the wearisome task of sitting for 30 or 40 days while the Bill, so far as its financial aspect was concerned, was in process of examination. I have a word to say which is directed, not so much to the substance of the speeches made, as to the form of the Amendment. I must make that comment. My hon. Friend has put down an Amendment on the Paper which provides if it is carried,
    "That as soon as may be after the receipt of a report upon the financial structure and effect of the provisions of this Bill by the Government Actuary or by the Treasury."
    He has not, so far as the putting down of Amendments is concerned, attempted to follow his Amendment by saying what would happen if the report were not so favourable as had been anticipated. Unfortunately, in the form in which the Amendment is drawn, the Government would be left no choice. In the Bill, as the Amendment stands, the direction would be for the Act to proceed, and to be brought into operation after the report had been received. I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend that. He must have intended that if an unfavourable report were received there would be some delaying action to prevent the Bill becoming operative.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: If the Government so decide.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot follow my hon. Friend when he says," If the Government so decide." I would have expected him to say that if an unfavourable report was received the Bill would not become operative. He says that his intention is that, if the Government so decide, the Act would not be operative. That is the real position in which we find ourselves.
    716
    The Government have given most anxious consideration to the whole of the financial structure of this Bill. I am not suggesting that the Committee is to be asked to take from the Government anything the Government chooses to put in its hands, and accept the assurances of the Minister. I only want to go by steps. My first suggestion to the Committee is that the Government have considered this matter with great care. The Amendment suggests a report. The Treasury have made reports on the result of the consideration that they have given to the Bill. They have made these to the Government from time to time, and they have followed every step in the negotiations which have finally led to this Bill. The result is that the Government are to-day in possession of precisely the same sort of reports as those which are contemplated by the Mover of the Amendment as a basis of decision as to the future operation of the Act, if it is passed.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Will the Government publish these reports?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is the first time, so far as I know, that that has been suggested.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: If a Minister refers to documents, is he not bound to publish them?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): If a, Minister quotes from an official document, the custom is that the document should be laid on the Table.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not quoted from the documents, nor are they present for me to quote from them. It was necessary for me to inform the Committee that the Government have had the advice of the Treasury at every stage of the proceedings. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that I must produce the reports. That would be very inconvenient. Law Officers' reports are constantly referred to but never produced. I am not in the position to produce these reports. I have not got them. They are reports made from time to time on particular aspects of this Bill. The next matter is that the Mover of the Amendment is asking that a report shall be made by a gentleman who may be described" as the Government actuary."

    717
    I do not suppose he means somebody different from Sir William McLintock, who is an independent adviser, and whose integrity is beyond question. He produced a balance sheet and pro forma account for the Joint Select Committee, and was in the witness box for days on end. He was subjected to examination by opponents and critics. He was even asked some questions by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). The Joint Select Committee performed the task of making up its mind whether the Bill was justified or not on the evidence as to finance. if it had been a Private Bill the Order would have been for the Committee to decide if the Preamble was proved. The Committee had to be satisfied that the anticipation of the financial soundness of the Bill was justified. The Committee came to the conclusion that the anticipations as to finance were justified. I know nothing about the proceedings of the Committee except those which have been published.
    Captain NORTH: How long ago was the report of the Committee made?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it was in 1931. I think it began sitting in April, 1931, and sat through May and June until July.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The 1930 figures were used as the latest?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is perfectly right. The 1931 figures were used—the figures of 1928, 1929 and 1930. I will suggest a good reason for thinking that these would be the most satisfactory years to be used if we were considering the matter entirely afresh at the present time. The Select Committee had opportunities of examining the financial position of the Bill and decided that it was justified on its merits. Now I hope I am saying nothing disrespectful when I say that a tribunal, such as the Joint Select Committee, which had an opportunity of cross-examining people and asking questions face to face, was a more satisfactory tribunal than this Committee can ever be. This Committee is entitled to the fullest information on broad lines, but we cannot go into details.
    Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that this Joint Committee passed the Bill by five votes to four?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understand that those were the figures, but I do not think we can settle this question by counting heads. The Joint Select Committee passed the Bill, and I want the Committee to bear this in mind when they are asking for full information. There is before the Committee a White Paper which brings up to 25th November Sir William McLintock's anticipations and estimates. The Committee have an opportunity of comparing that with the White Paper produced before the Joint. Select Committee. In substance, the figures are the same, although there are additions to the capital, owing to the change of date, and difference as to anticipated earnings, which take into account the issues of capital made since the White Paper was first issued. Suppose that I was to be asked to give the House a statement as to the broad financial structure of this Bill, I could do no more than repeat what appears in the White Paper and what can be much more easily comprehended in this statement than if I read out these figures. My hon. and learned Friend asked for elucidation. He says there is nothing about depreciation. I am informed that depreciation is included in the expression to which he has referred—
    "for maintenance and renewal of the undertaking."
    I understand full allowance has been made for depreciation in these items. Another question was asked by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Warwick (Captain North) as to
    "the earnings (including Government grants)."
    The form of Sir William McLintock's revised figures of the net revenue takes account of
    "The earnings (including Government grants) to be derived from the proceeds of debenture issues made by certain of the undertakings—"
    In other words, the Government grants which were made under the Development (Loans. Guarantee and Grants) Act have been taken into account in this sense, that 3 per cent. of the expenditure for 15 years —for instance, in the case of the Southgate Tube extension—is a figure that has been included in the calculations made by Sir William McLintock. The criticism, as I understand it, is that after the years, 1928, 1929 and 1930 which have been taken, we have suffered a depression, we have

    719
    passed through a period when earnings have fallen, and that, if the House is to be asked to take these three years, it is not looking facts in the face. I venture to think it would be entirely wrong for this Committee to take the attitude that calculations as to the future of London transport should be based upon the earnings in what everyone agrees was the very depressed year of 1931—we have not yet finished the year 1932. It seems to me to be better to take three years which are probably much more typical and normal years than the year 1931.
    It is all very well to say that Sir William McLintock, in his reserve fund account, only brings out a balance of £159,000. That is a figure which is arrived at after allowing for the" C" stock the full interest which it is capable of earning up to 6 per cent. As the Committee will appreciate, there is a rate of return on the" C" stock which bears a relation to the total earnings of the undertaking, and that provides a certain amount of elasticity. Sir William McLintock's statement assumes that the" C" stock is going to earn the whole maximum of 6 per cent., that is to say, another ½ per cent. over and above the 5½ per cent. If the Committee will look at the statement, they will find that there is an allowance for that ½ per cent., amounting to £121,000, so that you have to add this £121,000 to the £159,000 in order to ascertain the real figure available for reserve which Sir William McLintock brought out as a result of his examination of the accounts. I have been asked what were the terms upon which these undertakings have been acquired, but the Committee would not expect me to detail the terms so far as they are contained in the proposal for the exchange of transport stock for the stock and shares in the different companies; anyone can ascertain that figure for himself.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Where?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is all in the Schedules to the Bill. For instance, the" A" stock—
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Can the Attorney-General point out any statement anywhere in the whole proceedings as to how much the London General Omnibus Company are being paid for their omnibuses
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was speaking of the Schedules for the moment, and saying—I will come to the omnibuses in a moment—that the" A" stock, for instance, mentioned in Sir William McLintock's statement, is transport stock which is exchanged for an equivalent amount of debenture interest-bearing stock which is supposed to be represented by the "A" stock mentioned in the Schedule; and similarly for the" B" stock and the preference shares. My hon. and learned Friend asked me how many years' purchase have been taken for the London General Omnibus Company. I suggest to the Committee that, having regard to the fact that considerable interests have still to be acquired for consideration or compensation, which will have to be assessed by an arbitration tribunal, it is not at all desirable that the House should be informed as to how much is being paid to the London General Omnibus Company. It surely is for the Committee to assume that, if that question had been important, and if it were a question that could properly be examined into, it would have been examined into by my hon. and learned Friend and by the Joint Select Committee when Sir William McLintock was in the witness-box.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: So it was, and he could not get the information.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it is not quite accurate to say that he could not get the information. He could not give the information, for the reason that I have mentioned. If my hon. and learned Friend will refer to the transcript of the shorthand notes of the Select Committee, I think he will find that my statement is more accurate than his on that point.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: We have been informed that the purchase price of this undertaking was based upon over 19 years' purchase of the net profits during a singularly prosperous time, and we want to know, is that preposterous figure true, or anything near it?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman must not expect to catch me by asking me a question when I have already said that I do not think it is in the interest of the Bill or of the undertaking, or in the public interest, that I

    721
    should inform the Committee as to the years' purchase. [HON. MEMBERS:" Why not?"] For the reason which I have given, and which was given to the Select Committee. A number of undertakings are still to be acquired, and it is certainly undesirable that information should be given as to the way by which an agreement with a particular undertaking, as, for instance, the London General Omnibus Company, was arrived at. Let me say, however, that later on, if anyone wishes to raise this question of the acquisition of a particular undertaking, it can be raised when we come to the Schedule, which is the appropriate part of the Bill dealing with the question. At the moment I am only dealing with the general financial structure of the Bill.
    As to whether the Committee is justified in proceeding with the Bill on the basis of the information contained in the White Paper, which is really Sir William McLintock's report, I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that no economies are taken into account in this pro forma statement. That is one of the advantages which it is hoped will arise from unification, but it has not been taken into account in any optimistic anticipation of profits which depend upon the exercise of economies. It is an advantage which will accrue to the board that controls this unified Undertaking. Nothing is easier than for people, especially in these times, when, naturally, we all feel more or less depressed, to be prophets of woe, and to say that this figure and that figure are not justified. I commend these figures to the House as the justification of the attitude and position which the Government are taking in the matter. It may be said that Sir William McLintock's figures are excessive and optimistic, but Sir William McLintock, as I have already pointed out, was examined, and the Committee is in a position to choose between the gloomy anticipations of any particular Member and the considered and detailed opinion which Sir William McLintock expressed and maintained after the fullest examination and cross-examination before the Joint Select Committee.
    I certainly would not undertake the task, even if I were qualified to do so, of expressing my own opinion as to whether this undertaking is a sound one. The Government must be advised by the
    722
    experts. My hon. Friend's own Amendment suggests that the Government should be advised by the experts, namely, the Treasury or the Government Actuary. The Government, I repeat, have been advised by experts, and they accept the opinion of the experts. The Government are not prepared, with all respect to my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment, to go through the whole process again, for that would only result, if the report were a favourable one, in their being placed in precisely the same position as the present one, while, if the report were unfavourable—which the Government have no reason to anticipate would be the case—there is no machinery, so far as I know, which would enable the Government to give effect to that unfavourable report. The fact is that, both before the Joint Select Committee and now again upon fresh consideration of all the facts elicited by that long inquiry, Sir William McLintock is prepared to pledge his reputation and skill and experience by advancing the figures contained in the White Paper, and I ask the Committee, as reasonable business men, to take the advice which is tendered to them in the absence of any criticism of any particular figure as being unsound or inaccurate in point of calculation.
    Everyone can form his own opinion, and all prophecies of what is coming must be matter of opinion. I see no reason why the Committee should adopt that pessimistic view of the future of Government transport — [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh !"] It is not Government transport, and nobody knows better than my hon. Friends that, when the Bill is amended as it will be, it will be nothing like Government transport. I was saying, when I made that slip which appears to have caused my hon. Friends such supreme delight, that there is no reason for listening to these gloomy anticipations in contrast with the expectations of Sir William McLintock. I suggest to the Committee that they should bear in mind the fact that we have here the population of London depending on a vast transport system in dozens and scores of hands. If that system is going to break down because of the difficulties of the present position, it will be largely because of the lack of unification, the lack of proper management to make the economies and dispositions which alone will transform a loss into a profit. If there is a loss, it

    723
    will fall upon the travelling public in the present position. The best way to transform a loss into a profit is, as the Government think, to have this unification of the whole London transport system, to enable economies to be made, to eliminate all that is wasteful in the competition which is causing so much blocking of our public thoroughfares; and it is because the Government accept the reports which have been made to them, and believe that there is under proper administration and control a bright future for London traffic, that they commend this Bill to the House on the footing of Sir William McLintock's report.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I think the Attorney-General was a little disingenuous in endeavouring to hide himself behind Sir William McLintock. What was Sir William McLintock called upon, in essence, to do? He was given certain data, and we contest those data for a start. He was asked, upon those data, to find out what the actuarial effect would be; he was asked to do certain calculations, to take into consideration, with his experience and knowledge, all the factors that he was allowed to take into consideration, and to give an answer in figures at the end. The answer in figures was that, on a capital of greatly more than £100,000,000, as far as he could see there would be, on the basis of the profits in exceptionally favourable years, a margin of a paltry £100,000 odd, which the Attorney-General ingeniously turned into the magnificent sum of £200,000 odd, as the possible margin on the year's working of a concern with a capital of £100,000,000.
    If in every single particular we had every reason to believe that Sir William McLintock was right—and we know that he is a man of great experience and supremely accurate in his calculations—he informs the Government he has taken exceptionally prosperous years, and we know that they are exceptionally prosperous from what has happened since; and, in spite of the Attorney-General's deprecation of pessimism, we know that there is not the least reason to suppose that the receipts of the London transport companies are likely to rise at any rate for three or four years, under present conditions, if ever they rise again. On
    724
    the basis of the figures given to him, Sir William McLintock was told to make a calculation. He made that calculation and brought out the result that I have described, which shows conclusively that, if this had been a commercial concern, any proposal to float it on such a capital would have been turned down with contempt by the public, the underwriters, and everyone else. Is it conceivable that a company prospectus could be put before the public if the figures of the accountant showed that there was only this miserable margin, which a week's rain or a week's sunshine might completely wipe out?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I correct the hon. Member's statement, which I did not interrupt because I thought he made it with authority, that Sir William McLintock was given certain figures and asked to make a calculation. That is entirely inaccurate. William McLintock had a perfectly free hand. No figures were given to him. He made his own examination and got every figure that he wanted from the accounts of the company.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: He was given the basis of the whole calculation, the profits for certain years, and was not allowed to go into the question of what the profits were likely to be in the future. He was simply put in the position of an arithmetician or an actuary. You always give an actuary the basis on which he makes his calculations, and he makes them accordingly from his own knowledge and experience.
    In taking over these undertakings with an issue of stock the purchase price is a matter of the most immense moment. We are not allowed to know, for instance, at how many years' purchase of the net profits over the period in question the London General Omnibus Company's undertakings was to be handed over in exchange for stock. We ask if it is correct that it was the basis of over 19 years' purchase of the net profit, and there is no Member of the Committee, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, who does not know that the capitalisation of the company on the basis of 19¾ years' net profits, which were then year by year decreasing, is preposterous. We all know that the basis in industrial undertakings, even those that have good prospects, is about 10 years purchase of net profits at the most.
    Mr. PYBUS: What is the authority for the hon. Member's statement that the basis is 19 years purchase?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: It has been asserted and we cannot get the Government to deny it. If the assertion is openly made and published that that was the basis, and all we can get from the Government is that it would not be wise to tell us what the real price is, we are bound to come to the conclusion that that is something near the figure.
    Mr. PYBUS: Because it is inconvenient for the Government to state on what basis certain undertakings are to be acquired, because there are more undertakings to be acquired, that does not justify the hon. Member in asserting that a certain basis was adopted and endeavouring to elicit by that means what the basis was.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The whole argument of the Minister and of the Attorney-General is that in the case of one favoured concern they have bought it out at such a price that they dare not tell the others for fear they might demand the same terms. Is there any earthly reason why the other undertakings should not get the same number of years purchase?
    Mr. PYBUS: I must answer for someone who cannot be here to answer for himself. The hon. Member is suggesting that Sir William McLintock made such a disgraceful bargain that we dare not state the terms.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Poor Sir William McLintock is having an awful time. Every Member of the Government tries to hide behind him and pretends that he is the responsible person and not the Government, and we know perfectly well—I have given the explanation—what the position of Sir William McLintock is and what would be the position of any Gentleman acting as he does in similar circumstances. He is given certain problems to solve for the Government. He solves those problems, and it is not fair to him to pretend that he is responsible for the Bill and for the whole policy underlying it.
    There is another point that came out. It was asked," What about the depreciation of these concerns in these calculations?" We were informed that depre-
    726
    ciation is merged in what we usually term repairs and renewals account. Some of these undertakings are not only losing undertakings but are obsolete. It is well recognised in transport circles that tramways are an obsolete method of conveying passengers which would long ago have disappeared from our streets as an insufferable nuisance, and the cause of more traffic jams than anything else, but for the fact that they are monopolies largely in municipal hands and municipalities, having the power to afflict the inhabitants of our cities with obsolete means of transport for an indefinite period, continue to run them when any private company would long ago have gone into the bankruptcy court. It shows the real fallacy of the whole Bill. It is a Bill to perpetuate obsolete methods of transport and nothing else. It is a Bill to prevent tramways from going into bankruptcy because they are obsolete. What allowance has been made for the fact that tramways are obsolete and are absolutely worthless from a capital point of view because they cannot earn revenue? They have got to be written off and, therefore, to say that without a depreciation account for this huge merger we can get rid of the tramways and keep our balance sheet clean and sound is a preposterous assertion. I hope anyone further replying for the Government will give us a little further explanation of this wonderful system of accounting by which you get over the difficulty of being loaded with Obsolete plant on your hands at exorbitant prices by simply calling your depreciation account repairs and renewals.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Judging by the length of the Attorney General's speech, I think he knew that he had a rather bad case. He rather justified the Bill and the rejection of the Amendment by saying the Bill was needed to avoid the streets being blocked with all kinds of vehicles. That is not the purpose of the Bill. You can get all the vehicles that you wish out of the streets, as far as I am aware, under existing powers. I believe the Transport Act of 1930 gives the Attorney General all the powers he needs to meet what to him is the declared object of the Bill. He said it would prevent traffic congestion. I do not know in what way it does so, and I do not think anyone else knows. Sir William McLintock is

    727
    supposed to solve all problems. I have read his document. What use is it? What person can analyse it and come to any conclusion whether he has made a fair or reasonable estimate? There is no magic about a man because he is a chartered accountant. I am not attacking him but he is just an ordinary human being, the same as ourselves. I do not accept the statistical conclusions of any individual unless I see the process whereby he has arrived at his results. We know that his figures belong to the past. He is not a prophet, but there are figures available for at least a year, if not two years, later than those on which he based his report. The Attorney General tells us that these things are secret and confidential and it is not in the public interest to disclose them to Parliament. People go to Dartmoor for that. The issue of false prospectuses by boards of directors who do not disclose all information to people who are asked to subscribe their money is a criminal offence. I do not know whether the Attorney General is going to instruct the Public Prosecutor to prosecute himself, but that would be the logical conclusion.
    I have not gone into the details of the Bill as much as many of my friends, but for the last 20 years that I have lived in London I have taken a considerable interest in the controversy with regard to London traffic. I represent part of a town that is going to get £30,000 a year out of this Bill, and there is great rejoicing amongst my constituents. One of them said to me," The finance of the Bill is rotten but it is like manna from Heaven for us," and he expressed doubt whether the supply of manna would go on indefinitely. I am not going to say that my hon. Friend's Amendment is quite the Amendment that we want. I think we want a clear statement that any plain person who is accustomed to reading balance sheets can analyse, so that we can come to our own opinion as to whether this thing can be made to pay on the assumption on which it is based, that the efficiency of the various undertakings will not diminish when the scheme comes into operation. I do not like the scheme at all, for reasons which are different from those of many other Members. I believe the undertaking is too big to be launched. My opposition is based on the fundamental principle that
    728
    I do not think you can find the human beings to run these things. You cannot construct a Bill on the basis that the genius named Lord Ashfield can live for ever or will be in a position to run it for ever. If you say to Lord Ashfield," You are an autocrat; you can do what you like with London transport and we will pass you a Defence of the Realm Act which will give you any powers you like," I am certain he would make a very good show of it for the time being. But we all know the overwhelming difficulty of finding these big geniuses to run shows, and the amazing thing is that you can never put them into these undertakings. They build the undertakings round themselves, and only then do they succeed. I profoundly distrust the Bill. I know I shall get into a certain amount of trouble in my constituency, but our duty is to advice our constituents what is the right thing in the long run, and it is very conceivable that in the long run my constituents will find that they have lost by the Bill and not gained. I believe there is something wrong about the finance because, if it was all right, we should have had a White Paper of 20 or 30 pages telling us all about it. The mere paucity of the information indicates the weakness of the case.
    7.43 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. It is a matter of moment that, as far as I can see, in the whole paper issued by Sir William McLintock there is not a word about the provision of the funds that are going to be paid to Messrs. Tilling in the first place and to the independent undertakers and, finally, there is the very large amount of compensation, which I am told may be larger than the amount that is put into reserve, which may conceivably have to be paid to the Associated Equipment Co. under Clause 6. These are three very important items of expenditure and capitalisation which, as far as I can see, are not referred to in any way by Sir William McLintock. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the figures are better based on the three years ending 1930 than they would be on the last three years, which are worse than the first period. When the impartial tribunal comes to examine the figures of the independent undertakers and Messrs. Tilling, for the taking over of whom the Bill does not

    729
    provide, will it be understood that they also will be placed on exactly the same basis of the three years ending 1930 as has been done in the case of the London General Omnibus Company and the other undertakings of the Underground, and the Metropolitan Railway and the other concerns connected with it? Those three items are of very great. moment, and the question should be answered. Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) have referred to economies. Is there nothing in the White Paper as to the increased expenditure which will be necessary on the part of the undertaking? I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth to point out a single amalgamated concern which after amalgamation produced any economy whatever or which did not incur a greater expenditure. The only way in which combines can earn a greater profit is by putting up their fares and the price of their goods. That is what they do in almost every case. There is no economy.
    The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth has referred to economies on the Underground. The Underground is not an economically worked body. It is nothing like as economically worked as the undertaking of Messrs. Tilling. I have seen the figures in regard to this matter. The Underground is a very efficiently organised body, but it is not economically worked. Therefore, instead of economies arising from the working of this new group, the result will be a very greatly increased expenditure over that of to-day. What provision is there in this proposal for the superman and the salary which is to be paid to him? Has any consideration been given by the Government as to the man to amalgamate all the groups of traffic?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the question as to the person can possibly arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: I was not attempting to pursue the point except to say that the expense of that man obviously cannot exist in the expenditure at present. Is his salary allowed for in the items which 'pave been put forward by Sir William McLintock? These matters are of very great moment, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he can inform
    730
    me particularly as to where the finance of the scheme is provided.
    Captain NORTH: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he is not prepared to take the House into his confidence regarding the purchase price paid for these undertakings. Can he give us one crumb of comfort? Will he tell us whether in his opinion these undertakings have been acquired on a commercial basis or not?
    7.49 p.m.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Many of us support the Amendment because we are really anxious, after studying the figures available to us, as to whether, if the Bill goes through, the finance of the Board will not break down almost immediately. As I understand it, the report of Sir William McLintock, which the learned Attorney-General quotes so ably and so glibly, is only dated November of this year, and yet it is based upon figures as long ago as the end of the year 1930. We have all had an opportunity of studying the balance-sheets of many of these companies since then, and we know that the receipts and profits of the companies have gone down to an enormous degree. I tried to ascertain the figure, and the best I could get is a figure of something like £750,000. if the profits of the company have already gone down by £750,000, why is that fact not placed before the House in the report of Sir William McLintock. He must have known it as well as anybody. I see that the" A" and" B" Stocks have to be amortised. There is no provision made in the White Paper for amortisation. I shall probably be told that this matter does not come up for a year or two. It is true, but it has eventually to be dealt with.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Does my hon. Friend overlook the balance of" C" Stock and the Reserve Fund?
    Sir G. HAMILTON: That is not the amortisation of the" A" and" B" Stocks. Surely, the learned Attorney-General cannot maintain that. I am talking about amortisation of" A" and" B" Stocks which does not come about for many years, but which will be a serious charge upon the undertaking when it comes to be paid. That will be a very considerable item, and it appears to have been entirely overlooked. There is another point. It is not a very big one,

    731
    but it is a very important point. All these omnibus companies run their omnibuses on petrol, and there has been a considerable tax on petrol since 1930. Has allowance been made for that? What many of us living just outside London or in London and representing constituencies in those outside areas are afraid of, unless the Amendment is accepted or some similar or more suitable form of Amendment is promised by the Government, is that when this huge, overwhelming combine of transport gets going the only effect of it will be to put up the fares and to reduce the accommodation available for our constituents to travel. If that is to be the effect, the Measure is one which we London representatives must oppose tooth and nail, and, much as we like to support the Government, we cannot support them in passing a Measure in regard to which the actual financial figures laid before us are so unsatisfactory. Amortisation, reduced profits in the last year or two, and the petrol tax are three examples which I ask the learned Attorney-General to take into consideration to see whether, if he cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, he will not, at any rate, promise the Committee that before the Bill becomes law there shall be a further financial examination of all the figures and a further White Paper laid before the House on the authority of the Treasury or some other Government Department. I do not think that we can accept the figures of Sir William McLintock which seem to leave out entirely the consideration of many matters which should have been taken into consideration.
    7.53 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) concluded his observations by asking that the Committee should insist upon a White Paper being issued on the authority of the Treasury, or some expression to that effect. Let it be clearly understood that as far as the Treasury are concerned, as I have already stated, they have been fully informed of every stage of the negotiations. I am not merely sheltering behind the statement of Sir William McLintock. I want to make it clear that it is a mistake to suppose that the Treasury are not in accord with
    732
    the statements laid before the House. I am not dividing myself into two parts, one part representing Sir William McLintock and the other part the Treasury. I am representing here the views of the Treasury. The statement of Sir William McLintock is made by a gentleman employed by the Government to produce a report and let it be understood quite clearly the Treasury are not in the background as the destructive critics of this scheme. Do not let the Committee be under any other impression. The Treasury have been in touch with the scheme from start to finish and they do not desire in any way to be critics of the figures of Sir William McLintock on the matters which are included in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend said that there had been no consideration by Sir William McLintock of petrol, and the amortisation of the" A" and" B" stocks and I think he mentioned reduced profits owing to the fact that 1931 was a very bad year. It is true that the first item:
    "Estimated net revenue after charging working and establishment expenses,"s
    is a comprehensive statement and a very brief one. Sir William MeLintock has not taken, as the hon. Member below the Gangway who has now left the House said, figures from somebody else. He has formed his own opinion as to the price. I can but repeat that he was open to cross-examination before the proper tribunal appointed by this House. Do not let it be supposed that the Select Committee was a hole-and-corner tribunal set up by the Government. It was a case of this House setting up a proper tribunal in the form of a Joint Select Committee for the examination of the Bill. I am not sheltering myself in the least degree behind Sir William McLintock. If I were qualified, I should be prepared to take the responsibility which I ought to take in this matter. My authority is not, apparently, the authority of people who have exposed themselves to the most damaging criticism and cross-examination that could be thought of or suggested by counsel engaged to examine the structure of the Bill upstairs. That examination has taken place, and it is because it lasted for 30 days, with the expenditure of some £40,000 or £50,000, that the Committee may feel fairly sure that the examination was a thorough one.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: How could the White Paper, which is dated November of this year, possibly have been before the Committee upstairs?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not a White Paper but rather an account in precisely the same form was placed before the Committee by Sir William McLintock when he gave evidence in chief, and, although the details are altered, in substance the amount is the same, except that adjustments have been made to deal with capital issued, for instance, since the Committee sat in 1931. I will deal with one or two points upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr.Remer) asked me a question. He wanted to know the terms of Messrs. Tilling. The terms of Messrs. Tilling have to he settled by the Arbitration Tribunal under the Act.
    Mr. REMER: That was not my question. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. My question was:" Where is that provided for in the financial statement issued by Sir William McLintock?" If they have not been provided for—and I do not think that they have—the statement is worthless.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, accept my statement, which I can make with authority, that a proper sum with an ample margin has been included in those calculations for compensating Messrs. Tilling. Messrs. Tilling have expressed a desire to receive transport stock and not cash, the amount of the stock to be settled by the Arbitration Tribunal. I was going to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Messrs. Tilling, one of the best managed transport undertakings in London and in the country, are, at any rate, a little more confident as to the interest earning character of the transport stock than some hon. Members in this Committee, because they prefer, not sovereigns or pounds, but transport stock as the price of their undertaking. It looks as if those very astute and experienced managers of transport in London are fairly confident as to the value of the stock which will be issued by this undertaking which my hon. Friends all round me have said is not going to earn money.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Tilling are not satisfied with
    734
    the provision of the Bill under which they may or may not get a sufficient quantity of that stock?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Messrs. Tilling know that the amount which they will receive by way of compensation will be assessed by the Arbitration Tribunal appointed under the Act.
    Sir J. NALL: That is exactly the purpose for which they want hon. Members to put down an Amendment. They have asked that they shall be given a certain basis of assessment of their revenue, and not that which is contained in the Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The point about Messrs. Tilling can be dealt with when we come to the proper place for it. I only alluded to it because the hon. Member for Macclesfield had asked me a question about it. I think I am right in saying that Messrs. Tilling have desired to receive stock and not cash and that they hope to get an adequate amount of compensation from the arbitration tribunal. That is all that can be said at the present time.
    Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper with respect to Messrs. Tilling.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will indicate Messrs. Tilling's point of view and we shall be able to deal with it then. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also asked about the Associated Equipment Company. The Transport Board is not taking over that undertaking. I hope that that statement disposes of the point.
    Mr. REMER: Clause 6 (3) provides for compensation to the Associated Equipment Company, which I am informed may be a very large amount, £100,000 or something like that.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certain compensation is provided for, but that has been taken into account in the calculations contained in the Bill. I should like to say something about a statement ma-de by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). He rather tried to obtain from me a disclosure of a figure which I said I was not prepared to give regarding the London General Omnibus Company. He said that he had been informed that 19½ years purchase

    735
    must be something like the term given to the London General Omnibus Company, and asked whether that. figure was true or anything like it. In the absence of a denial of such a statement the hon. Member might try to pin us down to a statement of that sort. I think I can, however, dispose of the statement by saying that the the terms agreed in respect of the London General Omnibus Company were not agreed separately. The tubes and the London General Omnibus Company were dealt with as one general concern. Therefore it is impossible to say how many years purchase have been given for the tubes or for the London General Omnibus Company. That is perhaps a more satisfactory answer than I gave to the Committee earlier, when I said that I did not think it wise to disclose the exact terms.
    As we have had this examination of the financial position and as it is conceded, I think by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that this Amendment is not one that we could accept, I hope we shall now dispose of it and come to other matters which raise questions upon which it will be possible to have further examination of the particular financial aspect mentioned in the Clause under consideration.
    8.4 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Committee ought to know that the Joint Committee never considered in detail the valuations of Lord Ashfield's combine. The matter came before the Joint Committee in this form; we had the valuations of the whole of the assets lumped together by Sir William McLintock, and they were opposed by Lord Ashfield's combine, by counsel. Suddenly, an agreed arrangement was made between Mr. Herbert Morrison and Lord Ashfield's companies, and it was put before us as an agreed measure and one which we might accept as being fair. We tried, at any rate, speaking particularly for myself, I tried all the way through to ascertain what were the profits made by the London General Omnibus Company, but —the Attorney-General is absolutely correct in his statement—we were never allowed to know that, because the whole of the profits of the tubes, the trams and the omnibuses in Lord Ashfield's
    736
    combine were all lumped together and a fixed sum settled between Mr. Morrison and Lord Ashfield for the lot. Then the total amount was apportioned in stock between the companies and put into the Schedule. We were told that it was impossible to separate the receipts in a common fund between the trams, the omnibuses and the tubes. The joint Committee never knew how much was being paid for the omnibuses or the tubes but, speaking generally, I think it is correct to say from recollection that Lord Ashfield's combine did receive 19½ years' purchase, or something just under 20 years' purchase. The amount to be paid for the Metropolitan Railway has never been gone into before any Committee. It appeared in the valuation of Sir William McLintock, but the terms were never gone into by the Joint Committee. One of the grievances put forward by counsel on behalf of the smaller omnibus people was that they ought to have the same treatment as the other omnibus companies.
    Captain NORTH: Will the Attorney-General answer the point that. I put?
    8.8 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes. I had not finished. I think I can give the hon. and gallant Member the most explicit assurance that the agreements arrived at were on a strictly commercial basis. There was no consideration given to anybody so as to give them any favourable terms. The one desire was to secure the undertakings for the lowest possible consideration that could be agreed upon between the parties.
    Mr. LYONS: Can the Attorney-General give the assurance that was asked for by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) that the amortisation of" A" and" B" stocks and petrol charges will not result in increased charges to the public?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There can be no amortisation until 10 years have elapsed. Not -until then does the amortisation of the" A" and" B" stocks begin. So far as petrol is concerned, I cannot give any assurance as to the price at which petrol will be sold in the future but no one can prophesy, nor can this House, nor can Sir William McLintock. He has taken into account

    737
    all the existing facts and that is all that the Government actuaries would do.
    Mr. LYONS: Any increase in price will be pressed on to the travelling public?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As any decreases from time to time will similarly be.
    Question," That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words" public authority," and to insert instead thereof the word" Board."
    8.10 p.m.
    This is one of two Amendments which would alter the name and to some extent the constitution of the Board. The alteration in name is something more than a mere change of title. The words "public authority" in addition to acquiring by their use an element of power and compulsion not inherent in the word "board" or any description of that kind, are something in the nature of a misnomer. By "public authority" most Members of this House will have in mind something like a local authority with which they are familiar, or some organisation over which they as electors may have some measure of control. The words "public authority" suggest to them a municipal council, a county borough, or a county council. They will connect the name with one of the oldest and most respected instruments of Government that this country has known or that has ever been known in the municipal history of Great Britain. They will also associate with it the idea that it is elected and, consequently, under some measure of control by themselves as electors. The public authority which the Bill seeks to establish is not under public control. It may have a great deal of authority but it is not under control by the public. It is not to be elected or subject to any of the customary limitations associated with local authorities. It is devised for one specific purpose. It is not like the local authority with which hon. Members are familiar, which may own and operate a water supply undertaking, a gas works, an electric undertaking, trams or many of those public utilities which in the past hundred years we have come to associate with the activities of elected bodies of that kind. It has no association with
    738
    them at all. The important, feature is that it is not elected, and once it is established and once it starts upon its career it becomes an instrument over which they have practically no control.
    One of the reasons why this Bill is commended is that it is held to represent an extension of the duties now discharged by a number of local authorities with whose activities in that direction we have become familiar. It is nothing of the kind. It is also pointed out that it follows the precedent, of the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Electricity Commissioners. The public authority that is proposed in the Bill has no close resemblance to any of those authorities. It represents, as many hon. Members will be aware, the outcome of measures of duress, exercised against the owners of certain undertakings. We are told now that they have entered voluntarily into these undertakings, or that a measure of agreement has been reached, but compulsion has been exerted or it was exerted in the first instance. I suppose the Government, who now support the Measure, would not deny that compulsion is, in their judgment, necessary. Those who do not reach a voluntary agreement have to be settled by an arbitration board.
    I submit that the instrument which is sought to be established, and that the authority which is sought to be created is without precedent. It bears no resemblance to a local authority operating a public utility for the reasons that I have stated, and it is not a precedent compared with those that are often associated with it and often brought out in the evidence before the Select Committee. The Amendment which I now move and the sequel to it would give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering one of the objections which have always been urged against this Measure —its compulsory character and public ownership, nationalisation as it is termed, of transport in this great area.
    We have just had an interesting discussion on a financial basis of the Bill. Let us consider it from the transport point of view. Is this great uncontrolled monopoly likely to serve the public well? Is it likely to pay? There are grave misgivings as to whether it will not mean further burdens on the public. In its monopoly character can it resist the ten-

    739
    deney of all monopolies to stagnation? Shall we get a languorous bureaucratic lassitude? Shall we get a reluctance to change, none of that prompting to improvement which is the outcome of competition I In fact, is it safe for us to proceed with this Measure on the lines upon which the Government have determined to proceed'? It will be ungenerous to the Minister of Transport not to pay a tribute to the extent to which he has endeavoured to meet criticisms and objections. If he can go further and adopt this Amendment he will alter the constitution of the Transport Board and make it optional on the undertakings to become members or not; he will secure the co-ordination of transport which he desires in the area, and he will do it without exercising that compulsion which is at present inherent in the proposal and without incurring the disadvantage of making this a nationalising operation and at the same time cure some of the dangers inherent in monopoly.
    I need not go back to the objections urged against the Measure a year and a-half ago, but I would remind the Minister that the former proposals did provide for voluntary co-operation in a common management and a common fund, and that they involved no compulsion and no confiscation, certainly not without the option of cash. The danger of these proposals is that the public are likely to suffer. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has assured us that unless something of this kind is done the undertakings which are now suffering a certain measure of distress will suffer worse, and that fares will have to go up. If this Bill is passed, what assurances have we that the improvements which have been held out by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth and others as likely to result from its passage will in fact be obtained? The Amendment and the subsequent Amendment would relieve the Minister from the necessity of pressing upon the Committee a system of nationalisation under compulsion. He would be able to secure at least a part of the proposals of the Bill which was before the House three years ago, which passed through all its stages, and which was only disregarded when there came a change of Government.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I must resist this Amendment very strongly. This is a public authority, and we want to emphasise its status as a public authority. Moreover, as a public authority it would secure the benefit of the Public Authorities Protection Act—a point of great importance. I cannot see why on an Amendment which is designed to change the name. from a public authority to a board we should be led into an argument as to whether a change of name leads to nationalisation or involves any measure of compulsion, or raises the question as to whether stagnation results, or whether it will pay, or whether the public will suffer. The Amendment in my opinion is meaningless, and in the circumstances the Government must resist it.
    8.22 p.m.
    Sir H. JACKSON: I must dissent from the statement of the Minister that the Amendment is meaningless. It is an extremely clever Amendment and if it were accepted would defeat the whole object of the Bill. This Amendment and the consequential Amendment also in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) would give a board of nominees to the various constituent transport undertakings, and the only organisation which would be compulsorily included in the scheme is the London Underground group. The rest of the transport organisations would only come in by agreement. The result would be that you would have a board constituted compulsorily of the Underground group and others only according as they approved. If the subsequent Amendment is considered it will be found that it will be impossible for the board so constituted to establish any new road services in competition with those who remain outside and, therefore, the people outside the transport group will be protected although under no form of public control whatever. If the Amendment were accepted it would defeat the whole object of the Bill and we should have no co-ordination of London traffic at all.
    Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment which has been moved and the subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan)? The Minister of Transport

    741
    treated it as an isolated Amendment, hut the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) is discussing the two Amendments together.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment supported it by a reference to a later Amendment in his name, and in the circumstances I cannot decline to allow some arguments to be used to show the bearing of the two Amendments on each other.
    Mr. PYBUS: In that case, may I observe that I do regard the Amendment and the subsequent Amendment taken in conjunction with it of very great importance, and I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson).
    Sir H. JACKSON: As I said before, this Amendment and Amendments which follow in the name of the same hon. and gallant Gentleman, would entirely defeat the object of the Bill. They would put an end to the co-ordination of London traffic. The whole object of the Bill is to provide for the complete consolidation of London transport. I ask the Committee to consider the logical result of the carrying of this and related Amendments. There would be a Transport Board set up. The Underground would compulsorily be a member and all the others would be sitting side by side with the Underground, and taking part in the control and management of the Board's undertakings while they themselves would be quite free and independent to pursue what course they liked outside. That would leave the hoard in the perilous position of sitting and deciding affairs while some of the members would be quite independent of the board.
    8.26 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The result which it was intended to reach by this and subsequent Amendments approximates closely to the recommendations of what is known as the Blue Report. You would have on the board one very large undertaking, compulsorily, an undertaking which entered into an agreement with the Minister of Transport before the Bill went to a Select Committee. They have been largely regarded as the promoters of the Bill as we now know it. The other undertakings that had not been compulsorily acquired would remain in the
    742
    ownership of the undertakings but would be co-ordinated by joint membership of the board very much on the lines of the recommendation of the Blue Report. That is the purpose—to keep out the compulsion but to retain the common management which was so strongly recommended in the Blue Report.
    8.28 p.m.
    Sir H. JACKSON: The Blue Report never contemplated the condition of things which is envisaged in these Amendments; it never contemplated having the Underground and some members composing the board, and the rest of the transport undertakings in London sitting on the board and deliberating with them in the Board's affairs, but with regard to their own individual concerns feeling no responsibility to the management of the Board. That would he an absurd position.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. ATKINSON: The Minister referred to the Public Authorities (Protection) Act, and I understood him to say it was intended that that Act should apply to this authority. If that is the real intention I think it is very unjust. The point of that Act is that an action can only be brought against the authorities within six months. There would surely be a great many claims for accidents and personal injuries and the like, and it would be very unjust to people who had been injured and who might be ill for weeks or months if they were deprived of their right of action because the new authority had the benefit of that Act. I would like that point to be considered. Words might be added somewhere to provide that that Act shall not be applicable to this body.
    8.31 p.m.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: One point I would stress, and that is the effect of the term" Public Authority" being applied to this Board. I think the result will inevitably be that every servant of any transport undertaking will consider himself a public servant, and expect the conditions of life, of service, and of security that attach to a civil servant. Up to the present time London transport has been well served because those who have served the public have served under competitive conditions. Their promotion has depended on results; their payment has depended on the prosperity of their undertakings.

    743
    But if the flexibility of the past is to be merged in the immobility of the civil service I think that any financial argument based upon the past will be watered out entirely by this term" public authority." We know that there is already very great difficulty in obtaining evidence in cases of accidents, before coroners and through the police authorities, and if every investigation has to be conducted, as it were, against the heavy weight of an official public authority, and not simply a Board, I think justice itself will be hindered.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I am rather surprised that no one from the Front Opposition Bench is cutting in to defend what is a Labour party Bill. After all, this is the Labour party's Bill, with all its faults and virtues, and I should have thought that someone representing that party would have stood by the Minister and helped him to-day in his difficult task. I think the Minister was right in resisting this Amendment. I want to get on to the more practical proposals which make the Bill more workable and provide ampler securities for the travelling public.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word" four."
    This Amendment is moved to increase the size of the Board from four members, plus a Chairman, to six members, plus a Chairman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word" and," to insert the word" six."
    8.34 p.m.
    In discussing the question of this type of small Board I wish to discuss it quite frankly and in the most friendly way with those who are advocating a larger Board. To begin with, I am certainly of opinion that the original number of four is too small for the ordinary practical work of an undertaking of this size and importance. It does not allow a sufficient margin for sickness of members of the Board, or periods of great pressure of work. Further, by increasing the number to six we are given an opportunity of broadening the range of experience which we can bring to bear on the policy of the undertaking. Everyone wishes that the Board which is to be responsible for the
    744
    operation of this great undertaking should be a thoroughly business-like body-and that the persons who compose it should be selected for no other reason than that they possess some special qualifications which will enrich the skill and experience of the Board in directing the conduct of the undertaking and taking a broad view of the policy which ought to be pursued in the public interest.
    I think there can be little question on the part of those hon. Members who have had experience in the operation of concerns of some magnitude, that the first consideration in a director is that he should possess in himself the personal qualifications and the wisdom necessary to assist properly in the conduct of the concern. We propose to make sure that the Board shall possess these advantages by directing the trustees to appoint a Board which will combine experience in the operation of London traffic with a knowledge of the finance of great undertakings and, in view of the large number of local authorities upon whose territory the London transport area touches, we shall include members with experience of local government work in relation to transport. The importance of that point has been recognised by the undertaking given that on the Board there shall be persons experienced in local government work in the London area. All these attributes to which I have referred must be borne in mind in considering the composition of a Board capable of managing this great undertaking with efficiency. I admit that there are always two ways of carrying out any specific piece of work or controlling any particular undertaking but I firmly believe that anyone who has had experience of controlling large undertakings will confirm me when I say that a small Board selected solely on grounds of the personal ability and experience of its members, is a better medium for controlling a great undertaking than a very large Board the members of which represent specific interests.
    I notice on the Order Paper certain Amendments proposing a larger number than six. There is no suggestion in those Amendments that the larger Board ought to control the undertaking. It is suggested rather that it should control policy and that the policy should then be administered by an executive committee. I suggest that it is not possible to divorce what is loosely known as policy from the

    745
    day-to-day management of an under- taking like this. At any rate it is my experience that where there is a large board, it often happens that the actual control of policy falls into the hands of a very few members of that large board who really understand the business. I believe it essential that this Board should be kept down to small dimensions. It is to be a London Passenger Transport Board but everybody will agree that we do not want any passengers on it. The Americans have a phrase which has always struck me as attractive. They call a certain type of large board a" Yes, Sir" board. It means a board composed of a large number of members who assemble more or less irregularly and at the right moment give their assent to various proposals. We do not want in connection with this undertaking which is so important and so great to risk any possibility of having elected upon it to represent specific interests persons whose ability might not be equal to the task which will fall upon them.
    There is another consideration to which I imagine those who are advocating a larger Board have not given full weight and that is the advisory committee which is provided for in the Bill. The Board would have periodical meetings and discussions with this body which would in an unrivalled way represent the transport point of view and the requirements of the local authorities. The Board would have the additional advantage that, when it was in a dilemma or when it felt the need of further advice, or of information regarding the broader aspects of London transport and the work which it is called upon to perform, it could seek advice of the advisory committee. I think the Board which we propose is a good sound working proposition. I believe that we can find the right people to do this great work. I believe that by means of the machinery which we are providing we; hall have, not only efficiency in management, but also, by means of the advisory committee, a proper regard for the public interest.
    8.44 p.m.
    Sir W. RAY: I have on the Paper an Amendment which proposes to insert" thirteen" as the number of members, but, perhaps by addressing myself to the Minister's Amendment I may avoid the necessity of speaking on my own Amend-
    746
    ment. I am sorry that the Minister should have found it necessary to enter upon an argument as to the respective advantages and disadvantages of large. boards and small boards and the question of divorcing policy from management. It almost tempts me to adhere to my original proposal which I was going to give up, because of the alteration which the Minister has made in the constitution of the board. I still believe that the larger board of 13, as a policy board, with an executive beneath it, would be the best method of dealing with London transport. I do not think the Minister is quite right in arguing for the small body which he proposes, because I am sure that if he examined the directorates of all the great corporations, whether private or public, he would find that there was a divorce between the policy body and the executive body. However, I am not going to be led astray because the Minister has tried to lead me astray.
    Although one still believes that there is ample room, on a great authority such as this is going to be, with its immense responsibility, for a board of 13, our Amendment was put down very largely because we felt that local government interests should be considered in appointments of this kind. In the original proposal of a board of four, with a chairman, there was no provision whatever for anybody representing local government interests, and we believed that problems like housing, town planning, public health, and so on, were all intimately wrapped up with problems attendant on traffic facilities. That was why we felt all the time that unless there was some local government representation on this body, it would not function as it should do in that respect. Originally we asked for a board of 13, with about one-third representative of local government authorities. I am not a worshipper of any particular number. The Minister offers a body of seven, with roughly one-third representative of the local authorities, and if he is going to make the chairman of the Advisory Committee also a member of the electoral college, there is a possibility that local government will get proper representation on the board which he is about to set up. My hon. Friends and I feel that it is only right to say that, inasmuch as the Minister proposes to give reasonable

    747
    representation on this board to the local government interests, we shall not move our Amendment, but shall help him so far as we can in that direction.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We find ourselves in some difficulty with regard to this question of numbers. We agree that the Minister's Amendment of six instead of four is an improvement in the Bill, but our difficulty is that these numbers are connected with a. separate scheme. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) had an Amendment to insert 13, which was connected with a scheme of municipal representation. We, on these benches, prefer the original scheme under the Bill as introduced, with the Amendment of the six for the four, provided that those members of the board will be responsible to some elected authority. As the Bill was originally drafted those members were to be appointed by the Minister, and, the Minister being under the control of and responsible to this House, the element of public control was present.
    On the other hand, we now have a proposal whereby these six members will be selected by that extremely odd panel that we find in a later Amendment, composed of various estimable gentlemen—solicitors, surveyors, bankers, and so forth. In fact, the whole of London's transport is to be handed over to the nominees of five irresponsible gentlemen, because, although they are expressed as being presidents of certain societies, they are only there as being eminent persons. If the solicitor takes part in the appointment of a certain member, he will not be hauled up at the annual meeting of the Law Society if the person so appointed does not carry out his duties properly. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Richmond had pressed his Amendment for 13, which was to carry with it a control by elected members—that is to say, that those 13 representatives would be responsible to municipal bodies—although we do not like the plan of a mixed authority, and although we do not like the scheme put forward on behalf of the hon. Members opposite, we should have preferred it to an entirely irresponsible body such as the Minister now proposes. But, as the hon. Member is not going to move his unlucky number of 13, we should
    748
    prefer the number six to the number four, for the reasons given by the Minister.
    We want a small and business-like board, provided that they are appointed by someone who is responsible to the elected representatives, either elected representatives of the nation in this House or elected representatives of local authorities. Therefore, in not opposing this Amendment, I guard myself and my friends from any idea that we in any way approve of the preposterous proposal which will be discussed later of selecting these members by an irresponsible collection of gentlemen of eminence in professions, none of whom have the slightest connection with road transport, and some of whom will not even be resident in London. In these circumstances, as the hon. Member is not going to move his Amendment in favour of 13, we have no option but to accept the Government's Amendment.
    8.54 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I must say that I am rather disappointed with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray). I have always regarded him as a first-class fighting man who stands up against all corners for what he believes to be right, but he reminds me now of the old song:
    "There was a king who went to Spain, And when he got there be carne back again."
    We have spent some few hours in asking the Government to hold over the Bill for further consideration in order that we might get a reformed Bill, but apparently that has all ended in smoke. It is now merely a question of altering four to six, and the whole of the opposition melts away. I am not quite sure that the hon. Member in another capacity, not as Member for Richmond but as leader of the majority on the London County Council, has got any strong ground for his action, because that great body did ask for the 13 in the Amendment that is on the Paper.
    I regard this problem from two points of view: first, from the business and commercial point of view, the point of view of efficiency; and, secondly, from the point of view of protecting the travelling public. I ask hon. Members as practical men if it is safe to hand over 91 companies with over £120,000,000 of capital to seven gentlemen appointed by a curious and rather fantastic electoral

    749
    college for which there is no precedent. We have precedents for larger boards in various business concerns. There is Imperial Chemicals, a complete business concern, which has a large board. There is a precedent nearer hand in the Underground Group itself. They have a large board of directors. It is true that they have a small executive, and it is common knowledge that it consists largely of Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick. They are the managing committee in practice. Above them, dealing with large questions of policy, with the issue of capital, and so on, and meeting eight or nine times a year, is the big board.
    When we have a big organisation such as is proposed by this Bill, why should we be satisfied with a mere board of some half-a-dozen gentlemen? The ingenious Amendment of my hon. Friend was a good one. It was cleverly worked out and well worded, and had actually been on the Order Paper for nearly 12 months. It represented the well-considered thought of the London County Council, it was drafted by their Parliamentary officer, and approved by the clerk. It was a proposal for a bigger board of 13 members to be a supervisory body to keep a check on the operations of the executive committee. If hon. Members turn to a later Amendment, they will find the executive committee was to be small, and the official board—
    The CHAIRMAN: Is not the hon. Baronet getting on a little too fast? We have not yet reached that Amendment.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I was arguing for a big board against a small board, and I thought it would be simpler to explain lay point by referring to the later Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Baronet to discuss the merits of the more complicated Amendment, which goes far beyond the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I will content myself with saying that I am not satisfied with such a small board. I will turn to the point of view of the travelling public. I do not think that hon. Members realise the vital importance that transport is to the great community of London consisting of some 9,000,000 people. There is nothing like it in the world. Here is an
    750
    urban population of some 9,000,000 spread over an area in a 25-mile radius from Charing Cross. Their very existence depends upon cheap and efficient transport, for most of them work in the centre of London. Inevitably, however, efficient the transport, there must be irritation and annoyance at the rush hours, when there probably can never be enough transport to carry all the people going home at night and coming in the morning. Under the present system people can ventilate their grievances through their elected representatives by questions put to the Minister of Transport; or, if a local authority is concerned, to their local representative. If a company or business is concerned, they can write letters to the newspapers and ventilate their feelings that way. Alternatively, they can change their method of transport. There is a variety of means of travel and competition, but under this scheme there will be a gigantic monopoly in the hands of some six people. There will be no adequate way of ventilating grievances. It is a tall order to hand over to such a small Board such a tremendous undertaking. The hon. Member for Richmond is satisfied with two representatives with local knowledge—
    The CHAIRMAN: That point again comes later on, and we cannot discuss it now.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I am referring to the Minister's speech. He went out of his way to say that two of the proposed members of the Board were to be persons with knowledge of local government. I am answering that point.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better answer it when the proposal is made.
    Sir P. HARRIS: The Minister was apparently permitted to elaborate it and to persuade the Committee that six were adequate on the ground that two were to be persons with local government experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond also dealt with that point, and I am enlarging on it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I object to the extent to which the hon. Member is enlarging. He is enlarging too far, and he will have nothing left to say on the next Amendment if he goes on.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I will elaborate the point later, though I suggest that it would be convenient, when dealing with the question of the number, to examine if the magic number of six is adequate for the variety of interests in the transport of London. I feel rather isolated in this matter. My hon. Friends have run away from their Amendment, and I do not feel that I have big enough battalions to carry out the original suggestion. In future, when the sore-tried people of London find their opportunities for travel lessened, when every evening they go home tired and worn out, strap-hanging in tram, tube or omnibus, they will feel that this House, the guardians of their interests, have been very easily fobbed off with six gentlemen who will be quite inadequate to protect the interests of 9,000,000 people.
    9.5 p.m.
    Sir ARTHUR. MICHAEL SAMUEL: I never thought that I should live to see the day when I should find myself supporting anything which was advocated by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). He has had a long connection with London Government, and I have also had experience of municipal work, and I agree with him that six is not an adequate number for an undertaking of this importance. I have been in a great business most of my life, and I know how, in large business concerns, the various functions are divided into different operations, and each member of the Board takes the lead in one particular operation, and has officers under him. I doubt gravely whether six men will suffice at the head of this great combine, controlling £120,000,000 and with the responsibility for dealing with omnibuses, tubes, surface railways, land transactions, drainage questions, taxation and all the rest.
    Although I do not like to have to support the hon. Baronet, I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that I think he would be well advised to consider between now and the Report stage whether six is really an adequate number of men to work this undertaking. It is no good having an undertaking which is shorthanded. We must suppose that we are going to have honest and competent men, and we cannot have too many honest and competent men—the more we have within
    752
    reason the better. The Government will be well advised to reconsider the question of the number, not so much from the point of view of meeting the wishes of the House as in the light of the practical considerations that arise, and see whether the number of six ought riot to be considerably increased. I do not know whether I should have as many as 13, but I would base the number on the functions which the Board have to deal with. If I were the Attorney-General I would say to myself," How many different functions have to be discharged?" and I should allocate one man for each one of those functions, and unless I had got a man for each one of those functions—each man with a group of officers under him—I should not feel that I had selected a sufficiently large Board.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am really genuinely shocked to see this new combination between my friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). When we get this combination of clarity on the one side and almost incomprehensible confusion of thought on the other—
    Mr. LANSBURY: Which is which?
    Mr. WILLIAMS—I do not quite know what the House of Commons can think of it. I thought that in their original proposal the Government started very well indeed, because in the modern world it is not practicable to build up great hoards of 12 or 13 members. The position was put very clearly by the Minister of Transport. If there is a comparatively small board, all the members on it are actively engaged with the concern, but when there is a large board, inevitably one finds a certain number of the members overwhelmed, in a sense, by the larger men who take control of affairs. I trust the Government are grimly determined not to go beyond six, and I do hope they will not take any notice of the very dreadful recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), who seemed to insinuate that the extra two members should be representative of local authorities. The Government should stick clearly to this principle, that the members of this board are not to be representative of local autho-

    753
    rities or Parliament or anything else. If we are to have this board it must either be an elected board or a board chosen purely on considerations of merit. If the members are chosen purely on merit we shall get people of merit, but if all of them are to be elected then we may get anything. I would further remind the Committee that large numbers on either boards or ministries do not lead to economy or efficiency. Therefore, I hope the Government will stick to six and not be led away by the very persuasive voices that come from the back benches. Also, I should like a very clear assurance either from the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that if we pass this Amendment without further discussion the Government will not later agree that a certain lumber of those on the board are to be representative of local authorities.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman had better reserve observations on that point for a later Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If that point can be dealt with later I will leave it until the occasion arises, but I was only asking for an assurance following on a speech from the opposite side of the House. I should not have drawn attention to it otherwise. We had a little backsliding opposite, and then we had a great deal of backsliding from the Treasury Bench.
    The CHAIRMAN: I suggest we leave the backsliding and return to the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Then I will leave the matter until a future occasion, and will oily say that I hope, whatever pressure may be put upon the Government by people who seem to be able to exercise influence on such occasions, the Government will not under any circumstances go beyond the number of six, as I consider that to be adequate.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We are arguing whether four, six or 13 is the right number of persons to constitute this Board The Minister now proposes six, but formerly he had proposed four, and an hon. Gentleman opposite has proposed 13—proposed that there should be a board of 13 and that they should appoint an executive. There is nothing very vital about the numbers four, six or 13. There
    754
    could be one. It could be argued that what is wanted is a very efficient strong man to select various people to run the concern. I hope I am not intolerant, but I must confess that I felt considerably annoyed when listening to the Minister talking about efficient men and all that. I get a little bit annoyed when people are talking about efficient men, because I always feel that I should like to see those men who are talking about efficient men exhibiting some efficiency themselves. I rather resent this kind of thing—men coming here and talking about efficiency. One would like to see something of it in themselves. I begin to wonder whether if I were doing it I should be looked upon as cheap. The number is not vital, provided the Government gives reasons for the number. There is evidently some reason why you should have 13 as against six, because there are certain interests to be represented, such as town councils or local authorities, which ought to have representation and some say in the management of the Board. They should not just manage the concern; they should do the managing, and they should be able to give advice to those people who are actually going to run it. There is some sense in saying, since there are great labour problems to be dealt with, that someone who has knowledge of the position ought to be on the Board. There is some sense also in having someone with financial or legal knowledge upon the Board in order to advise those who are going to manage. We have not yet, however, had any reason for six as against four.
    Almost every hon. Member has said that six is an improvement on four, but I have not heard the argument to show that it is an improvement on four. I heard one partial case from an hon. Member, but I ask the learned Attorney-General to tell us why the number has to be six. What is to be the urgency? What are to be the duties of the board? Are they to go into the managing of the business, or is the management to be completely in the hands of highly-paid managers? Have those six to meet in the morning and say:" We will extend our business, or curtail it"? What are actually to be their duties? If we knew their duties, we might then decide whether four or one would be best. According to the arguments which have

    755
    been put forward so far, one seems to be the ideal board. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) said that six are too many. His form of Amendment should be that the board should be one, and that that one should be himself. We have not yet had a definite statement of the reasons why the board should consist of six members. If we knew their functions we could decide.
    Might I ask the Attorney-General to tell us what is going to be the cost of the board I We are entitled to know, because the Government are increasing the number from four to six. This being a business assembly, we are entitled to ask the Government, when it is increasing the number from four to six, what extra cost is entailed in that increase and what is the nature of the extra cost if any. From the point of view of running the organisation as an absolute and autocratic business, the case might have been made out for one, but if the board is to seek guidance, co-operation and help from outside bodies, the case is made out unanswerably for a larger number. I ask the Government to give some outline of the duties that this body will have to perform. If we were told that, we might be able to give a clear vote as to whether six is a better number than four or four is better than 13. I trust that the learned Attorney-General will give us some guidance on the point.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: I beg you to forgive me, Sir, for prolonging a Debate that I feel is becoming irk-some, but I would like to reply to what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). He remarked that I had been a member of his battalion, which I take as a. very doubtful compliment. I assure hon. Members that that is not meant seriously and that the hon. Baronet takes it in good part. What the hon. Baronet said was said in tremendous seriousness, and I agree with him as to the importance of this Bill on the daily life of the people. The hon. Baronet said that in some circumstances it would be impossible to take a quarter of the people to their work in the morning and to their home at night. Owing to the conditions existing at the present time, many of us are anxious to see this Bill go through.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member is going to explain whether he thinks there ought to be six members of the board instead of four. I did not gather what connection there was between the Amendment and the references made to the hon. Baronet.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: I appreciate that. I was only saying that in order to challenge the statements of the hon. Baronet. It is not a question of numbers at all but of the Board and the choice of the Board.
    9.21 p.m.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: I would like to say a few words on the larger question of the numbers. If there are to be six members of the Board, we can be certain that after their first appointment they will soon become aged, senile gentlemen and that out of the six, one will be frequently absent because of the early indications of senile decay. Another member of the Board will certainly take as much time as will be permitted away from the Board, in order to go for diet treatment or to be treated for blood pressure; so that out of the six, one can guarantee, knowing what such boards are, that as time progresses the Board will be run by three members, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Looking at the other side, this House wishes this great enterprise to he managed by the Board. If the Board is large, it will be managed by the secretary; if the Board is small, it will manage the secretary and the officials. Then, should we be discontented and call a public meeting, we shall be able to remember the names of six members, who can be held up to public odium, and public opinion can be reflected on to their doorsteps. But who can remember the names of 13 or 26 members? Furthermore, a Minister might be able to dismiss three of six members, but what Minister would have the courage to sack 13 or 26? There is not a Minister born who would do so. I hope the Minister will stick to six.
    9.23 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I am very surprised at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in objecting to an increase in the number of the Board, because he and his party have always stood up for the shortening of the working week. We may assume, if the original Board worked a 48-hour week, that the same kind of work would be

    757
    done by the six new gentlemen only having to work say a 32-hour week. I hope that the Committee will not object to the proposed increase in the number of the Board, provided it has an assurance from the learned Attorney-General that the total sum to be paid in salaries to the Board is not to be increased
    9.24 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No discussion is so amusing as one which is based upon a calculation of less or more, and one can go on for ever discussing whether the number should be four, five, six or seven. When the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asks why there should be six members, we reply by saying that it is because seven is a perfect number—the chairman and six others. should have thought that, on the whole, most of us, from our experience of life, would say that six people sitting round the table with a chairman was a very convenient number to discuss business matters. When you have got six, one more does not make much difference, but two make a difference, and 10 or a dozen are inconveniently cumbrous, and likely to shelve the responsibilities. I venture to think that the Committee has thoroughly discussed this matter. [HON. MEMBERS:" What about the Cabinet?"] Hon. Members' experience of the Cabinet is, perhaps, yet to come. I hope the Committee will accept this number.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I do not think there has been any previous occasion since I have been in the House when he and I were in such complete agreement.
    Mr. BUCHANAN indicated dissent.
    Mr. REMER: I am sorry if the hon. Member has altered his opinion, because I think it is a very sound opinion and if the day comes for" Socialism in our time," if he carries out the management of the affairs of this country on the lines of his speech this evening, I do not think we shall have quite so much to fear as some of us think. I believe in small Cabinets and small boards. My ideal Cabinet would be five and about seven other Ministers with them, and the work would be done well. Similarly with boards of this kind, the smaller the board the more likely it is to do its work
    758
    well, and by adding to it you are increasing the inefficiency of that board. You will have a lot of chattering about nothing, chattering about things which have nothing whatever to do with whether the tubes are run efficiently or otherwise. They will not get on with the business as efficiently as a smaller board. For my part, I deplore the Minister's proposal to increase this Board. I think it is a thoroughly bad, retrograde Socialist proposal, and one which will not add to the possibility of this undertaking doing its work in the way it ought. I think that the Minister has made a great mistake in increasing the number, and I hope that the Committee will reject the proposal.
    9.29 p.m.
    Captain NORTH: It does not matter so much whether the number is four or six, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that there are three distinct undertakings with which this Board has to deal. It has to deal, first of all, with the railway services, then with the tramway services and then with omnibuses, coaches and commercial and private vehicles. There is a certain amount of controversy as to whether the Board should be small or large, but I would like to suggest that probably a correct compromise is that there should be a small Board, and under it there should be certain sub-committees who would represent the interest of these three groups.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not come under this Amendment.
    Captain NORTH: I am sorry if I am out of order. I should like to say something else. This Board would he on sufferance, and I should like to suggest that once you have the Board, there should be appointed in conjunction—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.
    .Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word" appointed," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "by a body (in this Act referred to as the Appointing Trustees ') consisting of the following persons:—
    the chairman of the London County Council;

    759
    a representative of the Advisory Committee (as 'hereinafter in this Act defined); the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;
    the president of the Law Society; and the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.
    The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word" appointed," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "by a body (in this Act referred to as the Appointing Trustees ') consisting of the following persons:—
    the chairman of the London County Council;
    a representative of the Advisory Committee (as 'hereinafter in this Act defined);
    the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;
    the president of the Law Society;
    the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales; and
    the president of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors, each to act in turn on alternate occasions.
    The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit."—[Mr. Potter.]
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask whether you, Sir Dennis, are going to call the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Potter) or may we speak on it now?
    The CHAIRMAN: No; I think the proper course with regard to that Amendment will be to move that the words in line 10 of that Amendment should be inserted as an Amendment to the Amendment which I am now calling.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Do we understand that you would wish us to address ourselves to that point directly after the Government Amendment is moved?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I think the proper course is this: The hon. Member will see that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Potter) is identical with that now to be moved except for two lines. I suggest that the hon. Member should move as an
    760
    Amendment to the Minister's Amendment to insert the words:
    "The president of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors "
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word" appointed" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "by a body (in this Act referred to as the Appointing Trustees ') consisting of the following persons:—
    the chairman of the London County Council;
    a representative of the Advisory Committee (as hereinafter in this Act defined);
    the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;
    the president of the Law Society; and the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.
    The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit."
    9.32 p.m.
    The Committee is already aware of the Minister's proposal contained in his Amendment. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has thrown a little scorn on the suggestion that there should be Appointing Trustees who will appoint the Board, instead of the Minister, as proposed in the Bill when it was first brought in, but the idea has been to spread the responsibility for appointing the Board over an area as wide as possible, without being inconveniently large, and to enable the Appointing Trustees to represent the public business life of the great community for which this transport is required. The Chairman of the London County Council, surely, is a gentleman who may be trusted to execute a wise discretion and a wise judgment on London administration, and I should have thought that he was, at any rate, an admirable person to make an Appointing Trustee. The representative of the Advisory Committee, which will be re-constituted—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it might lead to the convenience of the Committee, as an Amendment is going to be moved to the Minister's Amendment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman first moved to leave out the words referred to, which would then give an opportunity for a discussion of the proposals of the Government and then to move the second part.
    9.34 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: This is the occasion to oppose the whole idea of this suggestion of Appointing Trustees. I hope we shall get a full explanation of this really remarkable departure. We have heard a suggestion that a Minister of the Crown must not be allowed to appoint. I do not know on what ground that objection has been put forward. It may have been suggested in some quarters that it was a Socialistic thing for a Minister to appoint a board to run an industry, but, of course, the leading precedent in this case is that made by the President of the Anti-Socialist Union, who was then Mr. Wilfrid Ashley, and is now Lord Mount Temple, in appointing the Central Electricity Board, who, it was proposed, should take over the generation and main line distribution of electricity from the undertakings throughout the country—a very big and important national matter. That Measure was hotly opposed for many days in Committee upstairs, but I cannot imagine what would have been the view either of Mr. Wilfrid Ashley, as he then was, or of Sir Douglas Hogg, as he then was, if someone had suggested that they were incapable of appointing the members of the board—that the Minister could not be trusted, and that some extraordinary selection of people must be appointed to do the work for him. I hope we shall hear something about the origin of this idea of appointing trustees. For whom are they trustees? A trustee is generally held to be responsible to someone or other. Are these trustees—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment is being moved in two parts, and that the part which is at present before the Committee deals with appointment by the Minister. The question of trustees will arise on the second part.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I say, with great respect, that we have here two suggestions as to the appointment of a board—the one that the board should be appointed by the Minister, and the other that, in the alternative, it should be appointed by trustees, or by nobody. I venture to suggest that it is impossible to discuss a proposal to do away with appointment by the Minister without referring to the alternative that is suggested.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: For the convenience of the Committee, we have first to get these words out of the Bill. Having done that, we can have a discussion on the second half of the Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We want to keep these words in.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the method of appointment until the words are before the Committee.
    Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Assuming that the proposal of the Minister is turned down, we should then be left with a blank in the Bill, and we should have to go back to appointment by the Minister. Therefore, I submit that it is necessary to discuss the two things together.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension. At the present moment we are discussing whether certain words should stand part of the Clause. If the proposal to delete these words be defeated, the words will remain part of the Clause, and, obviously, the question of appointment by the trustees will never arise.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I want to argue that the words from the word" appointed" to the end of the Sub-section should remain, but I cannot argue in favour of their remaining in a vacuum; I must refer to the proposed alternative. I cannot allow these words to be removed without any discussion, because their removal would kill the whole proposition on which we stand, that is to say, appointment by the Minister. I suggest that it is impossible to discuss this matter without referring to the alternative. I do not propose to go in any great detail into the suggestions with regard to different appointing trustees, but simply to deal with the principle of appointment by the Minister or by someone else. I suggest that the Minister of Transport is the right person, because we want the House of Commons to have some control. I am aware that the Government are endeavouring to put that responsibility, as far as they can, on to someone else, so that they may have a convenient series of buffers.
    Let me take another precedent which was set by the Government when they appointed three gentlemen to deal with tariffs. They did not come to the House

    763
    and say that they proposed to appoint a body of appointing trustees to appoint these three gentlemen who were going to deal with tariffs, because they could not trust the Minister, who was a Liberal—he has since gone astray—or because the Liberals in the Government would not trust the Conservatives, or because none of them would trust the Prime Minister. They did not say that one of these gentlemen should be conversant with the export trade, or with the import trade, because the whole point of their suggestion was that they should have nothing to do with it. They might perhaps have appointed the President of the Variety Artistes' Federation, or the President of the Football Association, or someone of that sort.
    I do not object to the making of new precedents, but I do not believe in a precedent which is going to take away all control from this House and from any responsible person. We take up the position that it is a dangerous thing to hand over London transport to this one small body. There may be Members of the House who think it would be better to have London transport in the hands, say, of the large body of investors who have put their money into the various undertakings in the London area, and it might be said that at all events that would be a kind of capitalist democracy; but we are not going to do that, and there is to be no control by this House, because the matter will be put into the hands of five appointing trustees—persons who are not in any representative capacity at all. The Attorney-General has told us that they would be most eminent people in London life, but I suggest to him that the President of the Law Society, estimable gentleman as he is, is a great figure in Bristol life, and not in London life at all, because he happens to be a Bristol solicitor.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not say that. I said that they were representative of all the interests that make up public life.
    Mr. ATTLEE: After all, we are dealing with London, and not with Bristol, and, while I quite agree that the President of the Law Society, like the Attorney-General himself, is a very eminent figure in Bristol, he may not figure particularly largely in London, with which, after all,
    764
    we are now dealing. Again, there is no reason to think that, all the time, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants will necessarily have much to do with London. The present President does, as a matter of fact, live in the London traffic area, but there is really no reason why he should always do so. Then it is very odd that the appointing trustees should include a representative of the London clearing bankers, after all that has been said in this House to the effect that the bankers of this country—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that that portion of the Amendment is not yet before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman started to argue the general question whether, if the Minister did not appoint, someone else should, but I think the details must be left to a later stage.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I agree, but, if anyone is to appoint, I suggest that he should be responsible to someone—that either he should be responsible to this House or, at any rate, to the citizens of London. These gentlemen do not seem to be responsible to anyone at all under this plan, and I hope we shall get an explanation. I do not know whether any of these gentlemen are going to appear annually before the distinguished bodies over which they preside, and explain what they did in appointing members of the Transport Board.
    There are other points with regard to this matter, and here it is necessary to refer to the Bill. This is going to be a continuing body of appointing trustees, and, when we are considering the appointment of a board, we must also consider the removal of members of the board. No one, I hope, will suggest that people appointed to this board are going to be allowed to continue, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan), till they reach extreme old age, or possibly, as might happen, infirmity of mind. and that there is to be no power to remove them. If one studies the Bill, one finds that all power in this matter is to be taken from the Minister, and that this body of trustees are to be the people who will say, for instance, whether a member of the board can be removed if he is absent for more than six months. A continuing

    765
    body of trustees is to be set up, and London transport is to be handed over to them.
    I hope we shall hear something as to the real reason why this is done. What is suggested to my mind is that a very bad mistake was made by the Conservative Government. They opposed the Bill originally and then they found that the London transport problem had to be dealt with. Having taken up an attitude which was directed not against any Minister of Transport but the Minister of Transport of the day, because he happened to be a Socialist and not the president of the Anti-Socialist Union, they thought they would not allow him to make these appointments. Having taken up that attitude they have to slide out of it somehow, and someone suggested this ingenious method of putting this appointing body between the Government and the board.
    I hope we are going to be told whether this is part of the general policy of the Government and whether this is what was described the other night as diluted capitalism. It is certainly a very diluted responsibility, because all that this House is to do is to take the responsibility of nominating the holders of certain offices, and the holders of those offices, which change from year to year, are going to have the right of appointing a board which is going to carry on this great enterprise, with £100,000,000 of capital, which is going to affect the life and the labour of 9,000,000 people, and the Government actually come to the House and say: "We do not trust the Minister. We do not propose to allow the House of Commons to have any kind of control." If the wrong people are appointed, there is no possible way of getting at the people who made the appointments. They are not in the House.
    I hope hon. Members will vote against the omission of these words and will retain at least some self-respect. After all, the Government should be responsible to the House and should not try to shelve their responsibility by setting up irresponsible bodies of so-called trustees. Many works have been written about trustees. As far as I know, a trustee must always have a cestuique trust and I do not know who the cestuique trust is in this case. There are trustees for debenture holders and for this, that and the other. Whom
    766
    are these people trustees for, and under what court can you bring them up if they commit a breach of trust? I hope we shall have some explanation of that.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I whole-heartedly support the Government on this Amendment. I think it is absolutely essential, if you are going to have this board, that it should be as far divorced from politics as you can get it. There can be very little doubt that directly you have a board of this kind, which in any way owes its appointment to a Minister directly or indirectly, it immediately gets some sort of semi-political instinct in it. if you are going to do this thing in this way, I welcome the fact that the Minister has removed as far as he possibly can anything in the appointment of this hoard from himself or any future Minister. I do not say that because I distrust the Minister, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke insinuated. I think it is essential to do this because, as a general matter of broad principle, it is better that the official Ministry should not have control of the board in any way. I read a very interesting speech on this subject not long ago and the speaker said:
    "When we know how Members of this House are squeezed upon this or that subject at elections… I say quite frankly I have come to the conclusion that on the whole a politician as such is better outside the function of management unless he qualifies for membership as constituted in the Bill.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 55, Vol. 250.]
    That is a speech by Mr. Morrison in the last Parliament and, although he was then nominally supporting a slightly different position, the real meaning of his words is that you should completely divorce the politician from the control of this Board. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the Government on this occasion, at any rate. If they want any more reasons why they are taking sound action on this occasion, they cannot possibly have any better reason than the speech of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, because he, after all, was a member of the worst administration we have ever seen in this country.
    9.50 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: To a limited extent I agree that the Minister is not an ideal person to control this immense undertaking. I am quite unrepentent. I should like London to have the same facilities

    767
    for managing its traffic as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, or any other great city. But London, unfortunately, is to be denied that right and is to be handed over to Boards. Boards deal with its water and other problems and now Boards are to deal with London traffic. But, after all, if you are not to be allowed to manage through the ordinary methods of local government, it is better to have a Minister whom you can get at and question to some extent and whose salary you can move to reduce than to have a motley electoral college of the character suggested by the Minister. Where he got it from, where it was conceived, goodness only knows. He does not base his suggestion on any recommendation by any authority, either local government, political, social, economic, or anything else. It is entirely out of fertile imagination—his one contribution to the great problem of London's traffic. There are certain difficulties which apparently the Minister has never faced. This machine that he proposes to create is a fluid machine. Its parts are always changing. They are not constant. The chairman of the county council is only elected for a year, I believe the President of the Law Society only holds his appointment for a year and, if I am not mistaken, the same applies to the chairman of the committee of London bankers. Who he is I do not know. He is unknown to the general public. He hides his personality behind a machine to deal, not with banking, not with the ordinary business of finance, I could understand the Governor of the Bank of England. His personality is familiar to us. We know what sort of person he is, what he looks like from the pictures in the newspapers. and what his ideas are about finance, but the chairman of the committee of London clearing bankers is a different person altogether.
    Lieut.-Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: On a point of Order. Are we entitled to discuss the membership of the Committee?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we first settled the principle whether there should be appointing trustees and then dealt with the question of how they are to be constituted. In view of the fact that there are large numbers of Amendments
    768
    dealing with the constitution of the body, it will be very difficult if we are going to have the discussion partly on one subject and partly on another. I think it would help the Committee if we kept the discussion in two parts.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are we only allowed now to say whether the Minister is the ideal person and not to suggest any possible alternatives? It is very difficult to discuss the personality of the Minister, and in that case I am quite willing to wait and state my position afterwards.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not suggested that we should not discuss whether the Minister or other people are to make the appointments, but I think the details of the composition of the body had better be left till Amendments are moved to the Clause in the event of the first part of this Amendment being accepted.
    9.54 p.m.
    Dr. SALTER: Can we have a definite statement from the Attorney-General as to the relationship, if the Government Amendment is accepted, between the board and the Minister? Will the board have any responsibility whatever to the Minister, and will it be possible hereafter for any questions to be addressed to the Minister in the House? There will undoubtedly be a multitude of grievances from time to time. Would it be possible to address questions with regard to the redress of those grievances, and would it be possible, by any other method except the cumbrous and expensive way of going to the Railway Rates tribunal, to secure any change whatever in the policy of the board? Will the Minister be able to exercise, if the Amendment is carried, any control whatever over the operations of the board?
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: My excuse for entering the discussion at this stage is that, although I am a Scottish Member, I represent here between 4,000 and 5,000 engineers who will be affected by this Bill. We view the idea with suspicion as being part and parcel of the policy of the Tory party to get all control away from the House of Commons. There was no suggestion of this kind when the present Lord President of the Council was Prime Minister and put through the board to
    .
    769
    deal with electrical matters in this country. The matter was in the hands of the Minister then. But the scene has changed. The Government and the powers behind the Government to-day realise that the only alternative to a Tory Government is a Labour Government, aid they are taking every precaution possible to see that Labour does not come into its own. What would happen if the Minister of Transport was responsible, as he ought to be? The value of the House of Commons to us is that we can put the Minister through it on behalf of the folk whom we represent. [Laughter.] It is no joke. We are not here for anything else. It is our business. The brains behind the Tory party realise the great amount of propaganda which we can get here in that way. It is our business to show up their hollowness here. They wish to try and lessen our power.
    I ask the Attorney-General whom I should be able to worry in this House in the event of the engineers having trouble with the Transport Company in London? Nobody ! When the Prime Minister did away with the Unemployment Department, of which the present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was in charge, I asked the Prime Minister whom T would have to harass in future. Hon. Members can see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They will see to it that there is no one whom we can harass. They are taking the power away from the House of Commons because they realise that the Floor of the House of Commons is the best platform in the country. I am astonished that the learned Attorney-General should be a party to the tactics to do away with the power of the British House of Commons. This is what is in the Bill. I ask the learned Attorney-General: Whom, in the event of the members of my union—the Amalgamated Society of Engineers—having trouble with the London Transport Company, or whatever their designation may be, I am to put through it in the House of Commons and so be able to draw the attention of the country to what this supposed Socialist idea is doing to the workers? I want to know if anyone is to be answerable here for the actions of the company which is supposed to be under Parliamentary jurisdiction.
    We have converted the Parliamentary Labour party during the last two or three years to the point of view that this is
    770
    the right manner of transacting the business of London transport. The Government are afraid to face the consequences and are turning all that sort of thing down. A spirit has been created which regards the London Passenger Transport Bill as the right kind of Bill, and now they are using all their power to whittle away any good which might accrue to the workers. They are the only individuals who would be likely to come here with a complaint, and they want to avoid that sort of thing. I ask, on behalf of the engineers whom I represent, whether there is anybody to whom we can appeal on the Floor of the House of Commons? Who is to be responsible? Are we to hand over the power and the rights of Parliament and £100,000,000 and not have a say in the matter? I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us how we stand in this matter.
    10.3 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman has asked me rather bluntly whom he should harass in the future if the Bill goes through. I should like to ask him a question in reply, if he will not think it unkind. Who does he harass now? The fact is that there is nobody to harass at the present moment, and I do not see any reason at all why this House—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The scene is changed.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not in respect of London transport.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have nobody here at the moment because we have to negotiate with them direct, as the concern is supposed to be run under private enterprise. Now we are supposed to have introduced a sort of Socialist Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] That is the reason for all this howling. We should not be in favour of letting the Attorney-General be responsible for whittling down the power of the British House of Commons in order to assert individual interests.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope that I am the last person to whittle down the responsibility of the House of Commons, but, on the other hand, I see no reason why, when we are trying to deal with the complicated question of London traffic, we should make the position still more complicated by considering whether

    771
    or not we have provided for somebody to be harassed by the hon. Gentleman or anybody else. If we were cutting down the powers of the House, I agree that there would be something in the hon. Member's criticism; but what he wants to do is to increase the complications of business in this House by adding one more to the heavy burdens which the House is already carrying. I have been asked from the Opposition benches what liaison there will be, if the Minister is not the appointing authority, between the appointing trustees and this House: in other words what duties the Minister will have. The Minister will have the duty of fixing the remuneration of the Board, subject to the advice of the appointing trustees. That is a very powerful weapon which remains in the hands of the Minister, and that is in the Bill. The Minister also controls the borrowing powers of the Board. I think that is provided for in Clause M. The Minister is the person to whom the Board will make its annual report, giving all the statistics and information which the Minister may require, so that the Minister will be in a position to ask for any information that he thinks fit to be embodied in the report, which is to be laid on the Table of this House. These, I venture to think, are substantial matters in respect of which the Minister will play an important part in the future administration of the Bill.
    Dr. SALTER: May I ask whether that will enable this House to raise grievances on matters of administration by the Board, on the salary of the Minister of Transport?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is more a question to be addressed to the Chair or to Mr. Speaker. I am not the proper authority for determining matters of order of that sort, but I will answer to the best of my ability. I apprehend that if the Bill goes through substantially in the form that we desire, with the Government Amendments embodied in it, it will not be possible on the Vote of the Ministry of Transport to raise questions as to the way in which the Transport Board are carrying out their duties.
    Dr. SALTER: Does that mean, if the Government Amendments are carried, that representatives of London constitu-
    772
    encies will never be able at any stage in Parliamentary procedure to raise the grievances of their constituencies in this House in regard to what the Transport Board are doing?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think that that will be the position. Hon. Members will be perfectly free, as they are free now, to ask the Government of the day for an opportunity to discuss the position of transport and the difficulties of traffic, in their constituencies or outside their constituencies. The position will be precisely the same as it is to-day in that respect, with the added advantage from the point of view of hon. Members opposite that the Minister will be given certain controlling powers—the powers that I have mentioned—by virtue of his authority to fix remuneration and to control the exercise of borrowing powers by the board.
    I must say one word as to why we are leaving out the Minister. I recognise that there is a clash of opinion in the Committee as to this proposal. There is the great thesis of hon. Members opposite that everything is always better done by a Minister than by anybody else. That is not the view which the Government take, nor is it the view which the great majority of hon. Members take. The Bill originally left every thing to the Minister. The Minister was the axis round which the whole thing turned. That feature of the Bill will be taken out, and this is one of the Amendments which are being made to deprive the Minister of his power as contained in the Bill in its original form. I think we shall always have a sharp cleavage of opinion on this question. Quite frankly, it is not my view that the Minister is more likely to appoint a satisfactory board than people of public repute, competence and wide experience of public life. The Minister comes and goes, like other people. The Minister—I recognise that this will not commend itself to hon. Members opposite—is very likely to be pressed by political opinion, and that is not peculiar to the Minister of one political colour or another.
    I give full credit to the two Ministers of Transport in particular whom I have known, Mr. Morrison and the present Minister. I do not suggest for a moment that either of them would do anything else than consider their public duty and

    773
    appoint a board to the best of their ability. We all know that Mr. Morrison is a man of great ability and that he took great interest in this particular question. I am sure that he would have had a single eye to the appointment of the most efficient board that he could discover, but that does not alter my opinion that on the whole it is better that when you are setting up a great public authority to manage what really is a great industry, the power of appointing the board should not be put into the hands of one powerful Minister, who happens to hold his position because he is identified with a political party. We want to remove as far as possible any suggestion that politics enter into this matter at all.
    It may be that when we come to choose the appointing trustees this or that criticism may be directed upon the people selected, but at the present time we are considering simply the question whether the Minister is the right person or whether somebody else ought to be chosen as the appointing trustees. I think the great majority of opinion in the House agrees with me in thinking that a political personage, subject as he may be to influences to which he ought not to be subjected, is not the best person to appoint the Transport Board for carrying on traffic which is intended to be for the population of London as a whole and not for the benefit of any political party. We all agree upon that. Therefore, on these grounds, and admitting the cleavage of opinion which is certain to exist and which will be expressed in the Division Lobby, I hope that we may have a speedy vote on this question, and if the Minister is left out we can proceed with the question as to who are the best people to put in his place.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Attorney-General deny us the right that we have to-day in regard to the Navy and the Army? For instance, we can come to the House of Commons and ask questions about the conditions of labour that obtain at Woolwich. We can do the same in regard to the naval dockyards. Therefore, it is not something new for which we are asking. We are dealing with a great concern in which £100,000,000 are involved. It is not a little twopenny ha'penny affair. I hope the Attorney-General will see that we are only asking for a fair "do," and that we do not want
    774
    this matter taken away from the Floor of the House of Commons.
    10.15 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: This is a matter which we consider of very great importance, and we hope that the Committee will not hurry over its decision. For this reason, that whether it be good or bad, it clearly is a departure from all precedent. There has never been a case in which a public corporation of this sort has been set up where Parliament has appointed appointing trustees in order to appoint the board. The Attorney-General may know of a precedent, but as far as we are concerned we do not know of any. Moreover, this is a matter that has been debated before in this House. During the passage of the Electricity Act a proposal, not precisely on these lines but on somewhat similar lines, was moved as an Amendment by certain hon. Members, and the Government, under the leadership of the Attorney-General, then Sir Douglas Hogg, turned it down at once as being impracticable to have anybody but the Minister to appoint the board. And for this very good reason. The Attorney-General has said that under the Bill the Minister is the axis upon which the whole will turn. Of course he is, and for the very reason that he, knowing all that is being done by the board and being in constant touch with them, is in a position to judge as to whether they are discharging their duties properly.
    The function of appointing this board is important but the function of dismissing these people may be far more important. The position, if these words are omitted, will be that the appointing trustees will have the power of dismissal. I ask the House to consider how the President of the Law Society is going to know what is happening on the London Passenger Transport Board. He has no right to get a single document or a single report. He has no right to make any inquiries as to how they are conducting their business, and yet, as the guardian apparently of the public, he is to be expected to say whether at any given moment they are carrying out their functions properly. It is an absolutely impossible task to put upon any man. You deprive him of all possibility of knowledge of what is happening and you create him a trustee for the public of this country to see that they are safeguarded in the board of management of this great

    775
    organisation. It really seems hardly possible that any body of men with any business or administrative experience could ever make such a suggestion. One can imagine such words being put in when people are driven into a corner and want to get out, but one cannot imagine any business people, setting out to devise machinery to protect the public from an inefficient board, doing so by appointing trustees to appoint a board. The qualifications of the appointing trustees are quite immaterial to my argument. I take such a person as the President of the Law Society as a typical man who might be made an appointing trustee under such a Bill as this.
    But what is Parliament to do? Let me assume that Parliament is profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which the board is carrying out its duties. Is Parliament to send a petition to the Law Society to bring the matter before the President in the hope that he may be compelled to act? Is Parliament to have no power, is the public to have no power, to make representations? Are they to write letters to the President of the Law Society or call upon him in Bristol and ask whether he appreciates that the business is being carried on very badly, and will he kindly sack the board? That is the practical question. It is the vital thing in this Bill. You are going to set up a huge monopoly, and to put that monopoly into the hands of certain people, and somehow or other the public have to be safeguarded that the monopoly is being properly carried on. There has never yet been an instance in which such a monopoly has been controlled by persons other than people elected by those who are interested in it, or by the House of Commons through the appropriate Minister. In one way, if it is an elected body, the electorate are able, by refusing re-election, to control the Board. In the other case, that is to say by action and pressure upon the Minister, by Vote of Censure if need be, there is ability to control the Board.
    Those are two ways of controlling great monopoly undertakings. But what is this? This is no control at all. It is taking definitely out of the hands of anyone, except five individuals whose personality changes every year, in whom there is no continuity whatever, all possibility of control—people who have no knowledge,
    776
    are given no power of obtaining any knowledge in any circumstances, who can be kicked out of the offices for interfering if they try to ascertain what is being carried on, and you say, "Here are the trustees of the great public of London," people who are fit apparently to carry out this extraordinary onerous task, and no one in the world can call them to account. Surely this Committee will hesitate before it so abandons all sense of responsibility as to leave the travelling public of London in that position? There are alternatives possible. Such an alternative was suggested in the Electricity Bill, that there should be elected Commissioners. I think, as the learned Attorney-General said, in that case it was a fantastic idea. But no one in the case of that Bill put forward anything quite as fantastic as the present proposal, and I should have liked very much to have heard the phraseology of the then Attorney-General if they had done so. I beg the Committe really to consider seriously the step they are taking before they part for ever with their power in this matter.
    10.23 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In the Debate so far there has not been very much support from the Conservative benches for this Bill in its entirety, but I would assure the Committee that that support is forthcoming from people who are not very vocal to-night, because the discussions are becoming somewhat long. I am not one of those who are very much in favour of this particular rag-time committee being set up instead of the Minister, but we have to remember that if it were not for this, we would not be discussing this Bill at all. Many Conservatives consider that if you allow the Minister to appoint your board this becomes a Socialist Measure, whereas if you allow another committee to do so it becomes a sound Conservative Measure. I am not at all impressed with the remark that we must always be bound by precedent. That seems to be the Labour proposition; it is not a Conservative one. We can be pioneers in whatever we like, and, if we think that a committee is as good as a Minister, we are perfectly entitled to say so in the Bill.
    There is really a lot of bother here about nothing. Whatever Minister is in power will be honest, and he will appoint as good people as he can get. If we have

    777
    a committee, however extraordinarily they are chosen, they will do their job to the best of their ability. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to somebody being at Bristol and not looking after this particular job. That is not true. If you have taken part in the appointment of men, you will take a great interest all your life to see that they are performing their duty well. The function of this board will be to appoint one man for a time as one goes off. But there is this: It is said that the House of Commons is being deprived of a power which it ought to have. It has, however, been held by you, Captain Bourne, that the fact that a Minister appoints the members of a board does not entitle Members of the House to question the Minister on the policy of that board. I remember, on a Friday afternoon, being ruled out of order repeatedly, by you, when I sought to put certain questions about the Betting Control Board. I was told then and have been told repeatedly since that if a Minister appoints somebody to a board, he does not become responsible in the House for the policy of the board. In this case whether you have this committee, or whether you have the Minister, we shall not be allowed to harass the Minister—as an hon. Member has put it—and consequently I think that we are wasting a lot of time upon a point in which there is little substance.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. BRIANT: The remarks of the last sneaker are even more alarming than those of previous speakers. If it is the case that Members of the House will have no right of access to any Minister or anyone responsible for these matters, then the position is even worse than I thought it was. Previously my great fear was that, even if the Minister had the appointments of the body, the ordinary public would be removed from the right of access to those responsible for policy in these matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General says that things will remain as before, but he seems to forget that we are making huge changes. We are taking away from the London County Council a great traffic system, at present managed by members directly elected by and responsible to their constituents. Everybody knows that in practice a member's constituents approach him on what seem to be small points, but those
    778
    points are often vital to the users of the various transport systems. In that case a man has access to his representative on the county council who can bring the subject matters of his complaint or question before the council and secure replies and debate upon it. All that is going to be swept away. But, if, in addition, we are to have no access to any Minister, surely the proposal is contrary to democratic government. In the best circumstances the new system would be bureaucratic, but if the Minister cannot reply to questions in the House of Commons upon it, then we shall be cutting off entirely the ordinary right of a person who has a complaint to make and that will be a serious and drastic change. As it is, if the Minister is made responsible, I shall be extremely sorry for him in his task of dealing with all the minor questions which come up constantly at the county council.
    We ought to know exactly where we are in this respect. We ought to be told whether it is correct to say that the Minister can never reply in the House on these questions. Is it the case that if hon. Members desire to raise questions of wage's, or of the hours of running of tram and tube services, they cannot do so? Is that the case that we are to have no opportunity of discussing such matters in the House of Commons'? If I thought that there would be no way of discussing these matters in the House of Commons I should vote against the whole Bill. We have paid an enormous amount of money —from my knowledge of the figures a great deal more than they were worth—for some of these undertakings. Are we to be told that, having paid that money, we are to have no voice whatever in the management, nobody to whom we can appeal, no Minister whom we can criticise and make responsible in this House? If we agree to such a proposal we shall commit a great blunder affecting the future of London traffic and the conditions of work in our transport system. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will give us some definite answer on this question. Until I get that answer, 'I shall vote against any proposition of this kind in the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Although I regret to say, I have voted twice in opposition to my Whips to-night, I shall on the first part of this Amendment cordially support

    779
    the Government, because we are going to leave the Minister out, and I believe that he is the author of these proposals. He, like me, is an electrical engineer, and he has learned that when you are dealing with high voltages it is necessary to have remote control. If you go on to a modern switchboard at a great power station, you will find a whole lot of tiny switches each at a remote distance operating a big switch. Apparently, the Minister has decided to turn himself into a little switch, and the big switches are to be the five or six distinguished ladies or gentlemen who will hold the offices mentioned in the second part of the Amendment, which is to be dealt with separately. It is rather interesting that there is no limitation on the personnel of these people. They may all be Members of this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—Certainly they may. The Chairman of the London County Council may be a Member of Parliament. A representative of the Advisory Committee I see sitting opposite in my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). The Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, the President of the Law Society, and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants may all be Members of Parliament, and there is not the slightest reason, with a certain amount of luck, why they should not all simultaneously be Members of Parliament. You would then have the interesting spectacle of the Big Six being appointed by five Members of Parliament.
    Personally, I rejoice in the Amendment, because it is an attempt to take away political control from the management of London's traffic and for reasons exactly opposite to those of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), I shall support the Amendment, or at any rate the first part of it. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was grumbling because, as he said, he would have no opportunity of harassing the Minister in the way in which it is possible to harass a Minister with regard to Woolwich Arsenal or the Dockyards. I think the way in which Members of Parliament for dockyard constituencies advocate large armaments in this country and deny to private armament firms the right to make armaments is very deplorable, because the Members of Parliament for
    780
    private armament constituencies never exploit the situation in that most undesirable way. I know it infringes Article 16, I believe it is, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, but it is nevertheless true.
    The extraordinary thing is that we are going to have a shareholders' committee to look after the shareholders, namely, the general public. That committee, these five or six gentlemen, are to look after the interests of the general public outside, those of us who sit for constituencies within the prescribed area, and that shareholders' committee, the personnel of which will change year by year, and not always on the same dates in the year. will have no personal responsibility at all, outside the responsibility of the general public. They will not have that sense of responsibility that people ought to have who are going to have this grave responsibility placed upon them. It is true that the Chairman of the London County Council will have that sense of responsibility, and possibly the second member will have it, but the other three gentlemen will be very remote from actual concern with London traffic. I do not know who the sixth may be. He may be somebody who is really interested.
    We are concerned, however, not with how you pick them, but, what is of more vital importance, with how you can sack them if necessary. After all, the reason for the success of many businesses is not that you dismiss these people, but because it is known that you have the power to dismiss them if they do not do their job properly. We are going to take a great risk, to build up a great monopoly, and to eliminate all fear of competition, but if we are to achieve success, we must have among the directors of this institution the sense of fear that if they fail to do their duty, they will in fact be dismissed. You do not confer that power on the Minister, and I prefer that the power of dismissal should be in the Minister's hands. I completely dissent from political control, but here you are going to have a body which has no cohesion at all, a body of five or six persons who will never meet except on those rare occasions when they have to perform their duty as appointers. Who is to convene them for the purpose of performing their duties as dismissers of incompetent members of this enormous corporation? I

    781
    understand that the Minister has no power to initiate.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport proposing to transfer the power of dismissal from himself to the appointing trustees. I have no objection to the Committee discussing that matter now, but I do not think we ought to have a discussion again on that point later when the Amendment arises. I am in the hands of the Committee on that matter.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I realise that I am, strictly speaking, out of order. There is an Amendment later to Clause 1, page 2, line 19, to leave out the word "Minister" and to insert the words "Appointing Trustees," but as we are discussing the vital principle, and as you allowed me to go so far and make that suggestion, I hope that no Member will object to my continuing on that point. There is no provision, as I see it, for giving these appointing trustees any constitution. There is no secretariat—
    Brevet-Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: On a point of Order. You have already ruled out of order hon. Members who have dealt with that point. Is it in order to go into it now?
    Sir P. HARRIS: You stopped me from discussing it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point will come up on the composition of the Board in the second half of the Amendment. If, as I understand, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is putting forward an alternative to the Minister, I do not think that he is outside his rights in so doing.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I realise that I have trespassed a little too far. I was contrasting the Minister with his proposed successors and referring to the powers which he has under the Bill, and which will be transferred to other people but I realise that I might prejudice the subsequent Debate on the second part of the Amendment, and therefore I will not resume that point
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I will not say any thing on the legal aspect of the matter, but I wish to refer to the question of political influence. Apparently, the power is to
    782
    be taken away from the Minister because the Government are afraid that some undue influence will be brought to bear upon him by Members of the House of Commons who, in turn, will be influenced by their electors. I do not think that I am libelling the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) when I recall that he once rebuked me because I said that Members of the House of Commons were very eager to defend the trading interests of their particular constituencies, and that they were for ever bringing up the question of different trades that would either be injured or benefited by the imposition of tariffs.
    It was said to me, "What are we here for if we are not here to look after the interests of our constituents?" That is what I should like to ask now. What am I elected for—[Laughter]. I can enjoy that laugh as well as anybody. An hon. Friend observes that I was elected because I was not defeated. That is a very good answer. The point is what is anyone elected to this House to do? What do we do when we are asking the people to vote for us? I have read the election addresses and speeches of many men who were wooing constituencies and I have never yet read one in which they did not put forward the plea that if they were elected they would do this and that for the constituency. They go down to the constituency and take part in all kinds of functions—mothers' meetings, bazaars, and all sorts of things, for the purpose of proving that they want to be the Member and would, if necessary, die for the constituency. I have had a new opponent in each of the last five elections. Every one of them was going to stand by Bow and Bromley to the end—but they all fled after the election ! We are all alike. I am not going to be a hypocrite on this matter. I tell my constituents that I want them to elect me so that I may serve their interests in this place, and that is what is at stake on this issue. I represent a London Division and all kinds of people there are talking about this problem.
    We are now told that we London Members are not to have it in our power to call the Minister to book if this huge monopoly is not being run to the satisfaction of our constituents. My constituents have to use the tube. I use the tube. Very often I am a, strap-hanger,

    783
    and I do not like it. It is no credit or discredit to me to say that—I just use the tube. Many of us also use the Underground Railway. The whole arrangements of the Underground Railway at present are quite foul in the rush hours. On the District Railway, from the East End to, say, Mark Lane, the over-crowding is fearful from the early hours until about 10 o'clock. Supposing this great monopoly is created. There will be nobody to be bothered about it. At present the competition of the trams and other means of transport—I do not mean the great combines' omnibuses, but the other omnibuses—have given us to some extent a handle against the railway company. But now what are we going to do? I am only in favour of this project on one condition—that there is some public control somewhere.
    I want transport unified in order that we shall have a better and a more efficient service for the whole of the people of the metropolis. What guarantee have we? No one has answered that point. The learned Attorney-General has been quite clear in his statement, but he has not really answered this point: "Where is responsibility going to rest in determining that this monopoly is to be run in the interests of the people of London? Who is going to have the power to bring it to book?" At present the Minister is to appoint, and to sack, if necessary, but we are going to take that power away, and, so far as we can see, there is to be no real power of control by the House of Commons. I do not think that this Bill is worth while unless the House of Commons obtains control. We do not want a huge monopoly like this, employing a very large number of working people, to be able to determine its relationships without there being, somewhere or other, a public authority that can be called to book. Also, you are giving an enormous power to this combine in the matter of the sort of conveniences that they are going to give the public. The public have a right to be protected so that they shall get what conveniences they need.
    Finally you are setting up a public monopoly and giving them absolute control over the whole of the passenger traffic of London, and you are not allowing any public authority to have control.
    784
    No one has answered the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that you have never set up an authority of this kind under these conditions. There can be no reason for doing so now, except the one that has been put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and indirectly by the learned Attorney-General, namely, undue influence of the electorate by hon. Members of this House taking advantage of their position in order to force on the monopoly some unfair proposition. want to protest against the notion that hon. Members can come to this House and plead for tariffs or for no tariffs for particular industries and that that shall not be considered corruption, but that it shall be considered corruption if people like my hon. Friends or myself want to raise questions connected with the wages and hours of the working people, or of the fares charged to the people, or of the conditions under which traffic is operated. A Bill which hands the whole matter over without any public control is not only dangerous, but is not worth the while of any Socialist to support.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: The Committee are entitled to some explanation before it decides how to vote on this matter. If we accept the suggestion that is now put before us, we have to consider what alternatives there are. In spite of the fact—and I say this with the greatest respect—that you, Sir, have ruled that it is not quite in order to discuss alternatives, we can only come to a conclusion on this point if we make up our minds as to what alternatives there are, in the event of this Amendment being carried. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister on this point. We are to have the Chairman of the London County Council, the President of the Law Society, and so on, as representatives upon the board, is it intended to make membership compulsory upon any President of the Law Society or of any of the other bodies referred to in this list? If that person refuses to act, are you going to attach some penalty to his refusal? If in the event of no person being available to hold one of those offices, is the whole of the appointing body to fall through?
    In my view, to make these stipulations would place us in such a position that we

    785
    could not possibly in all eventualities carry them into effect, and the result would be to make the whole Bill ineffective. Indeed, the other Amendments which are proposed come within the same category, because those who are appointed may very well refuse to act, and those concerning whom an appointment is to be made may not even be, at certain periods, in existence. In these circumstances, not only for the reasons I have offered, but for the very reason that it is not practicable to have an appointing board of this description to take the responsibility from the hands of the Minister and place it in the hands of people who may or may not exist, who may or may not want to take on the job, and who may or may not be prepared to perform any of the functions which are going to be allocated to them, I say the whole -thing would become a travesty. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to make the Government, through the Minister, responsible for the appointments.
    10.51 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), because his remedy and his arguments appear to me to apply more cogently to the second part of the Amendment. I desire only to make one or two observations. I have listened to this Debate very carefully, and the conclusion of the matter appears to me to be that the Government are not, by this Amendment, in any way altering the completely Socialistic structure of the Bill, or the huge monopoly which is being set up. I do not agree that the Government Amendment is not worth a Socialist's while. They are getting their Bill. The Government are attempting by the Amendment to persuade the House that they are improving the Bill. To some little extent that may be so. I am going to vote for the Amendment, but I am not going to do that for one moment under any delusion that it is a settlement of the question. A short Bill by a succeeding Government could sweep the whole thing away and leave the Socialistic structure standing exactly where it was. There is no satisfaction in this Amendment. The Debate has shown many objections to it, some of which we as Conservatives find it very difficult to overcome. On the whole, it is better than the original
    786
    structure of the Bill and gives a little breathing time, until somebody comes along to make another Amendment. For these reasons I shall vote for the Amendment, though not under any kind of impression that it is either a permanent settlement or a radical alteration or improvement in the Bill.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I think this illustrates the weak spot in the Bill more than any discussion we have had because both the original proposal and the new one are open to many objections. At the same time we have to choose between these two alternatives. The old one was the better, and personally I should prefer the Minister to have this power.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish the hon. Member would speak up. We should like to hear what he is saying.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I think we ought to concentrate on two things, the question of control of removal and the control of Parliament. Those appointing will get the best advice they can, and that does not much matter, but when you come to the controlling power and deciding on the removal of a member, the Minister is the man who ought to do it. He is close touch and ought to accept responsibility. If this Committee, or any sort of committee of appointing trustees, who are going to vary in their composition every year, is asked to remove someone, how are they to do it? They will have to hold an inquiry and -0 hear evidence, and it is a thing that would never be done. There must be someone in a position to exercise responsibility, and I think that the Minister is in a better position to do that than anyone else.
    Then there is the question of the control of Parliament. Suppose that this board took to lowering wages, and there was a strike affecting the whole transport industry in and about London. It would be a. very strange position if no Minister had any control, if Parliament had no control, and if nothing could be done beyond trying to get hold of these trustees, who might be in different parts of the country at the time, and persuade them to do something, because they would be the only people who would have any control over the board. That seems to me to be wrong. As a matter of choice,

    787
    I should prefer the Minister, but the whole proposal appears to be to substitute something worse than there is at present. Now we have undertakings managed by people who only keep their jobs as long as they make a success of them. They are working for their living, and are doing their level best, and, if they fail, they will be quickly removed. Now the proposal is to put someone in their place whom nobody can touch. I agree that there are many objections to control by the Minister, but, if the Minister is not in control, there will be no control at all, and a situation will be set up which in time will bring about chaos.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: With all respect to the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), I think his knowledge of Socialist practice and theory is incomplete. So far as I know it has never been a part of Socialist policy to set up committees which might include people like Greta Garbo or Marlene Dietrich to control matters of this sort. We are quite as capable of selecting a committee of this sort as is the President of the Law Society, and, after all, we are probably better known to Londoners. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is going to reply to what I consider to be the devastating and pulverising criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I think that there is absolutely no answer to my hon. and learned Friend's arguments, but I should like the Attorney-General to answer them if he can. I would ask, in all seriousness, whether, when this Committee has been set up and has appointed the controllers of London traffic, it will have any right to dismiss the controllers of London traffic? As far as I can understand, it will have no statutory power to investigate the efficiency of the people who will actually act in this matter. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, the trustees will not have the right to go into the offices—they might be kicked out; they will have no statutory power to ask for papers, figures, or statistics of any sort; they will not be able even to ask questions of a junior clerk.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Minister will have the power and duty
    788
    to ask for papers and get all the information that is required.
    Mr. COCKS: What happens then? The Minister may ask for papers, but he cannot dismiss anyone. Supposing that there is a scandal, can he pass the papers on to this committee for their recommendations?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All the information is laid on the Table of the House, and is available to the whole world.
    Mr. COCKS: Whether hon. Members are in favour of Socialist measures or not, surely they are in favour of public control over great public bodies? The criticism that the Minister might be subjected to pressure from his constituents is really a criticism of the House of Commons itself; it is rather an insult to the House of Commons. After all, we represent all sorts of various interests, and all sorts of pressure may be put upon us, but, as Members of the House of Commons, we act in the way that we consider right in the interests of the country, and there is no reason why London Members and so on should be subjected to special pressure of that sort. I think that if there is to be control of this kind the Minister should be the responsible authority, and we ought to be able to ask him questions. Otherwise, we shall get a worse state of affairs than we have in regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    There has been very strong criticism of the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are appointed by the Minister, but we are not able to criticise them in any way, except on the Post Office Vote, which often does not come before the House at all. This has removed it even further from the purview of the House. I would like the learned Attorney-General to answer, not my crude criticism on the matter, but the very able speech of my hon. and learned Friend.
    11.2 p.m.
    Mr. HICKS: I should like to ask if it is at all possible for the Attorney General or the Minister of Transport to give us some contact between the appointment of the trustees and the officers appointed to the board. I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Captain Bourne, for using an illustration for the

    789
    purpose of bringing home the point I want to make. If the appointing trustees have a right to consult whatever interests they feel inclined to consult for the purpose of coming to a decision in making their particular appointment it is the right and proper thing to do. After they have consulted the particular interests and the board is set up, have those interests the right, in the event of feeling aggrieved at the general working of the board, to approach the appointing trustees? I wish to know whether the range of interests immediately affected have a right to make representation to the appointing trustees to be consulted, or whether the appointing trustees can limit the ambit of their request. If having made inquiries and received advice this body is not satisfied with the way it has worked, have they the right to come back to the appointing trustees and make a complaint?
    The Attorney-General told us in explanation of a question put to him some time ago that one of the controlling positions of the Minister was a right to determine the payment of the board. If the Minister has a right to do that, once he has decided the salary to be paid to the officers, what conditions would compel him to revise any salary or payment which he had first made? If you once decide upon a salary what is to happen—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Captain Bourne. I think you ruled me out of order for making a similar point to that of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), and I should like to know why he should be permitted to break the Rules and I was not.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was just thinking that the hon. Member was raising a point more appropriate to discussion at a later stage.
    Mr. HICKS: I am not anxious to talk too much. I am particularly anxious to find out the organisation of contact between the Minister of Transport and Appointing Trustees. If we are simply to agree to handing over the full powers to a body without having any chance of redress, I want to know through what agency we are to be able to accomplish the purpose. It was only with a view to getting that information that I raised the point. I do not know whether the Minister is able to help me at all. Provided the Amendment is carried, to transfer the powers to appointing trustees, in what way can he at any stage touch any grievance or difficulty that may arise?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 4.]

    AYES.

    [11.6 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

    Banfield, John William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley(Middlesbro',W).

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bernays, Robert

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Nermanton)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Milner, Major James

    Briant, Frank

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Parkinson, John Allan

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Janner, Barnett

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

    Blindell, James

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'ld., Hexham)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Borodale, Viscount

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Boulton, w. W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ramsden, E.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rankin, Robert

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Cook, Thomas A.

    James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ray, Sir William

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Crookshank, Cot. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Remer, John R.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Curry, A. C.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Robinson, John Roland

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Denville, Alfred

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Dickie, John p.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Drewe. Cedric

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Llewellin, Major John J

    Salt, Edward W.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lock wood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mabane, William

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Scone, Lord

    Emrys- Evans, p. V.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Selley, Harry R.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Skeiton, Archibald Noel

    Essenhigh. Reginald Clare

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Slater, John

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Soper, Richard

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Storey, Samuel

    Goff, Sir Park

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mills. Major J. O. (New Forest)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Granville, Edgar

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Thompson, Luke

    Grimston, R. V.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Munro, Patrick

    Wallace, Captain D. E, (Hornsey)

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Harbord, Arthur

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Whyte. Jardine Bell

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Penny, Sir George

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hornby, Frank

    Potter, John

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Womersley.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Bill read a Second time.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Sir J. NALL: On that Question, I would like to know whether the insertion of alternative words is now open, and the next Question to be taken when the Committee resumes will be the insertion of alternative words? I understand that
    792
    it has been decided to leave out words from the Bill and that we have not actually inserted other words.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    Sir J. NALL: And I take it that we shall have the opportunity of discussing when we resume what form of words shall be inserted in place of those left out.
    The CHAIRMAN: Presumably the Minister will move to insert words in the place of those that have been left out.
    Committee to sit again upon Thursday next.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday next.—[Captain, Margesson.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
  Ordered,
  "That the Lords Message [24th November] communicating the Resolution, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider and report whether, as one of the methods of giving effect to the basic price system of charge by gas undertakers in those cases in which a power to make a differential charge in respect of any part of the existing or intended limits of supply is proposed to be continued or granted, it is expedient to authorise a separate basic price in respect of each such part, arrived at by adding to the basic price fixed in respect of the area for which no differential charge is proposed a sum representing the differential charge as proposed to be authorised or continued. or as actually made,' be now considered."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir F Thomson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members.
  The Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, the Attorney-General, Mr. Baldwin, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Herbert Samuel and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay nominated Members of the Committee."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
  Ordered,
  "That Five be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (SHORT-HAND WRITERS, PAYMENT).
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (SHORT-HAND WRITERS, PAYMENT).
  POST OFFICES (STATISTICS).
  POST OFFICES (STATISTICS).
  CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
  CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
  MEDICINE STAMP ACTS.
  MEDICINE STAMP ACTS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last reported by the Earl of Cromer as follows:—
"I have received with, great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

DISARMAMENT AND SINO-JAPANESE DISPUTE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had given Notice that he would ask whether His Majesty's Government can make any further statement as to their policy on Disarmament and the Sino-Japanese dispute; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you will see in the Question of which I have given notice that there are two subjects referred to, and I have put them together because they seem to me to be so very closely connected with one another. It is obvious that unless international questions can be settled by pacific means there is no alternative to war, and it is clear that if it becomes the opinion of the nations that they cannot rely on the machinery of the League to protect them, they will be less ready certainly, to put it mildly, to reduce their forces. Therefore in Manchuria the issue is not only the issue as to which of the two parties is right, or anything of that kind, it is really the question of the efficiency of the new machinery for peace. I do not say that if it fails there will be nothing further to be done, but it will undoubtedly mean a very serious shock to all that we have been trying to do since the conclusion of the Great War.
I noticed in the daily Press, with great pleasure indeed, that the Japanese Government had officially declared that they were strong supporters of the League of Nations, and that it was entirely untrue to suppose that they were indifferent to

101
the world's efforts for peace. I could not help having running in my mind the old tag:
"Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
But—why did you kick me stairs?"
I hope that the Japanese Government do intend to support the League, and, if that is so, it will undoubtedly make a very great difference in the seriousness of the crisis. A test, it seems to me, is before both of the parties. The question is whether they will accept as a basis of discussion the proposals of the Lytton Report. I do not think it is suggested that they are bound to accept the whole of those proposals straight away, but what is asked is that they shall now come into conference on the basis of those proposals with the assistance, probably, of some representatives of the League, or, generally, the other nations of the world.
It does not seem a very unreasonable request to make to them, and I think it right to call your Lordships' attention to the fact, which is well known, that this Commission was a Commission proposed by the Government of Japan or the representative of Japan. It was done last autumn when I was in Paris. The reference to the Commission was settled by the Council in consultation with Japan, and fully agreed to by the Japanese representative. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that the Chinese representative wanted to make it obligatory on the Commission to decide the question immediately of the withdrawal of Japanese forces from Manchuria, but after discussion it was settled that the reference should be in the form under which the Commission acted. Further, the composition of the Commission was that for which the Japanese representative asked. The Chinese representative, and some other members of the Council, wished it to be rather larger, but the Japanese representative strongly pressed that it should consist of not more than five members—I think Japan would have preferred even a smaller Commission—one each drawn from the great Powers; in fact, the countries which were represented on the Commission.
Both parties were heard very fully in the Far East while the Commission was there, and they had an opportunity of explaining again their point of view when they got back to Geneva. Some criticisms,
102
of course, have been made of the Commission, but no one has suggested so far as I have seen or heard that it was not absolutely impartial. After hearing all that the parties had to say, the Commissioners were asked whether they had anything to add or to alter in their findings, and they declared that they had not. That certainly does seem to make a very strong case for support for the findings of the Commission, and for every effort being made that they shall be the basis at any rate of the solution which shall ultimately be arrived at. It is very possible that His Majesty's Government are not in a position to give any further information on the subject, but I can only say, if I may be allowed to do so, that if they can give any information it will certainly be very cordially and gratefully received by large numbers of people in the country. I hope I may be allowed to express my hope that the British Government will see their way to offer the strongest possible support to the Commission's Report, and do their utmost to see that it is adopted and accepted by the League. That is all I desire to say about Manchuria.
I pass at once to disarmament. Subject to this difficulty of Manchuria, the possibility of some catastrophe there which might alter the whole situation of affairs, I venture to think that the prospects of disarmament are more encouraging than they have been for some time past. I was, if I may say so, delighted to read the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord President of the Council at the end of last Session. They seemed to me, particularly the speech of the Lord President, to strike a note fully in harmony with what I believe to be the popular sentiment. in this country, and it is noteworthy that no serious objection, as far as I know, has been raised to that speech in any part of this country. We have also had the White Paper, which I received with rather more tempered enthusiasm, but still, undoubtedly, it does take a point of view which is a very great improvement on any that the British Government have so far felt able to take at Geneva.
If I read the White Paper rightly, it seems to me that the proposals of the British Government are based upon three principles. They accept the doctrine that the German nation and people are entitled to be treated on the same footing in the

103
matter of armaments as other nations. They do not say that they are necessarily to have the same strength, but that they are to be treated on the same general régime, equality of status it is called. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with repeating the arguments for that conclusion. They are probably familiar to your Lordships, and all I will say is that as far as I am concerned I most heartily agree with the conclusion which the Government have arrived at on that point.
The second point, which they seem to me to lay down with equal clearness, is that this equality of status must be reached not by the re-armament of Germany or the other disarmed Powers, but by lowering the armaments, or changing the armaments, of the countries that have not been disarmed; in other words, as it is ordinarily said, there is to be no re-armament. I most heartily agree with that principle also. I think it would be quite fatal to start any new system by increasing armaments. It would be a mere invitation to the countries to resume that competition in armaments from which they suffered so severely before the late War. The third principle is that the alteration of armaments in the armed Powers has to be by way of diminution of their powers of attack, but not diminishing their powers of defence. That also is not a novel principle, but it seems clearly right, so far as it can be carried out. Obviously, if you can diminish the powers of attack of all countries you are not only not increasing the dangers of any of them, but, on the contrary, you are increasing the relative powers of defence of each one of them, and making each one safer than it was before.
I believe those three principles are right. Indeed, I would myself go so far as to say that I believe reliance upon and acceptance of those principles is the only road to a successful issue of the Disarmament Conference. I am strengthened in that belief by a very interesting speech which was delivered elsewhere the other day by Mr. Winston Churchill. It was a striking speech, as all his speeches are, and it came from a man of great ability. It set forward an alternative to the Government's policy as I have ventured to describe it and as it is set out in the White Paper. He simplified the problem with which he had to deal by one very important omission. As far as
104
I can remember, there was no reference from the beginning to the end of the speech to the undertaking which this country and other countries entered into at the time of the Peace Conference—the assurance given by them that if Germany accepted the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, then it would be the first duty (I think that was the actual phrase) of the League of Nations, or one of the first duties of the League of Nations, to set up schemes for similar disarmament by all the other countries. I do not quote the words because they are so familiar to your Lordships, but that assurance, as is well known, was given, first, in the letter signed on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers when Germany asked whether she alone was to be disarmed, and, secondly, in at least two clauses of the Peace Treaty itself. It has been repeated, as everyone knows, over and over again since then in various forms. The whole of that, which really makes the most important element in the problem, was omitted from the speech to which I am referring. But the right honourable gentleman did say—and this is very important—that in his judgment the failure of the Disarmament Conference would be disastrous.
Since he was unable to accept—at least, so I understood him—the general lines on which the Government were proceeding in this matter, he set forward an alternative principle. I have taken his words in this case. He said that the removal of the just grievances of the vanquished ought to precede the disarmament of the victors. It is very important in weighing that principle to be quite sure what is meant by the phrases used. What, for instance, are "the just grievances" Apparently not the inequality of armaments between Germany and the other countries to which I have already referred. That is not treated by him as one of "the just grievances." I am bound to say that that—it has been commented on in the public Press—is a most surprising state of mind. I should have thought that any one who had made any effort to acquaint himself with what the Germans, at any rate, regard as their "just grievances" would have known that first and foremost, in front of everything else, they put what they regard as the exceedingly humiliating position in which they find themselves of being treated in

105
a different way from all other nations in this respect, and being treated in a different way from some of their neighbours whom they would altogether decline to admit were their superiors in any respect. I am sure that that is a most profound grievance, and if you set to work to try to remove the grievances of Germany and left that grievance undealt with you would unquestionably fail to satisfy German sentiment. As to "the disarmament of the victors"—the other phrase that is used—that, I admit, is not quite so easy to construe. But reading the whole speech, if I understand it rightly, what it means is any substantial lessening of their armed superiority over Germany.
I will not quote all the other phrases that the speaker used, but he did point. out that in his view the peace of the world rested at present on this great superiority and that, he thought, was the great stand-by that we have to rely upon in the maintenance of the peace of the world. If that is what he meant —and I really cannot see that anything else would make sense with the rest of his speech—I cannot understand how he Loped that disaster could be avoided. How could he possibly imagine that any Disarmament Conference result which left all the Powers in substantially the same position as they are now, apart from some trifling alterations which possibly he had in view, could possibly be accepted by the Germans as a satisfactory solution? I agree with him that it would be a disaster if the Disarmament Conference failed, but I am afraid that if we pursue the line he indicates failure is absolutely certain. He appears, as I have just said, not to regard that as very serious because of his doctrine that the overwhelming superiority of France and her allies makes peace secure. Apparently he contemplates that that should continue for ten, twenty or thirty years, and that, he thinks, would give us a breathing time in order to settle the difficulties of Europe. I am afraid that if we were to accept that policy the breathing time would be of an extremely disturbed character and most unlikely to enable us to settle any question at all.
He further seems to think that this country might exert such pressure on other countries, particularly on Poland and Rumania, as to induce them to
106
abandon the Polish Corridor in the case of Poland and Transylvania in the case of Rumania. That is the whole policy as I understand it, and I cannot help asking myself what single country in Europe would accept or be pleased with that policy. Obviously the Poles would not like it, nor would the Rumanians, nor would any of the Little Entente countries, because it would be an assault on the territorial arrangements of the Treaty of Versailles on which their whole existence depends. I do not see how the French would ever accept it, nor do I imagine that—quite apart from the interests of their friends in Europe—they would feel at all certain that if the territorial settlement was upset to that extent and by pressure by this country, other territorial arrangements created by the Treaty would be in any way secure. I am sure Germany would never look at it, and I cannot help feeling that it would create in the minds of many of these countries a profound distrust of our action, particularly in the mind of Germany, who would, I feel confident, regard our abandonment of the policy of disarmament and the substitution of this strange policy of territorial re-arrangement as a mere subterfuge to get out of our obligation, as Ale thinks it is—and perhaps rightly thinks—to give to her the same disarmament as other countries. I cannot help feeling that, brilliantly as this policy was set forth, it would be absolutely disastrous if it were adopted by this country as our policy in this matter.
I have ventured to make a rather extended reference to it because, as far as I have been able to observe, it is the only alternative policy to a policy of genuine disarmament such as I hope and believe the Government have in mind; and therefore we may regard the issue before the country, roughly speaking, as whether we are going to have some such policy as the Government recommend or launch into this strange policy of adventure which has been created for us by my right honourable friend. Therefore I stand here as a supporter, generally speaking, of the policy of the Government and very grateful to them for the great advance, as I think, that they have made in this direction. But there are two or three questions I should like to be allowed to put to the Government.
There is, for instance, the proposal to abolish big tanks and retain small tanks. Well, I dare say there are very good reasons for it, but I confess that I do not follow them in the White Paper. It is said that big tanks are an aggressive weapon and small tanks a defensive one. I cannot quite follow that argument. As I understand the White Paper, big tanks are aggressive because they can be driven through great entrenchments and small tanks cannot, but I understand also from the White Paper that small tanks can be driven through small entrenchments and that that indeed is one of their main purposes. It seems to me rather difficult in that case to say that one is an aggressive weapon and the other is not. I know the answer that is made is that when you get into battle you cannot simply stand on the defensive, sit in your trenches and allow yourselves to be attacked, but that you have to make counter attacks and that if you make counter attacks the small tank is very useful. That is quite true if you look at that matter from the point of view of what would happen once a war began, but I am personally of the same school of thought as the Lord President of the Council. I do not believe that if war has actually broken out you can rely upon countries observing any rules of the game as to how it is to be fought. I think it extremely probable that, whatever they have said before the war, they will use, under the pressure of immense national danger, any weapon they can find.
But what you can do, so it seems to me, by disarmament is to lessen the probability of sudden attack; lessen the probability of a knock-out blow. That is the thing which seems to me the most valuable that you can do, looking at it from the purely technical point of view, by any disarmament scheme. You can alter the peace footing of the various nations in such a way that they will not have this temptation to try to finish off their neighbour, if they have a quarrel, in a moment or even in a few days. This means that you will remove from the arena of international life, or lessen it, this constant fear which is one of the great elements of unrest at the present time, and indeed has been all my lifetime, between the nations of the world. If only they were not afraid of one
108
another the danger of war would be far less than it is.
I shall have to return to that in another connection in a moment, but I want to ask one or two more questions. I am puzzled also about the bit in the White Paper—(Cmd. 4189)—relating to large ships. Perhaps I may be allowed to read the actual phrase on which I am going to base my question. It is:
"Exhaustive investigation has shown that the arbitrary figure of 10,000 tons as the limit of a capital ship would fail to command general acceptance."
As far as I can see that is the only actual reason given in this Paper for not taking the 10,000 tons as the limit of a capital ship. I do not quite see why 10,000 is more arbitrary than any other figure. On the contrary, since it is the figure settled by the Treaty of Versailles as applicable to the defeated Powers, there seems to be prima facie good reason for taking 10,000 tons as the right figure. But that is a small matter. What I confess I feel great difficulty about is the desirability of extending the figure above 10,000 tons as the limit. I am very much afraid that the effect of that will be to create a new competition in ships of some size between 10,000 and 35,000 tons, the present limit, and that those countries which have felt it to be difficult to build as high as 35,000 tons will be ready to enter upon this competition, which would be a disaster from a financial if not from other points of view.
I have another difficulty about it. The Government propose, and rightly, to abolish submarines altogether, but is there any prospect of that being accepted at all except in return for abolition of the big ships above 10,000 tons? That has been made a specific condition in the case of Italy, and I should think it would make a great difference in the case of many other countries as well. Reading this passage I cannot help feeling that the Government are not putting forward the 10,000 tons as the limit because they are not themselves convinced that that is right, but because they think it would be difficult to get it accepted by other countries. They may be right; I do not know, and with the greatest respect to them I do not think they, or any one, can know until it is put forward openly and we hear what other countries have to say on the subject. I cannot help

109
feeling that the ground they have taken up with regard to large mobile guns is far sounder. They say we propose to bring them all down, roughly, to 4-inch guns. They must know there are a good many countries which will object very strongly to bringing them down as low as that, but they have not therefore refrained from putting it forward. It seems to me that is the right way of proceeding and that if we are satisfied that a 10,000-ton limit for our ships would not be unacceptable in itself we ought to put it forward and see what other countries have to say.
Those are two criticisms, as they seem to me, of some importance, but still they do not move me quite so much as the only other criticism of importance that I am going to make. I confess that I have read the statement in the White Paper about aircraft with great disappointment. It seems to me a long way short of the high-water mark of the speech of the Lord President of the Council. I cannot help feeling that it is of a very conditional character. It is quite true it puts forward the abolition of aircraft, but it puts it forward, as the grammarians used to say, in such a way as to expect the answer "No" and not as expecting the answer "Yes." It is a kind of suggestion rather than a definite advocacy of that suggestion. They say that the Government will be prepared to go to every length, in agreement with other Powers, to achieve this object, and then they say that what would be involved if it was done would be a variety of other things. I hope that that does not mean that the Government have weakened in any way from the attitude taken up in another place. My anxiety was a little increased by a speech that I read of a distinguished air officer who. 1 understand, is shortly to become the principal commander of our Air Force. As reported—I hope he has been misreported —it was a vehement protest against what was understood to be the policy of the Government. I think it is unfortunate if such a speech has been made, because, after all, officers, like all other public servants of that description, are there to carry out the policy of the Government and not to advocate their own.
When I come to the rest of the air proposals of the Government I confess that I am still more anxious. There is a kind of alternative proposal. I do not
110
know, and I shall be glad to be told by the Government, exactly what the proposal means. It appears to be a kind of alternative: if we cannot get total abolition—I hope that we are going to try in every way we can for total abolition—then, if we are driven back upon it, we shall ask for this as a first step, at any rate, and press it. I confess that I have great difficulties about this proposal. It is, shortly, that we should ask all other nations to reduce the number of their aeroplanes to our level, and that we should then propose a cut of one-third of that level so reached. I dare say that that is a good proposal from some points of view. What it means is that we are asking the French Government to begin by cutting down their aeroplanes by, I think it is, 700 or 800. Then follow four other Powers, of which we are the last in fact, who are nearly of the same strength, but not quite, so far as numbers go.
I think that is a very difficult proposal to make at an international gathering, for you will be met, as you always are the moment you come to questions of ratios of strength, with a number of arguments as to the relative needs of different countries and the relative values of different forces. I have met French officers who have assured me that it is a great mistake to suppose that the British Air Force is so far inferior to the French Air Force as numbers would appear to show. They say that if you weigh as well as count, and look into the various elements which make for efficiency, then the British Air Force, though smaller in numbers, would not be so very inferior to the French. I do not know if that is so, but obviously that kind of thing will be immediately said the moment you come to this kind of proportionate reductions.
Then there is another consideration which I venture to ask the Government to bear in mind. It is quite obvious from the White Paper that one of the reasons which make them doubtful whether they are able to carry through the total abolition of military aircraft is the familiar difficulty of what is to be done with civil aircraft. We agree that it is a difficulty, and one which has to be dealt with, but I do not think it is an insoluble difficulty, and you do not get rid of that difficulty by the alter-

111
native proposal. You have still got to deal with civil aircraft. If, instead of abolishing military aircraft you make a proportionate reduction, there is still the problem of how you are going to deal with civil aircraft, which may be used as a supplementary air force in time of war. Unless you can deal with this question you will always find it a difficulty when you have to solve the problem set before you. For those reasons I hope to hear a further explanation on that point, because I think it is of a vital character in the estimation of the country.
May I make one further criticism, merely of the language in which it is put forward? It is put forward because it is said to be so essential to get rid of the fearful horrors of bombardment from the air. Of course they are fearful, but all wars produce fearful horrors. A peculiarity of bombardment from the air is that it falls upon the civilian population, but I should never advocate the abolition of bombardment from the air on that ground. I never would. The only ground on which it seems to me that you may reasonably put it forward as part of a disarmament proposal is one to which I have alluded, that the blow which may be struck by a sudden air bombardment would be so serious as possibly to decide the whole future of the struggle, and it is fear of those sudden blows, those sudden knock-out blows, I venture to repeat, which is the great cause of inter. national unrest in the world at the present time.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer, not by way of criticism but as a request for information. I observe that there is no mention of budgetary limitations in the White Paper. I expect I shall be told, as indeed is said in the White Paper, that it does not pretend to be a full statement of the proposals that would be made, but only a statement of certain proposals which it was convenient and indeed important to make at that moment. If that is so it is not necessary to bother any more about budgetary limitations. There is another omission which is rather more unfortunate, and that is the omission to deal with the French claim for security. I agree it is not essential from one point of view, but it is a matter which has got to be dealt with in connection with this question—namely, how are you going
112
to bring France and Germany together sufficiently in order to enable the Conference to go on without further difficulty Although I do not ask for any complete statement on that subject I hope that it does not mean a refusal to examine all the French proposals.
There are certainly some of them which I should have great difficulty in accepting, but I do think that they are honestly meant, and that they are an attempt to meet the difficulties which have been felt about their previous proposals; and I hope that we are going to give them the most impartial and favourable consideration that we can. I have observed, from certain correspondence which has recently appeared in The Times, that there evidently is a considerable feeling amongst serious and important people that something on these lines ought to be considered, that the French have got a real case in the matter, and it ought to be dealt with in some way. That is also my own opinion; but whether that is right or not, all that I am at present asking is that the Government should keep their minds as open as they can upon it.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long, but I have only one other point to which I want to draw your attention. I am a little uneasy, if I may be allowed to say so, about the methods which have been pursued during the past months at Geneva. I cannot help feeling that the attempt to deal with great international questions by the technique which was appropriate in the days of the Congress of Vienna, and was certainly used, appropriate or not, in the days of the Conference of Paris, is very inappropriate, and very unlikely to succeed, at the present time. I do not wish to say a word against the old diplomacy, which had many merits, but we have adopted a different system. We have recognised—at least I think we ought to recognise—that the peoples of the world insist on being consulted, and rightly insist on being consulted, in this matter. Alter all, the conduct of foreign affairs does affect them, does affect their lives and their prosperity, more perhaps than any single activity of the Government, and they ask, and reasonably ask, that they should know what is being done. I believe it to be a great mistake not to realise that, and not to have your formal meetings, whatever they may be, whether they are

113
of many Powers or of few, in public. I do not mean to say that there may not be exceptional cases where you must keep them private, but broadly speaking I believe they must now be in public.
I ought to explain that, because one is so easily misunderstood about this question. I do not mean to say that a private conversation taking place between two negotiators is not sometimes of the greatest possible value. Of course it is; but then it must be really private, and should indeed be disposed to make the test of its value whether it becomes known that it has ever taken place. If it is a really private conversation taking place with the least possible display—merely two gentlemen meeting and talking the matter over—then I am satisfied that it often does a great deal of good, and the less it is like that, the less likely it is to be of service. When I read in the newspapers that it is proposed to have new formal conferences of four or five Powers of a secret character, I confess I have the gravest misgiving as to whether that is going to produce useful results. I believe I could give, if I were not afraid of wearying your Lordships, a great many reasons wily I do not think that is a useful way of proceeding now, but I will confine myself only to this statement, which may or may not be acceptable to your Lordships but I believe is profoundly true: that I do not believe that under modern conditions that particular kind of negotiating device is successful. It does not work; that is my great objection to it.
It is not that I feel that it is wicked to have secrecy, or anything of that kind; I do not think that in the least; I simply do not believe that that is the best way of reaching results. I believe that people in private are much more unreasonable than they are in public, and I believe that in point of fact, under modern conditions, you never get real privacy; you get only partial privacy, which means that each side states to its own Press its own account of what has happened, and instead of smoothing matters it not uncommonly exacerbates them a great deal. I venture to say that because I feel it very strongly, and I venture to make that appeal to my noble friends on the Government Bench. I do hope that they will consider very carefully whether the
114
time has not come now to revert to open discussion. I am confident that if they do not revert to open discussion they will run a very serious risk of imperilling the results of the Conference. I beg to move.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Viscount who put this Motion on the Paper expected that His Majesty's Government would be able to give really any very full answer on either of the subjects, but, if I may he allowed to say so, if it has given the noble Viscount himself an opportunity of stating his views, I think that is all to the good, knowing as I do the very wide range over which his voice can carry and the very great international influence which he can wield. I find myself in substantial agreement with a very great deal of what the noble Viscount said. On the subject of Manchuria and the Sino-Japanese dispute, I entirely agree with him that the main consideration is a strengthening of the authority of the League of Nations at all costs. Firm action may be necessary, and that must never be lost sight of. I do not suppose that on that question the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House, and who will be replying on behalf of the Government, will be able to say anything at this juncture.
Turning to the subject of the Disarmament Conference, I have addressed your Lordships on more than one occasion on the problems which have been raised there, and it is very gratifying to me to find so high an authority as the noble Viscount agreeing with a good many of the views which I have expressed, notably two to which I have referred; because anybody in my position can keep on repeating an argument without it having the very smallest effect, but when somebody in authority, like the noble Viscount or the Lord President of the Council, takes up the argument, then people begin to listen. Perhaps my enthusiasm with regard to the British disarmament statement is even more tempered than that of the noble Viscount. I think it, is of very great importance that this phrase should be kept in mind: it occurs in the third subsection of the opening two pages of the Declaration of the Policy of the Government on Disarmament in connection with Germany's claim to equality of rights:

115
"… the object of the Disarmament Conference is to bring about the maximum of positive disarmament that can be generally agreed—not to authorise in the name of equality the increase of armed strength."
That being the fundamental principle, there are two ways of carrying it out: not only by adding up totals of tonnage and of costs and of numbers, but by examining the various principles that underlie any possible change in the organisation of armaments in any country.
I should like in that connection to call attention to a point upon which the noble Viscount did not touch, which occurs in Section (B) "Quantitative Disarmament," in which this document says
"That is to say, if Germany wishes, for instance, to be free from the prohibition against compulsory military service at present incumbent upon her, the numbers of men annually compulsorily given a military training in Germany must be deducted, at a ratio to be agreed on, from the number of her long-service troops."
That sentence attaches importance to the actual numerical strength of the German force, and leaves out of account the permission given for Germany once more to have conscription. That I consider to be one of the gravest faults in this document, because if a conscript militia system allows even only a. few months of service it can enable a census of able-bodied men to be made, and all necessary investigations into the manhood of the nation, which are of immense value to a nation when war breaks out. I think the Germans themselves—the really better opinion in Germany itself—would deplore the permission given to the nation to go back to a conscript system. I consider this a very serious question. I think it is a real step backwards. I think it is much more important from the point of view of re-armament than if there were a greater allowance of numbers in men or size of guns.
I was rather surprised that the noble Viscount attached as much importance as he did to Mr. Winston Churchill's speech and, by discussing it so very fully, gave it a significance and an advertisement which I do not think it deserves. After all, His Majesty's Government are not responsible for Mr. Winston Churchill's views, and I really think that we can unanimously dismiss them altogether. I do not regard them even as the alternative to the policy which is being pursued by His Majesty's Government.
116
The noble Viscount went into the question of tanks. I think I have made it clear that I absolutely refuse to discuss the question of disarmament on this arithmetical basis. I really do not believe that any good is going to come from discussing whether a 10-ton tank is aggressive or defensive, and I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount say—and this is one of the major points in which he expressed agreement with what I have repeated more than once here—that when war breaks out these regulations will not be observed. I rather doubt whether these regulations, if they can be given unanimous agreement by the nations, are even going to lessen the probability of the outbreak of war. But their discussion gives an opportunity to the experts to vie with one another on these particular points—not only to the experts of one Service and another Service, but, of course, to the experts of one country and another country, and the food for discussion is so rich that this sort of controversy can be kept up, not for months but for years.
The noble Viscount said that one of the troubles was that the nations were afraid of one another. I dispute that absolutely. That is not the trouble: it is the Governments who are afraid of one another. And my hope rests in the fact that now for the first time those who fail, those who quarrel, while they are not going to have to do the fighting, are going to be in the front line of danger, and I believe that that is going to act as a deterrent more than anything else, both in this country and every country. The capital city is going to be the bull's eye of the airman's target, and in the capital city the Government, the experts, the leading people who are going to direct the whole operation, will be just as much in danger as anybody else in the country, and perhaps in very much greater danger than those who are sent out to the front or on to the high seas. That, to my mind, gives us some hope that there will be a great hesitation on the part of our governors to risk a catastrophe of this sort, which they know, to begin with, will not solve the particular quarrel in which they have got embroiled.
I should like to support what the noble Viscount said in the concluding remarks of his address—namely, that no good can come from secret meetings, and that

117
no meeting is really secret if it is known to have taken place. I am perfectly certain that he is right in saying that the sectional and secret gatherings engender a great deal of suspicion and animosity, and militate against any agreement which might otherwise be come to. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply for the Government may be able to tell us this much: Sir John Simon's announcement was greeted with satisfaction because it was supposed that, anyhow, it opened the door for Germany to return to the Disarmament Conference. Now, we do not know whether that is so or not, but that, after all, is a very important point, and if the noble and learned Viscount, in replying for the Government, could. tell us what prospects there are of Germany returning to the Conference with a view to joining in the general discussions again, that in itself would be a bit of information which we should welcome very much this afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, having regard to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Cecil in opening this debate, I propose to detain your Lordships for a very few moments. I would, however, desire to say that I certainly, and I think those associated with we also, are grateful to my noble friend for the part he has taken in bringing this Motion before your Lordships to-day, and very much more for the fine part he has played throughout all these discussions, and especially for the manner in which he has devoted himself to doing all that was possible to promote general disarmament and the cause of the League of Nations. These are no idle words. I am perfectly sure that none of your Lordships would fail to recognise, even if you do not agree with all that has fallen from the noble Viscount, either to-day or another day, how indebted we are to him for all the labour and efforts he has contributed to the furtherance of this cause.
Having said that, I would make one observation on the Sino-Japanese dispute in relation to Manchuria, for I feel it very difficult to debate that at this moment. I can well conceive that the Government are not in a position to make any answer. Neither can t imagine that there are any Papers which could be laid at this particular moment. I noticed that my noble friend did not press the question very much because he anticipated
118
that it might be—indeed, I think I might go further and say that it would certainly be—extremely difficult for the Government to give any specific answer, when we remember that this is a matter now under discussion, and that obviously we ought not to express a view of any kind, and the Government would not certainly express any view, before the whole case has been thoroughly heard and considered.
I would only desire to associate myself entirely with him in the observations he made as to the importance of the findings of this Commission, the impartiality of the tribunal and the manner in which they have discharged their duties. I think they have done so to the general approval of all who have attempted to form a judicial opinion on the subject. The Commission have given the greatest assistance to the League of Nations and to all of us who are not familiar with events from day to day. I cannot conceive but that their Report will he, indeed must be, regarded not only with the most serious consideration by all who are bound to make inquiry into it, and that in the main, subject to anything that may be said to the contrary either as to the proposals or any changes that may be suggested in the various recommendations that are made, it must be regarded with general approval. I do not suggest for a moment that that means that all the findings must be accepted either by the Government or by the League of Nations. All I do mean is that none of the recommendations that they make can be disregarded, save in the face of very powerful arguments and, it may be, of facts which may be brought to light in order to counteract some of the recommendations or findings of the Commission. There I propose to leave the Manchurian question.
As regards disarmament, I am again in general agreement with what has been said by my noble friend. I will only add to his observations that it was a great relief, certainly to me, and, I believe I may say, to all who are associated with me in your Lordships' House, that the Government did make a definite pronouncement, although no doubt it was somewhat belated. There was a general feeling throughout the country that we were sitting still listening to what was being said by others, not taking sufficient

119
part and, above all, not giving the leadership which was to be expected from this country in the very important questions then under discussion. I am not for a moment suggesting, indeed I would not suggest, that some of those doubts in the minds of the public were well justified. I have no doubt that the Government had these matters under consideration again and again, and I know a little of the difficulties that a Government must encounter in making either a pronouncement or proposals until there has been the fullest opportunity of making investigations. But I would desire to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Government heartily upon having come to a conclusion which they announced before resuming their work in Geneva. It enabled our representative to return to the discussions after the line that the Government were about to take had been announced to the world, thus resolving once and for all the doubts as to whether or not we in this country were ready to accept equality of status in the sense of which the term has been used for Germany, and whether we were ready to take any step to support it.
Once that had been done it certainly cleared the air. Although at the present moment we have not proceeded very far, it has brought the discussion within much more specific limits. I would join the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked the Government whether they would be able to-day to give us any additional information in relation to the attitude which Germany will take in answer to that. I am not very confident that the Government will be able to say much in answer, but I hope at any rate they will tell us all they possibly can. I quite realise, as all your Lordships must, that there may be difficulty in saying what are the views of the German Government at this moment. I am not quite sure that your Lordships would be able to say who are the German Government at this moment, and I do not propose to press this any further.
I am impressed very much with the doubts that were raised by my noble friend in relation to the Air Force and the aviation proposals. I find it difficult to believe that we shall be able to get foreign countries to adopt the line proposed. It was analysed by my noble friend, and, therefore, I do not wish to
120
repeat anything that he said, but certainly there is a difficulty in saying: "First of all reduce all your Air Forces to the same level as ours; that is, you must bring them down to a similar condition generally; and then, having done that, there must be a reduction of one-third." It may be a very wise proposal if it can be carried out. I am not expressing a doubt as to the sincerity of it, or as to the wisdom of it if it can be accepted, but I have very grave doubts as to whether such a proposal can be accepted. I do not find those doubts either removed or lessened by what is proposed or suggested in regards to civil aviation. I am not an expert in matters of aviation, and I speak with great diffidence, especially before some of your Lordships who are very much more familiar with the Air Force than I am, and with what is requisite in aviation. But with my very elementary knowledge, I find it difficult to believe that, however you reduce your military Air Force, you can be sure that your civil air force could not be so adapted that it could he used in time of war for the very purposes which led to the abolition of your military Air Force. If any light can be thrown upon that it would very much help me.
I will not pursue this subject further, but there is one aspect of it upon which I would desire to make some observations; that is, the budgetary limitation of armaments. It is not dealt with in the White Paper, and I can very well understand the reason for the omission. I would, however, suggest to the Government and to your Lordships that there is real importance in budgetary limitation of armaments from the point of view of reducing armaments, and, consequently, of helping to maintain peace, and also because it would help to solve some other questions which arc exercising all our minds at the present moment. I have no desire to enter into any discussion regarding a matter which is so prominent at this moment, but I would nevertheless ask your Lordships to consider the position in which we should be in the approaches which we are making to the United States of America, and in any discussions which we may have to have with them in future, if we could take the position that we have in fact helped, either by our lead or our co-operation and assistance, in reducing the budgetary

121
expenditure on armaments, and especially so if we had helped to a great degree.
That is a matter which is very much the subject of comment in the United States. We see references to it in our daily newspapers, and I was very much struck during the recent Election in that country to notice how again and again, whenever this question was raised in relation to the War Debts of European nations, invariably came the question: "Will these Governments be prepared to reduce their expenditure on armaments"? That was probably the most ordinary form of argument, I will not say on the part of those in responsible positions, but among the general public and even among newspapers in discussing this matter. The question was always asked whether the result of any approach towards reducing the burden of debts upon the European Powers would be, not only that they would not reduce their expenditure on armaments, but that, being relieved of this expenditure, they would have more money available to spend on armaments. Much time has been spent in trying to explain how absurd that would be from our point of view in this country, and how we have set our faces against increased expenditure and given as strong a lead as we could in reducing the expenditure on armaments. But I would press upon the Government that whenever they see an opportunity, they should press this budgetary limitation of expenditure on armaments as a means—and a really effective means—of reducing armaments, as a means not merely of preventing increasing expenditure but of actually lessening expenditure, and that they should press it not only in relation to the United States but other Powers.
I noticed an observation of my noble friend Viscount Cecil who spoke of the security which France requires. No one can have discussed disarmament with French politicians or Ministers without at once being confronted with this difficult question for them. For myself I have always felt great sympathy with France in this respect. I do understand the French. view on this point, situated as Franco is and with her history, especially in the last fifty years. She does desire at least to know that she will have security in relation to another country coterminous with her, with a largely increasing population and
122
with a capable, industrious, disciplined people. The only comment I would make upon that—a comment I have made at other times—is that really one would think the best means of obtaining security would be such a reconciliation between France and Germany, and generally between European Powers, as would enable them to carry on their relations together without this constant fear of war or of hostility of some character.
What I have in mind at this moment are the observations made—I think in August of this year—by the Secretary of State in the United States in regard to the laws of neutrality, which have a really important bearing on this question of the security of France. One of the difficulties when discussing this question is to know what would happen if war broke out. How far could the League of Nations enforce the Covenant? How far could the League of Nations take any effective steps? What would the United States do? Would she remain neutral or would she take a line such as that taken during the earlier part of the Great War? That is a question which is of real importance in relation to the Kellogg Pact and the Nine-Power Pact to which the United States are parties. It always seems to me that the step taken by the United States in entering into these Treaties—the Pact of Paris and the Pacific Pact—might assist us in getting a further reduction in armaments. But it has to be borne in mind that there is this difference between them, that in the Covenant- of the League of Nations you will find sanctions provided, whereas in the Kellogg and other Treaties none are provided, although there are two express stipulations: one the renunciation of war as an instrument of policy, and the other that no nation signatory to the Pact should attempt to effect the settlement of a dispute except by peaceful means. I venture to suggest to the Government that this ought to be used for the purpose of bringing nations more into a mind to reduce armaments, realising, as I think they should, that in present conditions there is a greater world opinion against war than has ever existed before.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a very few minutes, but there are one or two questions which I would like

123
to address to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, before he replies to this debate. I still believe, as I have ventured to state in this House before, that there are certain obscurities, even in the most up-to-date pronouncements of the Government, which are disastrous from the point of view of the defeatist campaign which can be carried on, and is being carried on, to some extent in this country. It seems to me unwise to provide opportunities for such a campaign by leaving obscurities in the pronouncements which are made by the Government. I was talking not very long ago to a very distinguished lover of peace in this country who made this point. He said: "Do you realise how much more prospect there is to-day of a fundamental agreement being reached at Geneva than there was a year ago?" After I had left that friend I met another of the lovers of peace who had just sent me through the post a pamphlet explaining that the Disarmament Conference was a tragic failure. Now I cannot but believe that had an agreement been come to during, say, the first four months of this Conference it would have been far less hopeful for the cause of disarmament than the agreement likely to be come to now after the discussions that have taken place. Nations are much nearer to each other, statesmen understand each other better, and there has been greater opportunity for schemes to be laid upon the Conference table than was the ease in the earlier part of the Conference proceedings.
But there still remain what I believe to be serious obscurities in the position. When we are dealing with armaments we are not only dealing with particular arms but with the effect of those arms upon political policies. When you are dealing with submarines, or with battleships, or with Air Forces, it is not only important that you should do something in respect of the number or weight of those particular weapons, but that you should consider the effect on political policies. The noble Viscount, for whom I have almost a reverence, brought before us the question of two implements of war, the air and the submarine. Now the propositions that His Majesty's Government have put before the Geneva Conference in regard to the air and in regard to submarines can be considered, as I
124
believe, to be good propositions even allowing for the noble Viscount's qualification in regard to the method of reducing Air Forces to an equality and then by one-third. But how are we to get other countries to believe in our bona fides when we submit those propositions to the Conference if we do not, on our side, submit to the Conference some proposal with regard to the particular weapon of war which is considered to be the most important by us? That is where the question of the battleship comes in.
When I addressed the House for the first time I drew attention to this question, and in the reply which was given there was not a considerable amount of information. Now we have the new pronouncement, but I must confess that I still do not know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to battleships. Unless I know, and unless France knows, and other nations know, what is the policy of this country on that particular instrument of war, we cannot expect considered and sympathetic attention to other propositions we have made with regard to other armaments. In 1930 the Prime Minister made clear to this country what he desired should take place with regard to battleships. He said he desired to see an agreement by which battleships would in due time disappear altogether from the fleets of the world. Then arose the point of how to implement that desire. I cannot help believing that I and those who have signed peace memorials have laid too much stress on the 10,000-ton limit. We have laid stress on that because it was the limit drawn by the Versailles Treaty, but it seems Lo me we ought to have taken more care to explain that we were not advocating a 10,000-ton battleship but only wished to draw the line there because of the Versailles Treaty, and we ought to have gone on to explain that Germany had offered to give up that battleship if it would serve the cause of peace.
Now we are faced by a proposal for some other tonnage which, so far as I can understand, is not defined. It does seem to me that here is an opportunity for the Government to make it clear that it stands where the Prime Minister stood in 1930, and that is either for abolition or, at least, for non-replacement. Unless we can make a clear and bold statement

125
that we do not desire to retain these battleships, which as a matter of fact arc considered by many experts to be useless, or that we are prepared not to replace and then to abolish the capital ship, we shall never win the respect that we desire so far as air and submarine proposals are concerned. I beg the noble and learned Viscount to try to explain to the House why it is we cannot have a clear statement at Geneva with regard to the non-replacement of these ships.
Another question which I would venture to put is in regard to security. Just as we desire to win support from other countries with regard to particular categories of armaments, so we must try to enter into the mind of other countries, and particularly of France, in regard to the question of security. I want to deal with the matter for a moment from the point of view of aviation. Mr. Baldwin the other day made a speech which I personally consider was one of the most genuine and moving speeches for peace ever delivered in this country. He pointed out, first, that the next war would not be fought on land or sea but in the air, and, secondly, he drew attention to the fact that if the next war is fought in the air there is no defence known to any expert. The only way you can deal with such an attack is by counter attacks, which involve not so much armies and navies as the civil population—women and children.
If that weapon is the only weapon of the future and if it is so destructive as Mr. Baldwin says, it cannot remain, either from the military or civil point of view, under national control. In response to the appeal by Mr. Baldwin to those who are young, I would say without qualification that aviation including civil aviation must become a matter of international control. It is said that this would be disastrous from the point of view of commercial aviation. Even supposing the objection in regard to civil aviation were true, what is the disadvantage to commercial aviation of international control as compared with the disadvantage to the whole life of the world of leaving that weapon in national hands, if what Mr. Baldwin says is true? I would therefore suggest that when dealing with security we must deal with it not from the point of view of some kind of cosmopolitan
126
force organised at Geneva, but we must say: "Here is a weapon which we know cannot be dealt with by national defence, which we know is the only weapon likely to be used, and we will pass that weapon into international hands." Then if the time should come when another war should unfortunately break out, there is already a most powerful and terrible weapon under international control.
I should like to emphasise the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, raised in regard to publicity. I do not quite know how politicians intend to treat democracy in these days, but apparently they will not take democracy into their confidence. The note to America was sent after the Election in America had been fought, and over and over again during this year statements have been withheld of this aspect or that aspect of armaments because an Election was to be held here or held there. If you are to withhold statements from democracy until after democracy has expressed its opinion how are you to maintain the prestige of democracy as an instrument of government? You will cause the world steadily to proceed stage by stage towards dictatorship as the only efficient method of conducting the affairs of nations, and therefore I hope the Government will consider fully the words of Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, that what is done at. Geneva should be increasingly brought before the attention of the world. I desire that because I believe that public opinion now is more in favour of bold measures with regard to disarmament than it has ever been in the history of the world.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not want to detain you long but there are just two or three points which I should like to mention. First of all about the Far East. I do not want to repeat the remarks that I made a short time ago upon the Lytton Report, but there is one aspect of the Far Eastern situation which is sometimes lost sight of. One of the contributory causes, if not the main contributory cause, of the Manchurian trouble has been the long continued weakness or disintegration of government in China. If the League of Nations, or the nations of the world, wish to bring order out of chaos, and to solve the Manchurian problem on the lines of the Lytton Report, it seems to me that they ought to consider collective support

127
of the Government in China with a view of establishing it as an effective and stable Government. China is suffering from the greatest difficulties now, not the least being the opposition within its own borders of the Communist movement. If we are to solve the problem of the Far East, one of the first conditions must be the creation of a modern and relatively efficient Government in China itself. I think that ought to be borne in mind, and attention should not be exclusively concentrated on the Lytton Report.
As regards the present European situation, the Disarmament Conference of course is dealing in a measure with effects and not causes. Armaments, whatever people may say, spring from fear amongst nations of other nations, or of the consequences of international policy. The question has been raised in this House to-night that if you are going to solve the disarmament problem you must deal with the problem of security for France. I think that there is often an incomplete apprehension of what the French people mean, or have meant in the past, by security. If you go back to what happened at the Paris Peace Conference, the great Powers of the world then undertook to stand sponsor for the maintenance of peace, and not only was there a real measure of security under the Covenant, but under Article 19 it would have been possible to modify without great difficulty such features of the Peace Treaty as might have proved by experience to be inconvenient or unjust. The withdrawal of the United States from the League of Nations, carrying with it the ending of America's guarantee to France, put France in an extraordinarily difficult position. The security on which she had relied, and upon which she had based her acceptance of the Treaty of Peace, had disappeared and by security since 1920 France has really meant the integral maintenance of the Treaty of Versailles. She has not been concerned with the risk of invasion of her own borders, but her fear has been of the disintegration of the rest of European peace under German influence.
The essence of the acceptance of the German claim to equality is that these military guarantees of the Treaty are disappearing, and I think you will find that the predominant feeling in France to-day
128
recognises that that is true. If it is so, then you are inevitably driven to the revision of the Treaties of Eastern Europe. It seems to me that it is an essential element in the disarmament problem that the question of the revision of the Eastern European Treaties should be taken into account. I do not express any opinion as to the exact time or character of the revision, but I do not think you are going to get disarmament in Europe, or that you are going to arrive at anything like stability, unless the Eastern European settlement is based not upon force but upon a reasonable measure of consent. You will, I think, never have a settlement until there has been a reasonable discussion of the Eastern Treaties and a re-arrangement based upon consent, just as the Western European frontiers under Locarno were based on consent. It seems to me to be a delusion to think that without a re-settlement of that whole problem you will get a stable peace in Europe. If you could get an Eastern settlement which commanded as much general support as the Western settlement, you would have a condition in Europe in which these proposed regional pacts of guarantees, backed by great armaments, would cease to be necessary. Therefore I would in conclusion once more repeat that it seems to me that the revision of the Treaties in Eastern Europe is an essential ingredient both of disarmament and of the question of security.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Motion before the House takes the form of a Question: "Whether His Majesty's Government can make any further statement as to their policy on Disarmament and the Sino-Japanese dispute." If that Question had been addressed to His Majesty's Government in another place, I am inclined to think that the answer would have been a very simple one. His Majesty's Government, or whoever was responsible for replying, would have said: "The answer is in the negative." But fortunately the procedure and methods of your Lordships' House are different, and while I feel hound to say at once that I am not in a position to make any further general pronouncement upon the two matters about which my noble friend has asked for a further statement, still the debate which he has initiated has had the very valuable

129
result of enabling His Majesty's Government, as well as your Lordships' House and the far wider public outside, to hear the views of my noble friend himself upon the topics which he has introduced; and I share to the full the recognition that has been expressed by other members of your Lordships' House of the passionate zeal for the cause of peace and enthusiastic devotion to the work of the League of Nations which have characterised the efforts of my noble friend during the last few years.
There is just this other preliminary observation which I should like to make in. extenuation of any shortcomings in my answer. The answer which I give must, of necessity be the answer of His Majesty's Government; I speak for the Government, and the responsibility for what I say must be borne by the Government; but at the same time, the topics about which I am speaking are primarily the concern of a Department which is not my Department, and any mistakes that I might make in handling very delicate subjects might seriously embarrass my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a task which may well prove sufficient to tax even his abilities to the very highest degree; and therefore your Lordships will appreciate that in giving the answers which I do give, I am rather rigidly confined to the actual terms of the instructions which I have received f min my right, honourable friend with regard to the sort of answer which he would desire to see made.
With those few words of introduction I turn, first, to the Manchurian question, because that is the one to which the noble Viscount first referred. As regards the Sino-Japanese dispute, your Lordships are aware that the debates in various organs of the League—the Council, the Committee of Nineteen, the Assembly itself—are still proceeding. The object of these debates is to try to find a solution of the Manchurian problem through the machinery at the disposal of the. League. The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter is not an individual policy, but a League policy. All their influence will be exercised in the direction of guiding the deliberations towards a solution, if one can be found, which shall be satisfactory to the League as a whole, to the Powers most closely interested in the problems of the Far
130
East, and to both parties to the dispute themselves. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs observed in another place:
"We shall continue to act, as we have acted throughout, in loyal co-operation with the League of Nations on the whole matter. It is the greatest possible mistake to suppose that good is done by individual preliminary declarations. …we mean to act with the League of Nations as a whole, and we have a further ground for satisfaction in knowing that, anxious as this situation is, unsatisfactory as it is in many respects, we have in this matter been able to act not only side by side with other members of the League of Nations hut in the closest co-operation and good faith and friendship with the United States of America."
I am afraid that that is as far as we can go in dealing with that subject, and my noble friend Lord Lothian will forgive me if I do not pursue the fascinating vista which he opens of a discussion as to the position of China and the Far East generally, a subject in which, as I think he knows, I take a considerable interest, as well as he himself.
I turn from the Manchurian question to the question of disarmament, and I am glad to find that one who has done the service, which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has done at Geneva for so long should have been able to express as high an appreciation as he has been able to show of the general lines. that His Majesty's Government have recently taken in the effort to assist the work of the Disarmament Conference. The noble Viscount referred to the subject of budgetary limitation, and pointed out that that was not specifically mentioned in the White Paper. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, appreciated the reason why it found no place there. The White Paper professes, on the face of it, to be a document which is dealing with the question of the claim of Germany to equality of status, and the attitude which ought to be adopted in relation to that claim. We have set out in our declarations what our answer is to the claim made by Germany.
The noble Viscount himself quoted what he thought were the principles to he found in our answer, and we have proceeded to show how effect can be given to those principles, in our view, in relation to land, naval, and air forces, in such a way as to meet the German claim for equality without departing from the

131
principle of no re-armament. In dealing with that matter it did not seem to us to be relevant to discuss the question of budgetary limitation, but I should like at once to reassure my noble friend, if it be necessary to do so, and to answer the noble Marquess who spoke afterwards, by saying that we have not in the least modified our attitude of accepting the principle of budgetary limitation and of working towards that method of quantitative disarmament. It is in fact, I believe, still under active investigation at Geneva, and we certainly intend to collaborate wholeheartedly in that policy.
I am glad to know from the noble Marquess that the question of why we did not reduce our expenditure on armaments had been raised in his presence in the United States of America, because I am sure that no one would have been more ready to give the answer than he must have been, and that no one would have been listened to with more conviction and acceptance than he must have been if, as I have no doubt was the case, he explained that we had been reducing our armaments and our expenditure on armaments to a degree which I do not think has in the least been realised by the general public on the other side of the Atlantic.
In the same way the noble Viscount asked me about the French proposals, and he was anxious to know whether we were ignoring them or whether we were turning towards them a sympathetic eye. At the time when the declaration of policy was prepared the details of the French proposals were not known to His Majesty's Government—only that general outline that appeared which, as your Lordships will remember and my noble friend knows very well, was the first intimation as to the kind of plans that the French were going to put forward. Since that time the details have been made known at Geneva and have taken the form, I think, of a printed memorandum, and those proposals are being carefully examined and scrutinised in order to see how far we can fall in with them, or what modification we may or may not be able to suggest to make them generally acceptable.
But we feel very strongly that the immediate problem before the Conference is to extract from the whole body of proposals
132
which are now before the nations there represented a scheme which will afford a just and effective solution of the disarmament problem acceptable to all Governments represented at the Conference. We think—and I hope that those who are so much in favour of publicity will not be too hard on us if we take this view—that this difficult problem can best be approached in the first instance by informal exchanges of views among the principal Governments, and during that stage it seems to us that public statements had best be reduced to a minimum. We think so more especially because, whatever the advantages of publicity may be, there is this disadvantage, that when once a nation through its authorised representative has definitely committed itself in public to a particular point of view, it is much more difficult to persuade that nation or that representative to modify their attitude than if no such public declaration has been made and anything that has been said is known only to one or two people, to whom it has been said in a tentative and informal way.
I can assure your Lordships that the French proposals will be examined with that careful attention which I am quite sure they deserve. I will only add this word of warning, that in examining them we also have to bear in mind that it is not fair to the people of this country, and it is misleading to the world at large, if we undertake obligations which we know we are not in a position to carry out. Under those circumstances I think probably what I can most. usefully do is to turn to the specific points with regard to which the noble Viscount found some ambiguity or some cause for dissatisfaction in the statements contained in the White Paper. The first was with regard to tanks, and there perhaps I can speak with just a little more freedom and depart perhaps a little from my brief because I am speaking of a matter which does concern my own Department.
The tank as a weapon of war was peculiarly a British invention during the Great War. Its purpose when it was introduced into warfare was to find an effective means of dealing with the inconceivably intricate and elaborate method of entrenchment and trench systems which had been built up on the German side, in answer of course to the Allied side, on the Western Front, and

133
which threatened to bring the whole situation to a kind of stalemate because neither side was able to make any effective advance. The weapon which was then devised was a machine which weighed from thirty to forty tons, which had to he of a certain weight in order to enable the necessary length to be given to cross the trenches. The idea was that the tank should crush its way through the wire entanglements and then go across these deep trenches which had been dug, and that involved a certain degree of length, and therefore in turn a certain degree of weight in the proper place, to keep the tank level when it was partly suspended in mid-air.
Since the War the kind of tank which is constructed and the purpose for which the tank is being constructed have both been very much changed, and at present the expert view of the usefulness of the tank is not so much as a heavy machine which can crush its way through an elaborate system of fortifications, but as a much lighter machine which will enable the infantry to be conveyed to the suppression of machine guns posts without undue loss of life. The tanks designed for that purpose are very much lighter than the old ones. I do not want to go too much into technical details, but I suppose sixteen to twenty tons would be now as much as most of them are for that kind of work. They are no use against any substantial artillery fire. They have not got a sufficient thickness of armour, and they could not have a sufficient thickness of armour because that would increase the weight. They are intended to be the answer to the machine gun and to the automatic rifle.
It may be said—I think my noble friend suggested it—that the tank is being used for an offensive purpose because it is being used to protect the man who is going to advance towards a machine gun. On the same basis helmets or cuirasses or suits of armour in the old days might have been regarded as offensive weapons because their purpose was to protect their wearers from mortal injury when they were attacking the enemy on the other side. But I do not think it is quite in that sense that the term "peculiarly offensive weapon" is used. What I think is referred to when that expression is employed is what the noble Viscount himself referred to as the "knock-out blow." The idea is to prevent
134
any nation being equipped with weapons which would enable it suddenly to overwhelm any of its neighbours before they had had time to prepare themselves for defence. And from that point of view the tank, of course, is of no use at all, because if it advanced against any prepared fortified positions, such as now exist along the whole eastern frontier of France, it would be annihilated and would be absolutely of no value.
If the tank were abolished altogether, if this lighter form of tank were given up, the effect would not be to disarm, but to increase armament very considerably, because, whereas it may be possible for a nation with an unlimited man-power—let us say, for instance, a nation like Soviet Russia—to employ so many millions of men that if a few thousands are killed there are enough left to go on when the machine gun ammunition has been exhausted and to overcome the opposition, that is not true of a nation which does not employ conscription and which only has a small force. The British Army relies on a very small force, which has been reduced to the very minimum limit consistent with the protection of essential interests—a limit which some people even think may be below that figure—and we could not afford to give up the use of the tank without at once embarking upon a very considerable increase in man power to make up for the mortality which we were thereby inflicting upon our troops. Of course so long as there is no war, no tanks are wanted and no weapons of war are wanted; but unless you are able to persuade people to give up machine guns and automatic rifles you cannot, in our judgment, ask this country, for instance, to give up the use of the tank while at the same time it maintains its figure of establishment at anything like the figure at which it at present stands. I hope I have made clear the distinction to my noble friend. If I have not convinced him that we are right, at any rate I hope I have satisfied him there is reason underlying the attitude which we have there adopted.
The next point was the question of the large ship, a question which was referred to not only by the noble Viscount but also by my noble friend Lord Allen, in his speech a little later on in the debate. As I understand the position with regard to the large ship—and here I am once more reduced to falling back on the instruct-

135
tions which have been furnished to me—His Majesty's Government have been trying to reduce the size of the capital ship for a very long time. We are at present engaged in trying to reach agreement with the leading naval Powers of the world for a substantial reduction not only in the size of the capital ship; that is to say, in the tonnage of the ship; but also in the calibre of the guns which are mounted on that ship, and, further, on the whole aggregate naval tonnage permissible to any one Power. Our view has long been that in the interests alike of peace and economy considerable reductions in the size of capital ships are advisable. As long ago as July last His Majesty's Government made drastic proposals for reductions in the size and the tonnage of capital ships and cruisers, and also in the size of the guns which those ships were to mount. Your Lordships will appreciate that the size of the ship depends to a large extent upon the sort of guns which it is expected to carry. You must have a certain size of ship in order to mount a gun of a certain calibre, and therefore, to some extent, you determine the size of your ship by determining whether you will have a 16-inch or a 12-inch or an 8-inch or a 6-inch gun.
We have in the London Naval Conference succeeded in reaching substantial reductions in the size of capital ships in agreement with the United States and Japan. So far we have been unable to secure the adhesion of the two other principal naval Powers, France and Italy, to that Convention, but we are still trying to do it and we are still sanguine that that may be possible. At the end of July the General Commission of the Conference adopted a resolution inviting the Powers, parties to the Naval Treaties of Washington and London, which have already produced important results, to confer together and to report to the General Commission, if possible before the resumption of its work, as to further measures of naval reduction which might be feasible as a part of the general programme of disarmament. During the past few weeks conversations have been actively pursued with the other leading naval Powers in fulfilment of this resolution. Owing to the complexity of the subject and the necessity of taking into account the varying opinions of the countries concerned, these conversations
136
have not reached the point when anything definite can be said about them. I can only assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will do, and are doing, everything in their power to help forward a solution in the way of a reduction of the size of warships as a most important step towards disarmament and towards reduction of expenditure. I would like to add to that, that it has not been through any lack of willingness on the part of His Majesty's Government that a greater measure of reduction has not been reached than has so far proved possible, and if it should turn out that we are able to secure the agreement of other Powers to a further substantial reduction, that will be an object which we have long sought to attain and which will be very welcome to the Government.
Then there came the question of air armament, with regard to which my noble friend expressed some disappointment. The noble Viscount said that the major suggestions which he regarded as alternative to the others were so framed as, in the language of the grammarians, not to expect the answer "Yes." I think it is true to say that this problem of aerial warfare is one of the most difficult and delicate which the nations have to consider. There is a point of view—it is not one which his Majesty's Government take, but it is one which has to be considered—which to some extent was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, when he pointed out that perhaps the best means of securing immunity from war was to make it very certain that those who were responsible for taking the decision to make war were going to incur very considerable risks themselves, and that the capital cities of the world would be in imminent danger of the most dreadful happenings if war broke out. Of course if that argument were right the logical deduction would be that we ought not to attempt to limit aerial warfare, that we ought not to attempt to prohibit the use of any form of bomb, because the more horrible and the more dangerous and more deadly it was the more effective its possibility would be as a deterrent.
I quite see that that argument is a forcible one, but for myself I do not accept it. For myself I think that the horrors, or the possible horrors, of war from the air are so overwhelming that they would threaten the very existence

137
of civilisation if they were allowed to break out unchecked, and I should myself like to see a limitation put upon the use of the air weapon. I should like to see, if it were possible, an effective arrangement made which could protect all nations from the horrors of bombardment. As I understand the White Paper which was issued, and which contains a statement of my right honourable friend, he points out, in dealing with the question of air armaments, that it is a matter of vital urgency
"to preserve the civilian population from the fearful horrors of bombardment from the air."
He goes on to say that the Government of this country
"have already stated that they would be prepared to go to any length, in agreement with other Powers, to achieve this object."
He then proceeds to deal with the proposal that all bombing machines should be abolished. He points out that that has been urged from several quarters, but that it really is not effective because
"machines not actually designed for bombing may nevertheless be adapted and used for that purpose."
The noble Marquess pointed out a little while ago that if there were no military machines civilian machines could be used for bombing purposes. Therefore it would seem that it would not be enough to prohibit bombing from the air. There would have to be some effective international control of civil aviation. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, strongly urged that that should be discussed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I can appreciate very much, and sympathise with the desirability of doing that, but I think any one who has tried to apply his mind carefully to it will see that the difficulties of achieving international control of civil aviation are at any rate very great. If we do nothing until we achieve that international control, it may very well be that for years to come nothing would be done in the direction of aerial disarmament, and I am sure the noble Viscount would deplore that at least as much as I should deplore it. Therefore what we have said in this White Paper is that we are
"anxious to co-operate with the other chief Air Powers in a further examination into
138
the practicability of so extensive a scheme"—
that is, of international control of civil aviation, if we can find a practicable scheme to which assent can be gained.
It is true that we have done a great deal more probably than any other nation in air disarmament. But. supposing we cannot agree, or supposing it takes a very long time—which is not improbable —to reach such an agreement, are we to do nothing meanwhile? The Government answer to that question is: "No, we are not prepared to stand still and wait and do nothing unless we achieve the best possible ideal." Accordingly there comes as our suggestion for a practical and immediate measure of disarmament:
"(1) the immediate reduction of the Air Forces of the leading Powers to the level of those of the United Kingdom;(2) a cut of 33⅓ per cent. all round on the Air Forces of the world thus reduced, United Kingdom included "—
so it can hardly be said that we are not inflicting anything on ourselves and are only proposing limitation for other people—
"(3) a limitation of the unladen weight of military aircraft to the lowest figure upon which general agreement can be obtained."
We suggest that, having started with that, we should go on progressively to apply further and further reductions as time goes on.
It is said that this proposal is unlikely to receive general approval because we are only the fifth Air Power in the world, and that therefore others will have to make greater sacrifices. If this argument be pressed then it is an argument against any approach to unilateral disarmament. We have gone a long way in unilateral disarmament, and I think it is not reasonable or fair to say that because we have voluntarily sacrificed the position we held at the end of the War of being the strongest Air Power, and have reduced ourselves to fifth place, therefore we should now content ourselves and remain in the fifth place and be content to make an equal sacrifice with other stronger Powers. Your Lordships will appreciate that as long as war remains a possibility and as long as the use of aircraft is not forbidden, there is a necessary minimum below which no one can go, and the lower we have got the more difficult it is for us to make further reductions. Therefore, in the view of the

139
Government it is a reasonable proposal to make that everybody should come down to the level we have reached, when, after all, they will not be relatively weaker to us than they were at the end of the War, and from that level at once cut off not less than one-third and then progressively make further cuts as time goes on. I venture to suggest that these proposals are a real contribution. At any rate, they ate proposals which we desire to press.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the question of the reintroduction of conscription in Germany. If I may say so, I recognise the force of what he said—that, however you attempt to limit it, it is to some extent a measure of rearmament. But what is the alternative? We are conceding to Germany equality of status. We have therefore to do ono of two things—either allow her conscription or get conscription abolished in the rest of the world. We would prefer to get conscription abolished in the rest of the world; but if we are going to wait until we have got conscription abolished all through the world before we concede Germany equality of status, if this is to be a condition precedent to Germany taking further part in the Disarmament Conference, which is our immediate objective, surely it means practically giving up hope of having the Disarmament Conforence resumed within any measurable space of time. Although we in this country have never in time of peace adopted a system of conscription, there are a great many nations which look on it very differently from ourselves, and although we have constantly and consistently ever since the War pressed upon other nations the desirability of getting rid of conscription, that view is one which has never commended itself to a great many Powers which have at least as much experience in military matters as we can claim.
Therefore we are faced with this dilemma: Either refuse Germany equality of status, in which case we know beforehand she will not come back to the Disarmament Conference, or else allow her some form of conscription so as to put her on an equality in that regard with her neighbours on her frontiers on both sides. All we could do was to suggest that the terms on which conscription should be permitted should be such as to
140
prevent as far as possible any rearmament or any increase in the military strength of Germany. That we have attempted to do in the passage on page 7 of the White Paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, called attention.
Then I was asked—and I think this is almost the last question—whether I could make any statement on the subject of whether or not Germany was likely to come back to the Disarmament Conference. Since that question was addressed to me, I have not only communicated with the Foreign Office but I have also put myself into communication with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs himself, so that I might be able to give your Lordships' House such information as is in our possession so far as it goes. I am afraid the only answer that I am able to give is that during the last weeks—indeed, ever since the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs went back to Geneva—he has been working very hard there in order to promote a basis upon which the return of Germany might be secured. As a result there is some reason to hope that informal conversations may take place within a few days in which Germany will take part with ourselves and with France, Italy and the United States. Whether or not those conversations will be successful in finding a basis on which the participation of Germany will be resumed we cannot foresee.
Those who object to private consultations may again say that this is not public diplomacy; but at any rate there is no other way. Germany will not come back first and discuss afterwards the terms on which she is willing to come, and we do not believe that disarmament can be effectively and satisfactorily brought about by a conference at which Germany is not represented. In these circumstances all we can do is to take any means open to us to try to find a common basis on which the discussions can be resumed, and the efforts of my right honourable friend have been devoted mainly to that end during the last few weeks and in the discussions he has been able to undertake while at Geneva. I cannot go further than that, but I hope that what I have said will indicate that the importance of this topic is at least as present to the minds of His Majesty's Government as it is, I know, to the minds of many of your Lordships. I can only

141
hope that in what we are doing there we are acting with the support and approval of all Parties in the State in this country. I have taken rather more time than I had intended, but the matter is one of great importance and has to be dealt with with some delicacy. I have tried to give to my noble and learned friend as full as answer as was possible in the circumstances. I am afraid there are no Papers I could usefully offer to lay before the House, but I hope that after the discussion we have had and after the noble Viscount has had an opportunity of snaking any comments he may wish to offer, he may see his way to withdraw his Motion.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my first duty is to thank my noble friend for the very courteous and full statement he has made. I quite recognise the immense difficulties of making any statement and I can understand how limited he must be in anything he says. I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw my Motion in accordance with his suggestion, and I only want to say a very few words by way of reply. I am grateful for the explanations of the reasons of the Government which have been given in answer to my questions. I am afraid I am not quite convinced about tanks. I quite see that if you are going to make air attack it is far better to have tanks, but the question is whether you could not go a long way to avoid preparing for making attacks in peace time, as a means of dissipating the anxiety and unrest among the nations. As I understand my noble friend his case is what I believe he and I might call confession and avoidance. He admits that here is an aggressive weapon, but he says that on the whole you must have an aggressive weapon if you are to have modern war. But the whole point is whether you could not by getting rid of tanks altogether make the defence so strong that war, for some weeks at any rate after declaration, would be practically an impossibility. That is the case and I do not think my noble friend has quite met that aspect of it.
In regard to ships we have not been told very much, but I am grateful for what the noble Viscount did tell us. I understand the Government have not closed the door to the possibility of going as far as 10,000 tons—that that is not excluded
142
as a possibility. With regard to the air I want to correct a slight misapprehension into which say noble friend fell. I did not suggest that it was right we should remain in the fifth place; the point is really whether the only solution is not abolition. I do not think this proposal of reduction is any solution. It does not deal with civil aviation and it is not more easy to have reduction than abolition; in some respects indeed it is more difficult because it raises the question of ratio between countries.
The great fundamental difficulty when you have to deal with any question of disarmament is to induce any nation to accept a definite position in relation to any other nation. It induces some of my noble friends of the Opposition to demand the abolition of all armaments—which would be a fine thing, but impracticable. I therefore ask for partial application of the principle of total disarmament by the abolition of certain armaments altogether. It is not that I disagree with the policy of the Government, which is, I understand, that they are in favour of total abolition; but I regret the kind of fatalistic point of view which the White Paper seems to assume—we cannot carry this out and therefore we have to do something else! I believe it is as easy to carry out total abolition as partial abolition and 1 want the Government to go into the Conference with that point of view rather than that of expecting defeat.
I have only one word to say about publicity. My noble friend produced the argument which I have heard so often that it is much better to have a private discussion, because then countries are not committed and can therefore go back on what they have said. With the greatest respect that really is not so. If you arc talking really privately without any one present, without any officials there, then it is true that you can say anything you like and withdraw it the next minute, but if you have four or five Powers there and all their officials, and the knowledge that in point of fact the substance of what you are saying in that semi-private conversation is going to be communicated, probably in perverted form, to the Press of the different countries, it is as difficult to withdraw as if you had made a statement in public; and as long as there is this thin veil of

143
privacy countries are not afraid to be unreasonable.
When I say "countries" I agree I ought to say Governments—that Governments are not afraid to be unreasonable. They can always deny formally that they said a thing or pledged themselves to it and so can take up any unreasonable position. And in fact they do. When they get into that semi-private consultation they are far more unreasonable. When they have to get up with the whole public watching they are extremely careful what they say and do not commit themselves to wholly unreasonable positions. They have the judgment of the world before them all the time they are speaking. It is for those reasons—not for any pedantical, meticulous love of openness as against secrecy, but for the difference in the practical working of the two systems—that I have come to believe that the more delicate the negotiation the more essential it is that it should be in public. I am sorry to have repeated myself, but I do feel very strongly about this, and that it is on the acceptance of this doctrine that very likely the success or failure of the Conference may depend. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE, EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the

Articles enumerated in Schedule E of the Ottawa Agreement with Canada.

Values of Imports from the U.K. into Canada. Dollars.

Butter produced from the cocoa bean

9,774

Florist stock

26,192

Potatoes

—

Amyl alcohol or refined fusel oil

—

Comic periodicals for juveniles

886,319

Books, printed, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, n.o.p.

Printed advertising matter issued by railway systems

Not available.

Plain basic photographic paper, baryta coated

467

Roofing and shingles of saturated felt

Not available.

Chemical compounds composed of two or more acids or salts soluble in water, adapted for dyeing or tanning

76,836

Aniline and coal tar dyes, soluble in water, in bulk or packages of not less than one pound weight

Not available

Bacteriological products or serum for subcutaneous injection

3,339

Blood albumen

—

Sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia

51,374

Oxide of cobalt

9,594*

Bichloride of tin and tin crystals

73,102

Sulphate of copper (blue vitriol)

36,813

Sulphate of iron (copperas)

643

Cream of tartar in crystals and tartaric acid crystals

131,507

Phosphorus and compounds thereof, n.o.p.

—

Oxalic acid

—

* Oxide of tin or of copper is included with oxide of cobalt.

other day I ventured to move that certain members of your Lordships' House should be chosen for the Standing Orders Committee. At the last moment Lord De La Warr said he could not serve. The Standing Orders Committee must consist of forty members, and therefore another noble Lord must be placed on the Committee as a member. Lord Leven and Melville is willing to serve and I therefore venture to move that his name be added to the Committee.
Moved, That the Earl of Leven and Melville be added to the Standing Orders Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EXPORTS TO CANADA.
  EXPORTS TO CANADA.
  NORTH DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
  NORTH DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
  COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
  COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
  LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1932.
  LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1932.