Sitting of 17 November 1937

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Guy Rowson, esquire, late Member for the Farnworth Division, County of Lancaster, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PALESTINE

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications have passed during the past two years between the British Government and the French Government with reference to future policy in Palestine; whether the French Government were at any stage consulted; and whether the French Government consulted the British Government when preparing its partition plan for Syria and the ending of the French mandate?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): There has been no question of consultation between His Majesty's Government and the French Government with regard to the future of either Palestine or Syria, both of which are questions for which the mandatories are responsible not to any other country but to the League of Nations. As a matter of courtesy, however, the French Government and His Majesty's Government keep in informal touch with each other on these subjects.
    Mr. Mander: Is it proposed to continue this practice in the future with regard to Palestine and Syria?
    Viscount Cranborne: Certainly we shall continue the practice.

    ITALIAN BROADCASTS.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the reports received in connection with Italian propaganda in Palestine?
    Viscount Cranborne: As I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) on 3rd November, full reports on this subject have been received hy His Majesty's Government and are now under consideration. I do not consider that I can usefully add anything for the present to that statement.

    UNEMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Arab villages in Palestine have had to absorb a large number of workers previously employed in pits and quarries which have been taken over by Jewish labour; will alternative employment be found for these workers whose labour has suddenly become redundant; what are the latest unemployment totals among Arab workers and among Jewish workers in Palestine; and how many immigrants have been admitted to Palestine since 1st January, 1937?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am aware that, as a result of the Arab strike last year, there has been a tendency for Jewish employers to replace Arab by Jewish labour, but I have no specific information about the position in pits and quarries. The Palestine Government have the unemployment situation under consideration, and funds will be allocated for relief works if the situation is found to require it. The latest figures in my possession show that there were approximately 11,500 Arabs unemployed at the end of March, and 4,500 Jews unemployed at the end of September. There were 10,270 immigrants of all ages, of whom 8,932 were Jews, admitted to Palestine in the first 10 months of the present year.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not obvious that the economic situation in Palestine cannot be solved until the people of Palestine get an opportunity of controlling their own

    369
    destiny; and will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to apply the Mandate and provide them with the opportunity of having a Legislative Assembly?

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of sending to Palestine, at an early date, the further commission contemplated; and whether he will make it clear that the British Government will not be deterred or delayed in taking this action by violence or threat of violence?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This matter is engaging my attention, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards violence and threats of violence has already been clearly defined and I see no need for any further statement.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be careful not to take any action which will place the future control of British policy in the hands of terrorists?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the conditions that the Government will require to be fulfilled before they dispatch this commission to Palestine?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would rather not answer that as a supplementary question. It must depend on the general conditions.

    POLICE.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British or Jewish officers or constables were with the police in defence of the Lydda airport or of the police post between Hebron and Beersheba when the incidents took place?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: So far as I am aware, none.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information as to whether, in addition to Arab police, there were any Jewish police?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will make inquiries.

    MURDERS.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has anything to say concerning the murder of the five Jews in Palestine and the action taken in connection therewith?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On 9th November, four Jewish workmen and one supernumerary constable were shot dead when proceeding to the quarries near Kubeibeh, where they were employed. An hour later, eight armed Arabs were detected near the scene and engaged. Subsequently 17 Arabs wen; arrested in connection with this incident.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand from that reply that some of the armed Arabs that were seen were arrested; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I rather think that they are included in the 17.
    Colonel Wedgwood: I thought the answer meant that 17 other Arabs were arrested.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that that is so, but I will make inquiries.

  UNITED STATES PASSPORTS (BRITISH VISAS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of visas issued at the British Passport Control Office, New York, for the six months ended to the last convenient date, and comparable figures for the corresponding period of 1936?
  Viscount Cranborne: The number of visas granted at the British Passport Control Office, New York, for the six months ending 31st August, 1937, was 33,659, as compared with a total of 28,660 granted at the same post for the corresponding period of 1936.
  Mr. Day: Can the Noble Lord give any reason for this increase?
  Viscount Cranborne: Probably it is due partly to the Coronation.

  ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Dr. Leechasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is

  371
  aware that the railways built in Argentina with British savings take annually more than 1,000,000 tons of British coal and much railway equipment; that it is essential in the interests of our coal and heavy engineering export trades to defend savings lent to foreign countries which develop such exports; and will he represent to the Argentine Government that the injury done to the Anglo-Argentine railways by unremunerative railway rates, exchange taxation, and labour restrictions have created ill-feeling between the two countries and prevent the railways raising British capital by which to extend the Argentine pastoral and grain industries and mutual Anglo-Argentine trade?
  Viscount Cranborne: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of the matters to which my hon. Friend draws attention. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) on 9th November.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Moreingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the nature of the present administration in the Peking and Tientsin area since the occupation of the Japanese army; how this administration is composed; and whether there is any evidence as to how it is accepted by the Chinese populace?
  Viscount Cranborne: Towards the end of September the formation of a joint Peking-Tientsin Peace Preservation Association was announced. This Association, assisted by a number of Japanese advisers, has as its chairman a former Chinese Prime Minister, Mr. Kao Ling-wei. The positions of responsibility appear to be held by Chinese who are prepared to work with the Japanese authorities and who are considered by the latter to have the confidence of the local populace. The administration appears to have been accepted quietly.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does the Noble Lord really think that the Chinese nation accept these camouflages?
  Viscount Cranborne: I have given the facts, and if the right hon. Member wants
  372
  any further information, perhaps he will put down a question.
  Mr. Benn: But does the Noble Lord accept the Japanese view that this so-called peace preservation committee is accepted with good will by the Chinese?
  Viscount Cranborne: I have already said that it appears to have been accepted quietly.
  Mr. Watkins: Does not the Noble Lord think that it is a little incongruous that a peace preservation body should have Japanese as advisers?
  Mr. Moreingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Concession in Tientsin is able to carry on trade without interruption and is otherwise free from interference?
  Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend has received no reports to indicate that any obstacles have been placed in the way of trade by merchants in the British Concession at Tientsin, and he is not aware that the Concession is otherwise subject to any interference.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the findings contained in the Resolution of the Brussels Conference, His Majesty's Government will recommend to the Governments concerned the desirability of withholding all further supplies of arms and munitions of war from Japan while continuing to supply China?
  Viscount Cranborne: The position at the moment is that the parties to the Declaration issued by the Brussels Conference on 15th November are considering what is to be their common attitude in view of the position taken up by the Japanese Government in regard to the interpretation of her obligations under the Washington Treaty and the Kellogg Pact. Pending the reassembly of the Brussels Conference it is impossible to estimate the chances of securing agreement on any joint line of action.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the Government bear in mind that if China is to be helped positive action will have to be taken in addition to passing resolutions?
  Mr. Benn: Does the Noble Lord recognise any obligation upon His Majesty's Government under the resolution which they fathered at Geneva?
  Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Can the Noble Lord say whether there are in contemplation any measures of collective pressure against the aggressor in the Far East?
  Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In the view of the Government is the Declaration of Brussels in any way inconsistent with the condemnation of Japanese aggression made at Geneva?
  Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Royal Calpe Hunt is to resume its hunting activities in Spanish territory adjacent to Gibraltar by permission of General Franco; whether he authorised the application made to General Franco for such permission; and whether he proposes to take action to prevent any British subjects entering Spanish territory in present circumstances for the purpose of hunting?
  Viscount Cranborne: I understand that no information has been received from the Governor of Gibraltar on this subject, but inquiries will be made as to the position. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise, and I fear that I cannot answer the third part until I am in possession of the facts.
  Mr. Henderson: In that case is the statement which appears in the "Times" incorrect?
  Viscount Cranborne: I have already said that I am asking for the facts. I must say that I do not see much wrong in people going to hunt.
  Mr. W. Astor: Does not the Noble Lord think that it is preferable to encourage hunting in Spain rather than shooting?
  Mr. Henderson: Is it necessary for any British subject entering Spain to have a visa?
  Viscount Cranborne: That is a question of detail about which I should like to have notice.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Does the Noble Lord think that it is appropriate that this hunt should take place under obligations to a
  374
  general who is responsible for so much bombing and killing?
  Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state who the British agents will be in the territory occupied by General Franco?
  Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement at an early date.
  Mr. Thurtle: Is the Noble Lord aware that already cables have been received in Spain stating who this representative is, and why are the Foreign Office not able to give information on a matter which is known to the Press?
  Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member appears to accept without reserve any statement which he reads in the Press, but it is advisable not to do that. We will make an announcement at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from the answer that Sir Robert II has not been appointed?
  Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member must not understand anything more than is stated in the answer.
  Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Can the Noble Lord say when an announcement of the appointment will be made?
  Viscount Cranborne: At the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Thorne: Why are you not prepared to tell the truth?
  Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what part of the Mediterranean is now being patrolled by Italian naval forces under the Nyon agreement?
  Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member will appreciate that the information for which he asks is of a technical character. I regret that His Majesty's Government do not feel it possible to give details of zones allotted to one signatory unless and until a joint decision to publish the entire arrangement has been reached.
  Mr. Thurtle: Would the Noble Lord say whether agreement cannot be reached to publish the whole of the arrangements in order that we may see where the Italian and other vessels are operating?
  Viscount Cranborne: I will certainly bring the suggestion of the hon. Member to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mander: Does the Noble Lord not know that the full details of the exact zone have been published in the Press; cannot we therefore have official information?
  Viscount Cranborne: I have noticed that certain descriptions have been published in the Italian Press, but I am not aware that there has been any agreement reached between the signatories as regards publication?
  Colonel Wedgwood: Who is responsible for the sinking—
  Mr. Speaker: That is a separate question.

  BOLIVIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS' ARREST).
  Sir Robert Taskerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that two British subjects, Mr. Webster and Mr. Ashton, have been imprisoned in Bolivia since January last; that they were acquitted; that the acquittal has been quashed and they are now to be tried by a military tribunal; and what steps are being taken to protect these British subjects?
  Viscount Cranborne: Yes, Sir. The matter has been receiving the closest attention of His Majesty's Government, and every effort has been made by His Majesty's representative at La Paz to protect their interests and to secure their release on bail pending a final settlement of their case. I would point out that the statement in the question that Mr. Webster and Mr. Ashton have been acquitted is not correct. They have in fact not been tried. The position is that the case was submitted to an examining magistrate who recommended that through lack of evidence the case should not be proceeded with. This recommendation was not accepted by the prosecution, who have now obtained a decision from the Superior Court to the effect that Mr. Webster and Mr. Ashton are triable by a military tribunal. His Majesty's representative at La Paz is in close consultation with the lawyer of the accused as to further action on behalf of the accused.
  Sir R. Tasker: Will the Noble Lord give some assurance that protection shall be afforded to these men, who have been found innocent, and will he make further inquiries to find out whether a magistrate or the civil high court tried these men?
  Viscount Cranborne: My information is that it was a magistrate and that they have not yet been acquitted. I can assure the hon. Member that we will do everything that we can in the matter.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is it not a fact that Bolivia is a dictatorship country at the present time?
  Mr. Crossley: Can the Noble Lord say how long these two Englishmen have been under arrest?
  Viscount Cranborne: I could not say without notice, but it is some time.

  RUSSIA

    SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the latest assurance given to His Majesty's Government by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics undertaking to refrain from carrying on revolutionary and subversive propaganda in this country and, in particular, the terms of the undertaking that the Comintern should observe the same pact?
    Viscount Cranborne: The Soviet Government's most recent assurance to His Majesty's Government regarding subversive propaganda is contained in the notes exchanged between the two Governments on 20th and 21st December, 1929. With regard to the second part of the question, the Soviet Government, as my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, have invariably denied that this undertaking covers the activities of the Communist International, for which they repudiate all responsibility. His Majesty's Government, for their part, have made it clear that they cannot accept this contention.
    Captain Ramsay: Will my Noble Friend consult with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to ascertaining how this pact has been kept?
    Viscount Cranborne: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has been under constant examination.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Noble Lord also apply the same principle to the activities of certain lords in this country?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I am a member of the Communist International, and does he consider that it is desirable that he should take any steps to suppress my subversive activities in view of the fact that the Chancellor very generously provides me with the necessary cash for carrying on those activities?

    SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the text books for teaching English issued this year to Government schools in Russia, which suggest that women and 10-year-old children work in English coal mines, that hundreds of English miners are killed every month, that poisonous gas is used to keep order in India, and that English Colonies are struggling for independence; and whether he will ask the Soviet Government to correct these misrepresentations?
    Mr. Neil Maclean: On a point of Order. Before this question is answered might I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to that part of it in which the hon. Member speaks of English Colonies struggling for independence. Is not this language a breach of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England by which the terms "Britain" and "British" were to be used in regard to all matters, not merely in this House of Commons but also in diplomatic correspondence?
    Mr. Mathers rose—
    Mr. Speaker: If the question of the hon. Member is in the same terms, I cannot answer it.
    Mr. Maclean: Surely when the Clerks at the Table check up errors in questions that: are submitted to them, the same principle could be applied to this matter? As a Scottish Member I enter my protest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—evidently the Welsh Members protest also—against Colonies being claimed by England, and I trust that you will advise the hon. Member to pay strict attention to the last three words of his question, and that he should correct this misrepresentation.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Does not the responsibility for these three words lie with the Government of Russia?
    Mr. James Griffiths: Who are the English?
    Captain Ramsay: May I call attention to the fact that this is a timely diversion by the Chairman of the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee to detract the attention of the House from this question?
    Mr. Maclean: How is it that those Members who are so anxious about Russia do not put down more questions about it, but take their opportunity on questions which do not relate to Russia at all?
    Mr. Speaker: If there are errors in the wording of the question as it appears on the Paper I take full responsibility for them, but if hon. Members regard this matter as one of importance I will see another time that the term "British" is used.
    Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend is aware of the statements in the text books to which my hon. Friend refers. Such fantastic allegations are clearly not calculated to promote cordial relations between this country and the Soviet Union, and my right hon. Friend has under consideration the question whether it will be desirable to make representations in the matter.
    Captain Ramsay: Has not this kind of misrepresentation an exact counterpart in the glorification of Russia that is carried on by our friends opposite?
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the assurances which the Noble Lord has just given to the questioner, may I ask whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to draw the attention of other Governments to similar misrepresentations?
    Viscount Cranborne: Whenever His Majesty's Government consider that a statement warrants representations, they make them, to whatever Government it may be.

  ROYAL NAVY

    CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME.
    Miss Wardasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what further naval orders are to be placed this year?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): In addition to two cruisers and one submarine, whose construction will be commenced in His Majesty's Dockyards in December, 1937, it is anticipated that the following ships will be ordered from private firms by the end of the present financial year:

    4 Cruisers.

    8 Destroyers.

    3 Submarines.

    2 Escort Vessels.

    3 Patrol Vessels.

    1 Destroyer Depot Ship.

    10 Motor Torpedo Boats.

    6 Boom Defence Vessels.

    Viscountess Astor: Is not private enterprise doing more than the national Dockyards, and is that quite right?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: How many of these ships will be built in the Royal Dockyards?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I should want notice of that question, unless it relates to the cruisers under construction.

    PERSONNEL (HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE).
    Mr. Dayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the figures of the number of men serving at Hong Kong and Singapore for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The numbers of naval and civilian personnel stationed at Hong Kong and Singapore at the last convenient date were approximately:

    Hong Kong

    …

    …

    5,250

    Singapore

    …

    …

    3,000

    Mr. Day: How long do these men work in the dockyards before they obtain their holidays?

  NYASALAND (TEA PRODUCTION).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken in Nyasaland to extend the acreage of tea growing and tea production; whether any restrictions are imposed on native or European production by the provisions of any tea restriction scheme; whether governmental policy favours such restriction; and whether he will consider experiments in communal native production under Government supervision?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Government of Nyasaland, together with the Governments of the other East African tea-producing dependencies, undertook in 1934, with the approval of His Majesty's Government and the full concurrence of local growers, to co-operate in the International Tea Regulation Scheme by limiting new plantings of tea during the currency of the scheme to an agreed acreage. The scheme has been very successful in maintaining prices at an even and economic level, and thus ensuring regular employment. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, tea planting does not lend itself to communal native production, and in any case, for climatic and physiographical reasons, the possible area of successful tea growing in Nyasaland is strictly limited.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion that some Government experiment might be made with native production, particularly in view of the fact that the restriction comes up for reconsideration in the early part of next year and that quite useful work might be done in Nyasaland?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I very much doubt whether it is desirable or feasible, and I do not think it would solve or help to solve the problem of employment in Nyasaland.

  KENYA

    LAND POLICY.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the petition from Njomo Sjo Kihika, for and on behalf of Mbari Ya Ngaru, respecting native evictions from land in favour of a Mrs. Druirs, at Rui-Rwaka River, on the north-east of Limuru station, Kianbu district, in Kenya; whether he can state the grounds for alienating this land from these Africans; what compensatory land has been offered; and what administrative purpose this process serves?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received a copy of the petition to which the hon. Member refers, and the original will, it is stated, be forwarded through the Governor, whose report I must await before considering the petition. As regards the

    381
    policy generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 10th of this month. The administrative purpose served is to secure a final settlement of land in Kenya.
    Mr. Riley: Are the evictions actually taking place, or are they in suspension?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot say.

    EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the reconstitution of the executive council in Kenya, what steps have been taken to secure on the council someone with knowledge of native matters and acquainted with the life and sympathetic with the majority of the inhabitants of the country; and what principles will in future govern the selection and service of persons appointed to the executive.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The reconstitution of the Executive Council of Kenya has not yet been carried into effect. Among the official members will be the Chief Native Commissioner. With regard to the unofficial members, it is the intention that the Governor shall be free to recommend such individuals as he considers best fitted to advise him on all matters affecting Kenya as a whole, and one of the un-officials will normally be an individual who, in the opinion of the Governor, is suitably qualified to represent matters from the aspect of the native population. I think that it would be inadvisable to attempt to restrict the Governor's freedom of choice by any formal limitation in the instruments constituting the Council.
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I take it that there will be no colour bar in connection with the selection?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, there will be no legal colour bar.

  CYPRUS.
  Mr. Hopkinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are under contemplation for improving the agricultural position in Cyprus?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to detail the many activities of the Department of Agriculture in Cyprus,
  382
  but I might say that two problems being most actively investigated are peasant indebtedness and improved water supplies.

  BAHAMAS.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will have a copy of the report presented to him by the Acting Governor of the Bahamas on the recent disturbances there placed in the Library for the information of Members?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The report which I have received, and have now under consideration, is very voluminous and not in a form suitable to be placed in the Library of the House. I will, however, consider how best I can meet the hon. Member's suggestion in some form.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    EMPIRE AIR MAIL SCHEME (CYPRUS).
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will arrange that at least one out of the intended nine flights per week of Imperial Airways, Limited, to Egypt shall call at Cyprus, in order to improve both Imperial trade and communications with the colony, since both are at present not only neglected but prejudiced by its being on the non-European telegraph rate?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I regret that in present circumstances it is impracticable to arrange for any aircraft operating the main trunk services of the Empire Air Mail Scheme to call at Cyprus. So far as the flying boat services are concerned, there is no suitable base there. As regards the landplane services, the route has been organised to operate via Malta and Egypt, and the duplication of the organisation that the diversion of a service via Cyprus would entail would not be justified.

    NAVIGATION (RADIO ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the net work of wireless control for civil air-lines in this country will be completed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: With the exception of two areas, in the extreme South-West of England and in the North-East

    383
    of Scotland respectively, the whole country is already provided on an areas basis with a network of radio stations capable of giving radio navigational assistance to aircraft. A station is about to be opened at Inverness, and negotiations for one in the South-West of England are about to be started. Meanwhile, aircraft operating in these two localities are provided with radio navigational aid from stations in adjoining areas. Active steps are being taken to improve the efficiency of this network, and additional short-range radio facilities will be provided as and when the needs of the traffic require them. As regards air traffic control organisation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 3rd November to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson).
    Mr. Pilkington: Is the Liverpool airport included in the existing network?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Liverpool is catered for. Every airport has navigational aid, either in itself or from adjoining stations.

    AIR STATION, WEST RAYNHAM, NORFOLK.
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total cost of erecting the aerodrome at Raynham, Norfolk; and when it is expected that the work will be completed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The total estimated cost of constructing the station at West Raynham, which is expected to be completed early in 1939, is approximately £540,000.
    Mr. Lyons: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any, and, if so, what, Empire air services are likely to operate from this airport when it is finished?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will put that question down.

    TRANSATLANTIC SERVICES.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the programme of Transatlantic air services for 1938?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: In view of the successful series of experimental flights which have recently been carried out it is proposed to continue further experimental work as soon as winter conditions are over at Botwood and new
    384
    aircraft are available. It is anticipated that two landplanes (Albatross type) will be ready by the spring or early summer and three new flying boats (improved Empire type) by the summer for carrying out a further series of experimental flights. In addition it is hoped that the upper component, the Mercury, of the Mayo composite aircraft will be ready to cross to Botwood as soon as that airport is sufficiently clear of ice to accommodate the Mercury, which is a floatplane.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is there any probability of the new large flying boat which is being constructed by Messrs. Short, being run experimentally across the Atlantic next year?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: We hope that the new flying boat which has been earmarked for the North Atlantic traffic route will be ready by 1938.

    FAST ALL-METAL MACHINES.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet made provision for an adequate supply of all-metal medium-sized airliners of British manufacture; and when such aircraft are expected to be available?
    Captain Pluggeasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the recent delays in new commercial machines for British air-lines as a result of the concentration of aeroplane factories upon rearmament work; and whether in view of the necessity of maintaining the prestige of the British commercial air services, he proposes to take any steps to assist them in this respect?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The rearmament programme has necessarily absorbed a large proportion of the industry's capacity. The Air Ministry has, however, been investigating the possibility of assisting the development and production of fast all-metal air transport machines of suitable sizes and types which will maintain the prestige of British aircraft construction and operation. No decision has yet been reached on the type or types of aircraft concerned, but the question is receiving urgent consideration.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that this has been under urgent consideration by the Air Ministry, over two years now, and, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government gave the most

    385
    specific assurances that rearmament would not interfere with the development of civil aircraft, cannot my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that a very early decision will be arrived at?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: This matter, which is closely touching the interests of civil aviation, is one that is constantly under consideration. I can only say, however, that, in connection with recent developments, we have had very close consultation with the air-lines with the object of getting out a specification.
    Mr. De la Bère: Are these consultations going on in perpetuity?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to place the scale of pensions for retired officers of the equipment and accountant branches of the Royal Air Force upon a scale comparable to that appertaining to the equivalent branches of the other two Services?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of the retired pay of these branches is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give sympathetic consideration to these retired officers?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They are being sympathetically considered.

    SERGEANT-PILOTS (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what pension is awarded to the wife (with no children) of a sergeant-pilot killed on flying duty?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The childless widow of a sergeant-pilot killed on flying duty is eligible for pension at the following rates:

    (a) if she is not over 40 years of age and

    (i) is able to earn her own living:—13s. 6d. a week;

    (ii) is unable by reason of mental or bodily infirmity to earn her own living:—20s. 6d. a week;

    (b) if she is over 40 years of age:—20s. 6d. a week;

    (c) on attaining 60 years of age:—23s. a week.

    Mr. Garro Jones: If it should be necessary to undertake an intensified recruiting campaign for sergeant-pilots, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take care that the publicity makes it clear that the State will give a sergeant-pilot's wife the generous pension of 13s. 6d. a week if he happens to be killed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The rates that widows get when their husbands are killed on flying duty are accessible to the public.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is satisfactory that the wife of a sergeant-pilot, if she is under 40, gets 13s. 6d. a week if he is killed on flying duty?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a question to put to the Minister; it is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I, then, ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he proposes to take any measures to put that pension on a more equitable basis?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No such proposals are under consideration, but I may-say that the scales in this case are on a comparable basis with those of the Army and Navy in similar circumstances.

  TRANSPORT

    STREET LIGHTING.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Transport whether he can yet state what steps he proposes to take on the recommendations contained in the final report of the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): My right hon. Friend has already brought the recommendations of the report to the notice of all local authorities concerned by means of a circular letter, dated 2nd November, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. Lyons: What steps are being taken by the local authorities to establish road lighting in main thoroughfares leading to the various towns?
    Captain Hudson: I can only say that I hope that, after study of the circular and of the report, they will put the recommendations into effect.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend any powers in this matter, other than to bring the suggestions in the report to the notice of the local authorities?
    Captain Hudson: We have certain powers with regard to trunk roads, but otherwise we have to rely on our powers of persuasion.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will indicate where and to what extent any illumination of trunk roads has been undertaken or arranged for, respectively, under the provisions of Section 6 (4) of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936?
    Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement on this important subject.
    Mr. Lyons: In view of the important contribution of street lighting to road safety and of the report of the committee which has been considering the matter, why should there be any delay in the Minister telling the House what trunk roads have already been illuminated under the powers he now has, and what he proposes to do?
    Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend has been considering this important report, and he hopes, in a very few days, to be able to give an answer.
    Mr. Lyons: Cannot my hon. and gallant Friend now say what trunk roads have been illuminated? It is not a question of study?
    Captain Hudson: Not without notice.

    VICTORIA GATE, HYDE PARK.
    Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the continuing congestion of traffic at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park; will he inform the House of the reasons as to why the necessary improvements, which have been agreed to by all the bodies concerned for many months past, have not yet been commenced; who is responsible for the delay; and when is it proposed that a start will be made?
    Captain Hudson: The responsibility for this improvement rests with the London County Council, who have not yet approved it. They inform me that it was not possible to put forward this scheme in advance of other more urgent schemes
    388
    which have fully occupied the local authorities for the last few months. It will, however, be brought before the appropriate committee of the council at an early date.
    Sir W. Davison: This has been before the Ministry of Transport in this House for years now, and will not the Office of Works or somebody not make an announcement?
    Captain Hudson: This is a matter for the appropriate local authority, which is the London County Council. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been endeavouring to expedite this matter, and I hope that they may make a start at an early date.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is my hon. and gallant Friend not aware that the London County Council is a very slow and reactionary body?

    RAILWAYS (DAMAGE TO GOODS).
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Transport whether he will cause an in quiry to be made into the causes and extent of the losses by breakage and damage incurred by parcels and goods conveyed by railway, in order to deter mine one of the factors contributing to the high cost of distribution of retail goods?
    Captain Hudson: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.
    Mr. Liddall: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to the House why he comes to that conclusion?
    Captain Hudson: This is primarily a matter between the individual trader and the individual railway company.
    Mr. Liddall: Well, that would have been a better reply.

    HIGHWAY LAW CONSOLIDATION (COMMITTEE).
    Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to set up a committee to revise, co-ordinate, and consolidate the law relating to highways and roads; and, if so, whether he can give the terms of reference and the membership of the committee?
    Captain Hudson: In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of

    389
    Health we propose to set up a committee to consider the consolidation of Highway Law, but the exact terms of reference and constitution of the committee are not yet settled.
    Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say, at least, when that committee will be set up?
    Captain Hudson: Very shortly, I hope.

    TRUNK ROAD SCHEMES (COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES).
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Transport whether he has formulated any policy with regard to the construction of trunk roads across commons, especially in or in the neighbourhood of populous urban areas; and if he will avoid any interference with common lands in any works of trunk-road construction or improvement he may undertake?
    Captain Hudson: It is always our endeavour to avoid interference with commons and open spaces, but the hon. Member will realise that in certain places a much needed improvement of a road ma)' be impossible without some encroachment. The hon. Member may like to know that it is not possible compulsorily to acquire land forming part of a common or open space except by means of an Order requiring confirmation by Parliament, unless equivalent land is given in exchange. The Ministry of Agriculture must be consulted, and, if necessary, a public inquiry held.
    Mr. Ede: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in exercising his powers, bear in mind that to construct a road across a common destroys the value of the common for all purposes of exercise?

    WORKING HOURS.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make as to the inquiries into staggering working hours; and whether he proposes to call a conference of traffic authorities and employers to consider the matter?
    Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend has not yet fully completed the rather lengthy preliminary investigations which are necessary before he will be in a position to make any statement, but much has already been done.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the Minister whether, if his right hon. Friend contemplates appointing a committee of inquiry into this matter, he will at the same time consider the question of safeguarding holidays as well as hours?
    Captain Hudson: Inquiries are being held in order to see what sort of a conference will be most helpful. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, we want to go into this matter thoroughly and see if something can be done.
    Major Sir George Davies: Is it not the fact that to many people the very idea of work is staggering?
    Mr. Crowder: Is it not the fact that some of these employes do not agree to the staggering of hours and that it will make it very inconvenient for the employé as well as the employer?

    RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House as to the working of the recently passed Ribbon Development Act; in how many cases and for what distances, and in what circumstances, has the local highway authority granted permission for buildings to be erected with frontage to a classified road; and whether he is satisfied that the power given to highway authorities to authorise exceptions to the provisions of the Act has been properly administered?
    Captain Hudson: The Act itself applied restrictions to 43,000 miles of road. Highway authorities have by resolution and with the Minister's approval extended its application to a further 21,000 miles. Highway authorities are not required under the Act to furnish the data upon which to compile the statistics asked for in the question, which would in any case be an undertaking of considerable magnitude. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that, in general, highway authorities are not relaxing the restrictions to the detriment of the roads affected, but he is carefully watching the position. Before deciding to give assistance from the Road Fund towards the cost of any scheme of road improvement or new construction, we require an assurance from the highway authority concerned that they will exercise their powers to safeguard the road in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Act.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of these classified arterial roads in the neighbourhood of London and other towns are fast becoming built-up streets; and does he always ask for the assurance to which he has referred from the authorities before a classified road is either made or widened?
    Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir. My answer is quite correct, but my hon. Friend, if he goes into the matter, will find that the building that is going on, or has been going on lately, is in respect of contracts entered into before the Bill became law, and therefore we have no power to stop it.

    MOTOR TRAFFIC, CENTRAL LONDON.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration plans for closing Central London to certain categories of private cars or for imposing an additional tax upon car owners who use their cars in Central London?
    Captain Hudson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in some of the principal streets of London you can walk along them more quickly than you can pass along them in a motor omnibus, and ought not something to be done in order to correct that state of affairs?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: If there is no intention of restricting the use of Central London for private cars, can something be done to improve garage facilities in Central London, as private car owners at present find the utmost difficulty in obtaining garage accommodation at night?
    Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend is applying his mind to the question of parking accommodation, if possible, off the highway.

    SPEED LIMIT (NORTH RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Transport in how many villages in the North Riding of Yorkshire there is a speed limit in operation?
    Captain Hudson: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Turton: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the absence of a speed limit in many of the villages in the North
    392
    Riding of Yorkshire is causing great danger to inhabitants, and especially to children?
    Captain Hudson: The question of the imposition of a speed limit has, in the first instance, to be decided by the local authority and not by the Minister. I do not think that we have refused a large number in my hon. Friend's area.

    FOOD STORAGE (RAILWAYS).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Transport whether, as regards the negotiations that are proceeding with the chiefs of the four main line railway companies for the purposes of the utilisation of their systems throughout the country for food storage for emergency purposes only, the Government propose to extend still further the facilities of the railway companies for borrowing through the Railway Finance Corporation, Limited, or some similar concern, money at the rate of 2½ per cent., guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Treasury?
    Captain Hudson: No, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, although the railways have satisfied their hunger, agriculture still requires loans at 2½ per cent.?

    MOTOR OMNIBUS SERVICES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience and discontent caused to the public by the limited number of persons allowed to stand in motor omnibuses in wet weather, especially in sparsely populated districts and elsewhere during rush hours; and will he consider modifying the present regulations in order to allow greater elasticity under special conditions?
    Captain Hudson: In general it would not make for the safety or convenience of the travelling public to increase the permissible number of standing passengers.
    Mr. Day: Cannot this be considered in regard to the rural areas?
    Captain Hudson: It is a question of road safety.

    FACILITIES, WEST BROMPTON-CITY.
    Mr. MacLarenasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there is no through service of trains to the City from West Brompton station; and

    393
    whether he will take steps to secure an improvement in this service and /or an improvement in the omnibus service?
    Captain Hudson: I am in communication with the London Passenger Transport Board and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy in relation to expenditure by local authorities in making preparations for proceeding with the projected Forth road-bridge?
    Captain Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 3rd November. I may add that it may be understood that if and when the scheme is started and a grant is made any preliminary expenditure necessarily incurred will rank for grant.
    Mr. Mathers: Can the Minister say what is covered by his description "preliminary work"? Does it include, for example, actual physical preparation of the site for a bridge?
    Captain Hudson: I would ask the hon. Member to put that question down, JO that we can tell him exactly what is covered by the term.
    Mr. Mathers: The statement is made that the preliminary work will rank for grant, and surely, I am entitled, to ask the Minister of Transport what will rank for grant in the way of preliminary work?
    Captain Hudson: I can give the hon. Member a general idea, but I want to give the hon. Member a detailed description of exactly what is meant by the term "preliminary expenditure."
    Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that preliminary work will be done before it is actually decided that the scheme shall be entered into?
    Captain Hudson: I do not think that I can add anything to my answer.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the same conditions apply to the Tay Bridge?
    Captain Hudson: This question deals with the Forth Bridge only.

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, CREWE.
    Mr. R. Gibson(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make regarding the collision between two express trains from Scotland early yesterday morning near Crewe?
    Captain Hudson: I understand from the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company that at 4.20 a.m. yesterday the 8.30 p.m. train from Perth to London collided at Crewe with the rear of the 10.30 p.m. train from Glasgow to London. There was a dense fcg at the time. I regret to state that 13 passengers, a guard, a sleeping car attendant and a fireman were injured. The only serious injury was to the guard. My right hon. Friend has appointed one of his inspecting officers to hold an inquiry.
    Mr. Gibson: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer, and I am sure we are all glad to know that there was little serious injury. We know the excellent record of our railways for safe travelling. I am sure the Ministry could have no better motto than this: "To make our roads as safe as our railways."
    Captain Hudson.

  DEFENCE

    ORDERS, SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the value of the orders placed in South Wales and Monmouthshire by the Defence Department in 1935, 1936, and fcr the current year to the most recent date?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I regret that it is not possible to give the value of orders placed by the Defence Departments in particular areas without an undue amount of labour.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is it possible to obtain that information?
    Sir T. Inskip: It would be possible, as a result of a great deal of labour in going through the whole of the contracts and singling out the localities in which they were placed.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has all the information?
    Sir T. Inskip: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not the information catalogued under names of towns.
    Mr. Radford: Is it not a fact that no figures that the Minister could give would be of any value, because sub-contracts may be placed in Wales from other areas?

    FACTORIES, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the number and cost of agency factories, and additions to existing plant of private manufacturers financed by the Government, under the Defence programme in South Wales?
    Sir T. Inskip: Three factories, of the type to which I understand the hon. Member to refer, financed by the Government, have been or are in the process of being established in South Wales at a cost of £525,000. It is regretted that figures for additions to existing plant of private manufacturers in particular areas cannot be given without an undue amount of labour.

    OIL FROM COAL.
    Mr. Edwardsasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is aware that particulars of a process for the extraction of oil from coal at an economic cost have been offered to the Falmouth Committee, and that they have so far refused to give the sponsors of this process an opportunity to present their case; and will he, in the national interest, take steps to ensure that no reasonable system is refused a hearing before this committee?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have no reason to suppose that the Falmouth Committee have not received all the information which they require as to processes for the production of oil from coal. It is not desirable that I should attempt to direct the committee as to the way in which they should conduct their inquiry.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister not aware that this scheme involves a saving to the State of between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 a year, and does he not think that such a scheme as this should be explored or exploded, or both?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have already stated that I have no reason to believe that the committee have not all the information they require as to this and any other processes.
    Mr. Edwards: Does not my question convey that there is some evidence which the committee have not got, and will the Minister make further investigations and be quite certain that the committee do get all the information?
    Sir T. Inskip: It is not possible for me to investigate the details of all these processes and then try to form an opinion on them.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take my word for it that there is some very important information which this committee has definitely refused to hear, and will he, therefore, make inquiries into my statement?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am quite prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that, in his opinion, he has some very important information in his possession. If he will send it to the committee, no doubt it will add to their information.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at an early opportunity.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

    BRECONSHIRE AND RADNORSHIRE.
    Mr. I. Guestasked the Minister of Transport the number of villages in Breconshire and Radnorshire to which a supply of electricity has been extended?
    Captain Hudson: I understand that in these two counties supplies are available in six out of the eight urban centres and in 15 parishes, and that further developments are projected.

    POWER STATION, BATTERSEA.
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is proposed to instal further boilers and generating plant at the Battersea power station; and whether he is satisfied that this extension will not be injurious to health or atmospheric conditions in West London?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself

    397
    that there is no objection to this extension on grounds of danger to public health or of atmospheric pollution.
    Sir W. Davison: Are any changes being made in the washing of the fumes coming from Battersea station in connection with the further extension of work?
    Mr. Bernays: Stringent conditions have been attached. I have here a document which shows what has been done, and I shall be glad to send a copy to my hon. Friend.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    WIRELESS FACILITIES.
    Mr. Manderasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a loudspeaker in one of the Committee rooms of the House in order that Members may have the opportunity of listening to news and other political items broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether he will make inquiries through the usual channels on the subject?
    Captain Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member's suggestion has been carefully considered on more than one occasion, but it did not find favour in any section of the House. There would, I am afraid, be considerable difficulty in giving effect to this suggestion, and my right hon. Friend would only be willing to go into the matter further if he were satisfied that facilities are really desired.
    Mr. Mander: May I ask whether it is thought that any alternative to the proceedings of the House would be too attractive to hon. Members?

    WOODWORK (TREATMENT).
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider treating the woodwork of the Chamber of the House of Commons in the same way as the Members' Dining Room.
    Captain Dugdale: The question of changing the appearance of the woodwork of the Chamber was submitted by one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors to the Royal Fine Art Commission some years ago. The Commission, after full consideration, were unable to recommend that this should be done.
    Sir P. Harris: Would it not make the Chamber much lighter and brighter if the woodwork were cleaned and varnished, and the ceiling woodwork polished?
    Captain Dugdale: I will convey the remarks of the hon. Baronet to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Turton: Surely, we do not want the system of treating in the Dining Room extended?
    Viscountess Astor: Or in the bar either.

  OFFICE OF WORKS BUILDING, MANCHESTER.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can make a statement on the correspondence he has-received from the chairman of the Manchester Royal Infirmary; and will he be prepared to meet the board of management of the infirmary to discuss with them the proposed new site of the buildings for the Office of Works?
  Captain Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is at present in communication with the chairman of the Manchester Royal Infirmary, to whom he has made a proposal which he hopes may offer some solution of his difficulties. In these circumstances, he hardly feels that any useful purpose would be served at this moment by a meeting with the board of management.
  Mr. Jagger: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is not only the chairman of the Royal Infirmary but the whole of the citizens of Manchester who have to be satisfied about this matter?
  Mr. Benns: Can the Minister give an undertaking that nothing definite will be done by his Department or the Ministry of Labour until this interview has taken place?
  Captain Dugdale: I will convey what the right hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

  SIGNATURES TO DOCUMENTS (JUDGE'S OBSERVATIONS).
  Mr. E. Smithasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to the observations made by Judge Sir Artemus Jones on 13th August, 1937, during the hearing of a case at the

  399
  Rhyl county court, to the effect that firms sent people skilled in the art of getting others to sign documents in terms which they do not understand; and, in view of the many complaints of this nature, will he appoint a Departmental Committee to investigate and report on this and the allied questions?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has had under his consideration a proposal to appoint a Departmental Committee to examine this question, but as a Bill is about to be introduced by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) he proposes to defer further consideration of the matter until he is acquainted with the proposals of the Bill.

  BREACH OF PROMISE LAW.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that in 1879 the house of Commons passed a resolution in favour of the abolition of the breach-of-promise law, he will now introduce legislation for this purpose?
  The Attorney-General: The House of Commons 58 years ago in a thin House passed a resolution in favour of limiting the action of breach-of-promise in those cases where pecuniary loss was suffered by reason of the breach. I cannot regard this as justifying His Majesty's Government in occupying the time of the House with this subject at this time.
  Mr. Liddall: While thanking the Attorney-General for his most encouraging reply, will he consider the matter favourably when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) does introduce legislation?
  Mr. Bellenger: In giving his reply, did the Attorney-General consider the changed circumstances since 58 years ago, and is he aware that the House now contains a very large number of bachelors?

  ICE CREAM.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider taking steps to license ice-cream manufacturers with a view to ensuring that all ice cream sold in this country should be manufactured from whole English milk or cream?
  Captain Dugdale: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 1st November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver).
  Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Ministei realise the necessity for increased consumption of English milk or, rather, milk in Great Britain?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Leonardasked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners during 1936 failed to present their pension vouchers within the three-month period they are valid and the total loss thus sustained?
  Mr. Bernays: I regret that I am unable to furnish the information for which the hon. Member asks. The totals recorded in the appropriate Pension Account or Vote are the amounts of the pension orders cashed at Post Offices. The amount of uncashed or out of date orders could only be ascertained by maintaining personal records for each of some 2,500,000 old age pensioners, and would involve heavy administrative charges without commensurate advantage.
  Mr. Leonard: In view of the difficulties experienced sometimes by poor pensioners who cannot collect the pension for three months, will the hon. Member consider abolishing this regulation which makes it impossible to collect the pension after three months?
  Mr. Bernays: I cannot do that. The arrangement has been in operation since the pensions were established in 1911, and the Ministry of Health has had very few complaints.
  Mr. Leonard: Although the complaints are few, is not that one reason why the condition should be eliminated?
  Mr. Bernays: No, Sir. It shows that the three months period is a sufficient period of grace.

  WEST HAM (LOANS).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that when the West Ham Board of Guardians was abolished there were debt and loans amounting to £1,630,000, including Goschen loans, and that the West Ham Corporation was called upon to repay principal and interest £630,579 of that amount, costing the ratepayers £41,000

  401
  per annum until 1948, which is more than a 7d. rate; and, seeing that the rates are now 20s. 4d. in the £, whether he will take steps to grant a moratorium for the next three years?
  Mr. Bernays: By the terms of the Local Government Act, 1929, the duties and liabilities of the West Ham Guardians for the area of the West Ham County Borough Council were transferred to the county borough including loans made on the recommendation of the Goschen Committee amounting to £620,579. The Act remitted payment of interest in respect of this loan and other similar loans to other authorities and provided for repayment of the capital sum by 15 annual payments which in the case of West Ham amounts to £41,372 per annum of which seven instalments have been paid. My right hon. Friend has no power to extend the period of repayment or to make further concessions in respect of these loans.
  Mr. Thorne: In consequence of the financial strain will the Minister be prepared to see a deputation from the borough council?
  Mr. Bernays: I shall be glad to convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  PENSIONS.
  Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Pensions, and move a Resolution.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Capital Punishment, and move a Resolution.
  IMPORTATIONS FROM OVERSEAS.
  Mr. Crossley: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Importations from Overseas, and move a Resolution.
  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
  Mr. A. Edwards: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Location of Industry, and move a Resolution.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Cinematograph Films Bill): Mr. Sexton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. MacNeill Weir.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Colonel Gretton Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Robert Aske; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Henry Morris-Jones.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL AVIATION
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Perkins: I beg to move,
"That this House is of the opinion that a public inquiry should be held to review the present situation of British Civil Aviation and make recommendations."
Like the daughter of Herodias, I ask the House to-day to give me the head of the Secretary of State for Air in a charger. I am asking for nothing less than a public inquiry, because I believe nothing less than a public inquiry will compel the Air * Ministry to take some action in the matter. My only regret is that the Secretary of State himself is not a Member of this House so that he could reply to the charges I am going to make. I hope, however, to give him an opportunity to reply to the charges, and in due course there will be another discussion in another place.
At the outset I ought to explain my own position. There have been rumours circulating to the effect that I am financially interested in the aircraft industry. I have no financial interest whatsoever in any branch of the aircraft industry. There is one possible exception, and that is that I am a director of a company which has received an inquiry and, I believe, an order from the Air Ministry to provide hydrogen plants for filling the balloon barrage around London. Beyond that I have no financial interest whatever, and the only reason why I am raising this matter this afternoon is because, like many hon. Members, I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the present position and future prospects of British civil aviation. We know that all is not well. We know that we are behind the Americans and Germans, and we dislike being laughed at by Americans and Germans, and even by the Dutch. Since I have been in rather close contact with a considerable number of professional pilots at Croydon I have heard several tales. When Messrs. Imperial Airways a few years ago tried to run a night service to Berlin they sent over a machine which, I am informed, they bought second-hand from the Royal Air Force, and when it landed at Berlin it was the object of a joke; German pilots actually tied a parrot's cage to its tail. Tales of this kind tend to bring British civil aviation into disrepute. I am trying in my own way to call attention to a serious position, and I am inspired simply and solely by a
418
desire to see British civil aviation leading the world in just the same way as British shipping leads the world now.
There are five matters I want to raise. They have been raised before but we have never had any satisfactory reply. First, there is the question of subsidies which are given to two British air lines—Imperial Airways and British Airways. Both these air lines run services to Paris. In other words, we are faced with the Gilbertian situation of two British air lines both subsidised by the Government competing with each other, cutting each other's throat, on the same route. I know the Minister's reply will be that British Airways are only subsidised to go to Scandinavia, and that they are not specifically subsidised for the London-Paris route. To that my reply is that if there was no subsidy whatever, neither of these air lines would be in existence for more than a year and, therefore, I claim it is true to say that we are subsidising two companies to compete with each other on the same route.
Next I come to the subject raised at question time to-day—the fact that after years of neglect there is no civil air-liner of a size suitable to sell in the Empire or in Europe. British Airways, the chosen instrument of the Government, a short time ago desired to buy more aeroplanes. They searched this country and could not find a suitable aeroplane, and as a result they bought German and American aeroplanes. To-night, when the night mail air service goes from Croydon to reach Berlin in the early hours of tomorrow morning it will be carried by British pilots on a German machine. But that is not only true of this country. It is true of the whole of our Empire. The new airline which is being opened across Canada is to be equipped entirely with American machines. In the early part of this year after I had come back from Canada I went to the Air Ministry and told them what I had heard, that the contract would certainty go to America. I begged, I implored, trie Air Ministry to release the only possible machine which could secure the contract for this country, that is the Blenheim bomber, and I was refused. I notice that since then Blenheim bombers have been supplied to Turkey.
The losing of that contract is an important matter. In the future a traveller

419
wishing to fly round the world will fly by Imperial Airways over the Atlantic and also over the Pacific, and he will fly from Hong Kong home also by Imperial Airways, but when he goes across Canada he will go on a British Air Line which is using American machines. But it is also true of South Africa. South African Airways have recently ordered 22 German machines in order to run services in South Africa, and last, but not least, Australia is beginning to follow suit. Australia has just ordered one machine from America. I am told it is a model, on trial. Unless the Air Ministry wake up to the seriousness of the position we shall lose for all time the whole of the Empire markets for British civil air power.
I come to a question which affects many hon. Members, and that is the position of municipal air ports. For the last eight years the Government have been encouraging the creation of municipal air ports, and a considerable number have been built. These air ports cost the ratepayers a great deal of money, but now the municipalities are finding them nothing more than white elephants. I have a letter written by an organisation called the Municipal Corporations Association, in which they say that the losses on these air ports vary from £2,800 a year to £20,000 a year. Everyone knows that these air ports, generally speaking, are completely stagnant. Meanwhile the officials at the Air Ministry sit back in their chairs with their arms folded, and so far have done practically nothing whatever to help these aerodromes. They have not even set up the licensing authority recommended in the Maybury Report. During the Royal Air Force expansion scheme many new aerodromes were built. In my own area there are three municipal aerodromes, and yet not one of these has been used by the Air Ministry. Instead of that they have built no less than six Royal Air Force aerodromes, and are going to build one large Government store. They have deliberately banged and bolted the door against municipal aerodromes in the west of England, and naturally there is considerable resentment among the ratepayers, who feel that they have been badly let down by the Government.
The fourth point is the question of an aerodrome for London. I claim that
420
nothing has been done and that nothing will be done in the near future for the creation of an adequate air port for London. Everyone knows that the wireless directions given from Croydon are described as second-class; they are liable to great error. In the middle of Croydon Aerodrome there is a terrific dip, so deep that an aeroplane can completely disappear from sight. In the words of the chairman of Imperial Airways, a gentleman who is not very friendly towards me at the moment, "Croydon has inherent drawbacks." I do not believe that whatever money is spent on Croydon Aerodrome it can ever be a first-class air port.
I come to the alternatives. There are Gatwick and Gravesend. Hon. Members may remember a prospectus which appeared in the newspapers on 6th June, 1935, under the name of Airports; Limited. I have read that prospectus, and I find one interesting paragraph which naturally was put right in the middle of the prospectus.
"The Air Ministry have undertaken that "…" they will enter into agreements with the company whereby "…" the Air Ministry will make annual payment to the company during the next 15 years."
The amount, of course, was not disclosed. Later on, under the heading "Sources of Revenue," I find one of the sources mentioned was payment by the British Air Ministry under contract in respect of night flying equipment. The Air Ministry honoured their bond: The Secretary of State went down to open the airport a year later and was backed up by the Royal Air Force. I claim that in fact the Air Ministry encouraged this flotation. I claim that they were responsible for this flotation, and that on the statement which appeared, to the effect that the Air Ministry were prepared to pay a certain amount of money towards it, a considerable amount of money was put up. Many widows put up their mites because the Air Ministry allowed this statement to go forth.
What is the position now? The only air liners operating from there were British Airways, and in six months they had gone because the aerodrome was unsuitable, I am told that this morning the shares are worth about io£d. The widows' mites have all been lost and in order to save the face of the Air Ministry these two aerodromes have ceased to be terminal

421
airports for London and are now being turned into reserve training schools. I wonder whether, when these two contracts were given, there was any competition or whether they were given without competition in order to save the face of the Air Ministry. I cannot help feeling that the Air Ministry are very wise indeed to refuse the inquiry for which I am asking. Croydon is second class and it can never be more than second class. Gatwick and Gravesend are out of the question. Heston at the moment is too small. The London County Council have flatly refused to do anything because they say it is the responsibility of the Air Ministry. Now we are faced with the fact that London, the heart of the world, is left with one adequate aerodrome, and that one is only worthy of a second class Balkan State. Unless something is done and clone quickly passengers from London to Paris will spend more time on the road than they will spend in the air.
Now I come to my last complaint against the Air Ministry as such, and that is connected with the railway clearing houses. I made inquiries on this matter but found it very difficult to get accurate information. I am quite frank with the House, and if I am wrong I hope any hon. Member who is in a position to do so will get up and say that I am wrong, and I shall withdraw what I have said. But as far as I can make out there is the closest possible connection between the following companies: The railway companies, Imperial Airways, Railway Air Sendees, British Airways, British Continental Airways, Hillman Airways, Spartan Airways, Northern and Scottish Airways, Highland Airways, Western Islands Airways, Jersey Airways, Blackpool and West Coast Airways and the Isle of Man Airways. In other words, with a few exceptions practically all the internal and external services are under the same influence or the same control in this country. I shall make one or two observations on that point.
This amalgamation, this great organisation, has in fact closed all the booking facilities to anyone who is outside the ring. I well remember that about six or eight months ago this matter was raised in the House. Hon. Members here were very indignant about it. In particular I am referring to the fact that this octopus was then refusing to allow British Airways, which was a subsidised company
422
and then outside the ring—to allow the railway clearing house and travel agencies to book for them. There was an outcry. I raised the matter again and again in the House and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) took a prominent part in the matter. We blocked all the railway Bills until the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) made a very fine fighting speech and we won the day. The same thing has happened again. North Eastern Airways, the only air line going up to the north east of England and making use of municipal aerodromes on the East Coast, finds itself in exactly the same position. Not only are the railway clearing house and all the main booking offices closed to it, but they in their turn have used the big stick with their sub-agents and it is now practically impossible for anyone to buy a ticket for that air line. I believe that the policy of the railway companies who have got a very substantial holding in this group, is to treat civil aviation in the same way as they treated the canals in the early days. Either they want to break them or buy them out and if they buy them out, the idea is to wring their necks.
As I look ahead I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy for the professional pilots in this country, because it is going to mean in future, and probably means now, that every pilot if he is dismissed from one particular air line in this group automatically is dismissed from the whole lot. I believe the companies can use this weapon to force a general lowering of the status of pilots. There is one other point. This great amalgamation has, and certainly if it has not now will in future have, the power to hold a pistol at the head of the Government and to say to the Government, "Give us a subsidy for air lines in this country or we will shut down the whole of British civil aviation." I am as good a Conservative as any hon. Member behind me, but I cannot help wondering whether nationalisation of our internal air services and our external air services - would not be preferable to the present position, because as far as I know the whole of British aviation is rapidly coming under the control of two financial houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they? "] Hon. Members ask who they are. They are D'Erlangers and Whitehall Securities.

423
I believe that the Air Ministry know that what I have told the House is true. But the Air Ministry are either unwilling or incapable of doing anything. They have sat back with their arms folded. The fundamental trouble is, I believe, that members of the Air Council who rule the roost have a military outlook and drag along civil aviation in the same way as a mother drags along an unwanted child. Until we can get civil aviation away from the militaristic outlook of the Air Ministry and hand it where it ought to be, to the Ministry of Transport, we shall never get fair play for civil aviation in this country.
Let me now refer to a subject that I raised the other night, the position of the organisation known as the Air Line Pilots' Association. I am not going into great detail because I talked on this subject a fortnight ago. The main object of this Association in general is to maintain the status of professional pilots in this country, and as such we are at this moment opposing by every method in our power the present policy of Imperial Airways to cut the salaries of new pilots coming into the service. We are also opposing them on certain abuses which are becoming very common. There was an air liner called the "Hanno" which forced-landed somewhere near Bahrein some time ago. I have good reason for suspecting that the pilot had flown all night and in fact had been employed continuously for 18 hours on end without sleep. I am also informed that this is quite a normal occurrence for pilots east of Cairo. I cannot vouch for that statement because I have not seen the pilot, but I have seen a considerable number of pilots who are prepared at a public inquiry to come forward and give evidence to that effect. We do not want to dictate. All we want is to co-operate in a friendly way.
Let me give one or two instances of what I mean. We want to raise such matters as: the position of landing lights on aeroplanes; a pilot being unable to see the petrol gauges, or perhaps the instruments do not work under icy conditions; or the pilot cannot get his engine revolutions in conditions of snow or ice. These things are not found out by those who are sitting in offices in London. They are found out only by the men who fly
424
aeroplanes under all conditions. We should be told by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford, "Oh, but these matters can be raised now. Any pilot who finds these things can approach the management." Certain pilots approached the management only a short time ago about the equipment for the Budapest service, and they were all promptly dismissed. How can anyone say that direct approach to Imperial Airways is working successfully at the moment? No pilot dare complain because he will be dismissed the next day.
I repeat the charges I made the other night, that in my view and from the evidence put before me there has been a considerable amount of victimisation at Croydon. I find it difficult to believe that out of 200 pilots employed by Imperial Airways it is purely a coincidence that the chairman and the vice-chairman of this organisation should have been suddenly dismissed, although neither of them had ever broken anything and one of them had been employed by the company for some 18 years. There are many grievances. I am prepared at a public inquiry to give 10 to 15 cases where I believe that victimisation has taken place. I shall read one letter to the House. I have the original here and will show it to any one who is interested. A pilot wrote to the organisation:
"Imperial Airways have chosen to withhold my May and June flying pay, subject to my signing a form."
The form was the new contract under which the pilot was to receive a lower scale of pay. They held a big stick over this pilot and said to him "Unless you sign this contract we are going to withhold your May pay and June pay." The Secretary of State has told us that he is satisfied there is no victimisation, but I most respectfully suggest to him that he has heard only one side of the case. He has interviewed only the Government directors; he has not interviewed the men themselves. Therefore I believe that he has prejudged the case. For that reason we are asking this House for a trial by jury. If we cannot get a public inquiry and if a trial by jury is impossible we ask for a judge who is at any rate prepared to hear both sides of the case and not to hear only one side. Why has this inquiry been refused? It is a simple thing. We ask for a public or a private inquiry—we do not mind which. Why has

425
it been refused? I believe the reason is that neither the Air Ministry nor Imperial Airways are prepared to face it. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State, if he sees fit, will either confirm or deny the rumour which is now in circulation to the effect that the staff manager of the whole company, Air Vice-Marshal Sir Tom Webb-Bowen, has suddenly resigned from the company. I am informed that that is the case and that lie has resigned on personal grounds; but I cannot help thinking that it is at least a little suspicious that this gentleman should suddenly have resigned at the very moment when this conflict is at its highest.
Suggestions have appeared in the Press, and have been made to me, that our organisation should join up with another organisation known as the Guild of Air Pilots. The Guild has done good work in the past, but it is now quickly becoming nothing more nor less than a city company. In fact, it is slowly dying, so engrossed in its own fat that it cannot see out of its own eyes. There are people who would welcome amalgamation with the Guild, but from what I know it appears to be impossible, because we have a suspicion—a very good suspicion, I think—that the Guild of Air Pilots is in close connection with Imperial Airways. If we cannot amalgamate with the Guild—and I have very grave doubts whether that will be possible—there is only one alternative left to us, and it is to look around for another and bigger tree, a tree with different leaves, under which we can take shelter. [An HON. MEMBER; "The T.U.C."]
I will now deal with matters connected with British civil aviation in foreign parts. As the House knows, there are two main operating companies, British Airways and Imperial Airways. My relations with British Airways are more than friendly. I am completely satisfied that they are doing everything in their power to uphold the prestige of British civil aviation. They are using up-to-date machines—I know they are American machines, but they have to be because there are no British machines available—they are using up-to-date equipment; they are popular; they are running to full capacity—and at any rate they are trying. But unfortunately, my relations with Imperial Airways at the moment appear to be a little strained.
426
In fact, I have not even been asked to dinner with the managing director.
It has been suggested to me that it is wrong to criticise Imperial Airways. It has been suggested that to do so is unpatriotic, and that by criticising them, one undermines British prestige. Imperial Airways are nothing more nor less than a public utility company. They are heavily subsidised by the taxpayers of this country, they are paying a very large dividend, and they are increasing their directors' fees. Surely Members of this House have not only the right but the public duty to subject this company to the most searching criticism and inquiry in order to see that we get value for our money. I rather resent the attempts that have been made to stifle criticism of Imperial Airways. Those attempts savour very unpleasantly of those totalitarian methods which are now so popular in certain countries in Europe and against which this country has been the main bulwark in the past.
I will give the House a few facts. In the first place, hon. Members know the Government's attitude. The Government wash their hands of Imperial Airways; they say that the company are merely sub-contractors and that the Government cannot take any responsibility for them. The second fact is that the chairman of Imperial Airways, a very able, charming and brilliant business man, is a director of many companies, and Imperial Airways have not a full-time chairman. The third fact is that there are two Government directors on the board. The fourth fact is that the Government hold all the deferred shares. The fifth fact is that there is an increasing subsidy being paid by the Government to the company every year. The sixth fact is that Imperial Airways receive very large mail contracts from the Government.
I wish, first of all, to criticise the company on financial grounds. I would like to pay a tribute to the sporting way in which the Air Ministry have not hidden anything and have given me all the figures for which I have asked. According to the figures which they have supplied to me, in 1936 Imperial Airways received from the Government £377,000, and it is estimated that in 1938, two years later, the figure will have gone up to £800,000, more than double. Out of this increase, the dividend, which last year

427
was 8 per cent., has been increased to 9 per cent., and the directors' fees, which were £6,500, have gone up to £12,000, very nearly double—no doubt due to the cost of living. With regard to pilots' salaries, many officially-inspired statements have appeared in the Press which have given the impression that pilots get round about £1,500 a year. I have made detailed inquiries, and I am prepared to dispute the statements that have been made. I have in my possession particulars of the assessment by the Income Tax authorities of one of the captains now employed by Imperial Airways. Instead of the £1,500 which I expected to see, there is only a miserable £300. I believe that if a public inquiry were made into the salaries that are paid to the pilots, the figures which have been given in the Press would be proved to be greatly exaggerated.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: Has the hon. Member any information as to what salary the pilots of Pan-American Airways get?
Mr. Perkins: I know that my hon. Friend has some figures on that subject, because he has just come back from America. I am sorry, but I have not the faintest idea what the salaries are. Whether or not the pilots of Imperial Airways get the figures which have been published, the facts remains that, according to a statement made by the managing director of that company to the Press, new entrants to the company come in at a lower rate of salary. In other words, I maintain that the salaries have been cut. It seems to me to be an outrageous state of affairs that a public utility company such as Imperial Airways, receiving an increased subsidy out of public funds, should in the same year not only cut the salaries of its pilots but increase its dividend from 8 per cent, to 9 per cent, and more or less double its directors' fees. I know what the excuse will be. Of course it will be that neither the dividends nor the directors' fees are paid out of the subsidy. But if there were no subsidy paid to Imperial Airways, there would be no Imperial Airways, no dividend and no directors' fees. I find it almost impossible to believe that it is possible to keep two different sets of accounts, one of which is dependent upon money that is received by subsidy, and the other based upon what is earned by other methods.
428
Hon. Members will say, "Criticise them as you may, Imperial Airways are the safest air line in the world." I dispute that statement. Hon. Members may remember that when the "City of Khartoum" crashed about two years ago, there was an outcry in this House and very unwillingly, after threats had been made to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the Air Minister finally agreed to publish the report of the inquiry. I have that report here. There are two statements of fact in the summary which stand out and which we must face. The first is to the effect that Imperial Airways had regularly been "cutting things too fine" on the Mediterranean route as far as petrol was concerned. The other fact which came out in the report was that if the ground organisation had been up to scratch, some lives could have been saved. That is food for thought.
I have made a few inquiries as to the number of accidents, and the deaths which have resulted from those accidents, during the last four or five years. I find that if one compares the figures for this year and last year with the figures for the two previous years, there has been an increase of 50 per cent, in the number of deaths. In 1934–35, 12 people lost then-lives, whereas in 1936–37 the figure had risen to 19. It is only by the greatest luck that that number was not very much higher, because although there were seven major accidents involving loss of life during the last two years, from information which I have received it appears that nine other major accidents occurred, and that only by amazing luck were no lives lost, since in some cases the accidents resulted in the complete destruction of the aeroplane.
Mr. Radford: Can the hon. Member inform the House how the accidents compare with the mileage flown?
Mr. Perkins: I was about to do that. I will show to the best of my ability the mileage flown by the German Lufthansa company and by Imperial Airways, and compare the accidents. According to figures which have been given me, this year the Lufthansa company will fly about 7,000,000 miles. It is estimated that Imperial Airways will fly between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 miles, which is definitely less than the mileage estimated

429
for Lufthansa. So far, this year, Lufthansa have killed one passenger, whereas Imperial Airways have killed 11 passengers. I have no doubt that in the course of the Debate we shall hear the statement that Imperial Airways still carry more passengers over the Channel than all the other air lines put together. That statement has been a hardy annual for many years, but I have made inquiries into the matter, thanks to the help of the Air Ministry, and I have obtained some interesting figures. In 1933, Imperial Airways carried the bulk of the passengers in and out of Croydon. In 1935, the number of passengers had dropped to 50 per cent.; and in 1936, to 42 per cent. For 1937, no figures are yet available, but if the drop continues—and I have the strongest reason for imagining that it will continue—it means that this year Imperial Airways will probably carry about 34 per cent, or less of the passengers. In four years it has dropped from the bulk of the passengers to about 34 per cent.
The reason is that the general public is beginning to find out the truth about Imperial Airways. There are four main services in Europe which are ran by this company. I claimed the other night that those services are the laughing stock of the world, and I have been criticised for making that statement. I will repeat it, and try to prove it. It has been said that as far as Imperial Airways are concerned, the European traffic is trivial, and that what they are after is the Empire traffic. That is true, but if one looks at the number of passengers carried on the Empire services and compares it with the number of passengers carried in Europe, one finds that six times as many passengers are carried by the European services as by the Empire services.
What are these four European services? First, there is the Budapest service. That has been suspended and the pilots who used to fly that service have been dismissed. It is said, of course, that Imperial Airways had no intention whatever of running that service during the winter. Unfortunately, the winter time tables have been published. The second service which Imperial Airways run is the London-Paris-Basle-Zurich service. That has also been suspended for the winter. Why? We are told, of course, that it is not a commercial proposition. I refuse to believe that no one goes from this country to Switzerland in the winter. At
430
least I find it very difficult to accept such a proposition. In fact, I made a few inquiries yesterday myself at the main travel agents in London. I rather unscrupulously suggested that I might be flying out to Switzerland somewhere about Christmas time, and I was told that the service now run by Swiss Air is becoming increasingly popular, and that it is necessary to book on this line a considerable time ahead. They even went so far as to say that an extra service to St. Moritz had been suggested.
If it pays Swiss Air to run a service and if they are considering putting on an extra service, why should it not pay Imperial Airways? The reason, and everyone knows it, is that their machines which they have been using on this service are not comparable with the machines used by Swiss Air, nor is their equipment comparable with that of their rivals. I will give the House one little illustration. One day in the course of this summer—it was, I believe, the day before Canon Streeter was killed in Switzerland—three Imperial Airways machines left Croydon for Basle. Owing to the weather at Basle they were compelled to land at Le Bourget in France. The service was stopped and all the passengers got out and they were all taken on to Switzerland by Swiss Air because Swiss Air had proper equipment whereas Imperial Airways had not.
Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Was Canon Streeter killed in an Imperial Airways machine or in a foreign machine?
Mr. Perkins: As far as I remember he was killed in a Swiss machine or it may have been in a private machine. I am not certain. But as far as the two services which I have mentioned are concerned, both have been suspended for this winter. I now come to the third service which is the London-Brussels-Cologne service. This runs all through the winter but when we compare the time taken by Imperial Airways between London and Brussels and the time of their rivals, we find that Imperial Airways take 50 per cent, longer than their rivals. The fourth service, one which many hon. Members use, is the London-Paris service but here again if we compare the time taken by Imperial Airways with the time taken by British Airways their British competitors, we find that Imperial Airways take 50 per cent. longer.

431
In other words, out of the four European services run by the chosen instrument of the Government two have been suspended for the winter and the other two are 50 per cent, slower than the rival services. Again I say that Imperial Airways are not showing the flag in Europe. Even the Conservative Central Office, who have sent to many hon. Members a very interesting document called "Ten Glorious Days in Hungary" recommend hon. Members in that pamphlet to fly by the Royal Dutch Air Line. I have tried to prove and I hope I have succeeded in proving that Imperial Airways services in Europe are the laughing-stock of the world and I personally believe that they have done untold harm to British prestige.
I now come to the question of the machines. I am glad to see that the remarks which I made the other night are now being admitted both by the chairman and the managing director of the company. They admit that the machines are getting old and they put the blame on the Air Ministry. Probably that is correct but it does not alter the fact that when I am sitting in some distant aerodrome in Europe in the summer and a kind of Heath Robinson machine descends from the skies and everyone begins to laugh, I feel thoroughly ashamed of British civil aviation. I would make one observation for the future on this matter. According to the chairman's speech the new Ensign air liners were ordered in September, 1934, in other words about 31 years ago. If they were ordered 31 years ago they must have been designed at least three months earlier. Therefore, they were designed 3¼ years ago. But as far as I can make out the bulk of these air liners are not likely to be delivered for at least another six months and the last of them probably not for another year. It is a serious thought that when the last of these air liners finally takes the air on its maiden flight it will probably be from 4¼ years to 5 years old.
There is another question which I have raised before, and that is the question of equipment, and particularly blind landing equipment. This is a very serious matter. I know that there are people who think that if the ill-fated air liner which met with disaster last night had had some form of blind landing equipment, and if Brussels aerodrome had had some form
432
of blind landing equipment, that accident might not have taken place. I have already alleged and I repeat the allegation that for the last two years Imperial Airways have been running their service to Budapest with machines that have not been properly equipped, because they have not had blind landing apparatus. The first excuse for this—given by the managing director in an interview with the Press—was that it was no good fitting machines with this apparatus if the ground organisation was not there. But unfortunately for him as I pointed out in a letter to the "Times," of the seven aerodromes used on that route, six were equipped in this way and only one was not so equipped, that being Brussels. When it came to the annual general meeting of the company the excuse was changed. We were told then that it would have been absurd to have equipped machines with this system, because Croydon had only been equipped with it this year. But Heston has been equipped with it for more than two years and if an aeroplane coming from the Continent had been equipped with this device even if Croydon had not been so equipped, that aeroplane could at any time have gone on to Heston and made use of the equipment there. I claim, and I challenge any hon. Member to deny it, that the equipment provided for the pilots flying that line is definitely inferior to that provided by this company's rivals.
Lastly, there is the question of deicing. This also is a very serious matter. The House may remember that in the early part of this year the flying boat "Capricornus" crashed near Macon in an area which is known among French pilots as "the graveyard of French aviation." At the inquiry the pilot, who was not there to defend himself, was blamed. I had my suspicions of that crash because I was flying in that area at the time and I asked the then Under-Secretary of State for Air in this House on 14th April what weather report was given to the pilot. This is his answer:
"The weather forecast supplied to the pilot before he left England indicated that- conditions favourable for ice formation might be met up to 5,000 feet between Macon and Marseilles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1937; col. 996, Vol. 322.]
Into this great wall of ice-forming conditions went the "Capricornus" with no kind of de-icer whatever on board. In due course the accident happened and the

433
pilot was blamed. I know that various reasons have been put forward but I firmly believe—though doubtless it will be hotly denied by the Air Ministry—that ice had some connection with that accident. There are four main de-icers. There is the German device which is fitted on some of their Junker machines and is I believe fairly satisfactory. There is the Dunlop de-icer invented by a Government servant, Mr. Lockspeicer, who is employed by the Air Ministry. I imagine, though I am not certain, that it was evolved at Government expense and in Government time. He, apparently, has sold this patent to the Dunlop Rubber Company, who have spent a good deal of money on it and it is still described as being in the experimental stage. The third type is the Goodrich de-icer. I wish to be perfectly fair and I know that the Goodrich de-icer is not ioo per cent, perfect, but it is fitted to British Airways machines, to Royal Dutch Air Line machines and to the Swiss Air machines. It is even fitted to the ten German machines which regularly fly over the Alps, summer and winter, and, according to an answer given in this House on 21st April last, its use is, in effect, compulsory in America. I have here a report which was published by two German scientists and which must be regarded as of some value because the Air Ministry translated it and it was published in the middle of this year. It is by Mr. Noth and Mr. Polte, and I quote their exact words:
"The only practical protection hitherto devised, however, is the Goodrich de-icer."
For some reason which I do not understand, this de-icer has been more or less barred from Imperial Airways machines. We know that Imperial Airways have a close connection with the Dunlop Rubber Company and we know that the Dunlop Rubber Company is a rival of the Goodrich Rubber Company. We know that a great deal of money has been spent on experimenting with the Dunlop de-icer and we know that it is still in the experimental stage. We know that the Goodrich de-icer appears to have been barred by Imperial Airways. I believe it is utterly wrong that, because of rivalry between these two rubber companies, the Goodrich de-icer even though it is as I say, far from perfect, should have been barred from Imperial Airways machines during the last few years.
434
However, the situation now looks better because a new device has been evolved known as "Killfrost." It is announced in the Press that Imperial Airways propose to supply this to all their machines in future. I welcome the announcement and I shall watch the experiment with great interest. I sincerely hope that it will be a success but I have the gravest doubts because, as every pilot knows, heavy rain or hail will remove most things from an aeroplane. It will remove fabric and it will remove paint, and one cannot help suspecting that if an aeroplane which has this substance smeared over it, passes through an heavy hail shower the tendency will be for the substance to be knocked off. But, as I say, I sincerely hope the problem has been solved, and in order to give this new "Killfrost "a fair trial I do not propose to ask questions about it in this House for at least another six months.
I conclude on the same lines as those on which I started. I appeal for an inquiry, public or private, into the grievances of pilots now employed by certain British air lines, and I appeal to this House for a general public inquiry into the present position of British civil aviation. We are not leading the world. We are now running only a very bad third, and I believe that nothing short of a public inquiry will shake the Air Ministry into a sense of their responsibilities, and into a realisation of the seriousness of the present position.
4.44 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I beg to second the Motion.
Seldom in my life have I heard a more terrific or more sustained onslaught than that which has just been delivered by my hon. Friend the Mover. Indeed, I think his speech must rank as the first aviation Philippic. It struck home in a very telling manner. I think my hon. Friend has the greatest courage, because hitherto it has always been rather looked upon that to criticise the great Imperial Airways was to do, so to speak, something against the Government. They have always had a mysterious connection with the State, and I think that anybody who has the courage to criticise them deserves credit, because they are indeed a powerful organisation. They have very powerful directors. They have two Government directors and vast subsidies, and they have

435
got upon their Board Esmond Harms-worth, who is a man belonging to a family which has shown great vision with regard to aviation, and I welcome him there. On the other hand, the directors have seen that the "Daily Mail" is muzzled by his presence there, and by the jam between the "Daily Mail" and the "Express" the "Express" is also loth to criticise. All the other great papers support the Government, and Imperial Airways are always supposed to be the Government, so that very little criticism ever gets out. Then they have a very marvellous publicity department, and their advertisements speak very well of them.
Anybody who takes on this great organisation puts on, so to speak, the mantle of St. George attacking the flying dragon, the great modern pterodactyl. Frankly, I am not afraid of them, but I think that we must not overstate the case, because there is no doubt that they have done good work. I would not like to let the House run away with the idea that they are a nefarious organisation, because that is not so, and one must remember that they have to run on English machines, and that that has been a very grave difficulty in view of the rearmament position. I think we must congratulate them also on that great gamble when they ordered so many seaplanes from Short's. It was a great gamble, but due to the genius of Short Bros, and of Mr. Gouge, they have obtained some very remarkable machines. Then they have been penalised by the non-delivery of other machines, and I think my hon. Friend's point was a good one, that those machines must be out of date when they are delivered, in that they must have been designed over three years ago.
Imperial Airways are, so to speak, the chosen instrument of this country. We have decided in this House that there shall be no competition on the great Imperial line. Aviation is not strong enough to stand a parallel competition from the point of view of being able to pay, but there should be competition, just as there is competition between great power companies. They do not supply the same great areas, but on the questions of cost, organisation and efficiency there is the keenest competition, so that I think other companies should be allowed to compete on different routes—different, that is, from
436
Imperial Airways routes—throughout the world, because what is happening to-day is that there are many routes where companies would gladly operate, but which are reserved for Imperial Airways, because one day it is anticipated that they will supply the need there.
This great Imperial job is difficult. It is pioneer work, but it is inconceivable that the country would ever allow it to fail, that Imperial Airways should ever actually go bankrupt, and consequently it is in effect a statutory company. But 9 per cent, is too much for a statutory company. The point has already been made by my hon. Friend, but I say it again for this reason, that if it is the desire of this country that British aircraft or Imperial Airways should encircle the globe with a service, much more money will be wanted for that purpose, and it will be very difficult for any Minister or Under-Secretary to come to this House and ask for millions of money for a company which pays 9 per cent. I think they are building up difficulties for themselves. We started Imperial Airways by amalgamating several companies that were flying, first of all, to the Continent, with a desire that they would, so to speak, blaze the trail across the earth to the extremes of the Empire, and I think it would be wiser if we had left transcontinental journeys to other companies, but Imperial Airways, quite rightly from the point of view of earning money, saw that here was money to be picked up.
There was one company in this country which ought to have seen a little farther than it did, and that was the Southern Railway Company. It ought to have been the great transporting company, aerially, abroad, but it did not see the great plum that should have fallen into its lap. The railways thought that they must not lag behind in a new method of transportation as they did in the past about omnibuses, and they formed an amalgamation between themselves, in which the Southern Railway joined, linking themselves up with Imperial Airways, and before they had woken up they found they were deprived of running outside England! English routes are not going to be very profitable, but Railway Air Services exists to-day with all the strong backing of the railway companies, and, as I have said, it has come to a jam with Imperial Airways.

437
The position to-day is far from satisfactory.
This question of not being allowed booking facilities still exists, and I want to bring to the notice of the House the question of North Eastern Airways, a recognised company which has been admitted to membership of the International Air Traffic Association as conforming in all respects to the international code, and members of the International Association, in fact recognised as on a par with Imperial Airways, British Airways, and other national air lines. I know nothing about it. I do not know any of the directors, except Lord Grimthorpe, and I only know him because he has always been a rival of mine, in riding the Cresta. This company appointed a firm in Perth, called Central Garages, to sell their tickets. They started very well, because they were well situated and conducted their business well and with people who might well use air services. All went well, and then North Eastern Airways received this letter:
"We regret to have to inform you that we liave been informed by Messrs. W. Alexander and Sons, of Falkirk (a firm that runs motor coach tours) that, owing to an agreement which they have with the railway companies, we cannot be allowed to continue as agents for them as well as to be agents for you. They have asked us either to relinquish the agencies with the airways companies or relinquish our agency with them. Seeing that for the moment Messrs. Alexander's agency is more worth while for us, it would appear that we shall have to relinquish the agency you were good enough to give us."
Consequently they have to give up selling tickets for North Eastern Airways. It would not be so bad if this was just competition, but it is not, because there is no air service operating on the East Coast of England, and consequently it is pure restraint of trade. It cannot do any good to anybody at all, and when the Government permit this sort of thing, soon pilots will be refused licences because they do not fly on approved routes. The Government have encouraged local authorities to build aerodromes, but how could they justify them putting down these aerodromes when at the same time they allow this kind of thing to go on? I think that sort of difficulty calls for an inquiry. If that sort of thing is going to be allowed, it is obvious that the state of civil aviation, anyhow in this country, is far from happy. We also have to remember that the Maybury Committee's recommenda-
438
tion has been with us now for a long time. They themselves suggested that there should be a licensing authority set up to co-ordinate and organise internal air lines, but if the Government do not hurry up, there will be no internal air lines at all except those run by the railway companies, and I think that will be a great pity.
I want now to pass from attacks on one company or another to more general grounds. I am not talking about one line or another line, but about civil aviation in general, and speaking, I must say, as an old friend of aviation, I cannot help frankly saying that commercial aviation is far too dangerous. Nowadays accidents are often not reported, even grave accidents, because they have no longer news value. Fatalities happen in America which are not now mentioned in the papers, and we are getting to the position in which we have arrived at in regard to the roads, where 6,000 people are killed without anybody really worrying about it at all. The same thing is happening in the air. I saw the other day that some enthusiast had stated that you could travel 2,000,000 miles in an aeroplane before you were due for death. That sounds a long way, but I notice that a transport official of the London Passenger Transport Board replied that if that was their average, they would produce hundreds of corpses a week.
Air transport is nowhere near the state in which it should be. It is not for me to advocate now what I am sure is the right thing, and that is the divorcement of civil aviation from the Air Ministry. I have always been enthusiastic about it, but I appreciate that at present such a separation would be difficult. However, it has got to come. When the whole thing started and we went through the growing pains of aviation, it might have been a good thing to have linked these two things up, but we have grown up a good deal since then, and it is high time that we reviewed the position. I think it should be investigated by an inquiry. Suppose we ran London's transport by the War Office to-day, what sort of machines should we have? A form of bus tank. You cannot expect the Air Ministry to look at civil aviation from any other point of view than what is really their own job, and that is war, and until you divorce it from the control of civil aviation and get

439
the other considerations taken into account, you will never get along the right lines.
I think this question of research is all important, because it has been neglected for the military side. Look at what happened in America with civil aircraft lines competing one against another. They introduced variable pitch propellers, flaps and retractable under carriages, thus transforming civil aviation and adding another 100 miles an hour to its speed. These inventions and developments were practically forbidden by the Air Ministry on any English air line.
We want civil aircraft to be encouraged in every way. The Diesel engine is used on every other form of transport except on the one on which it should be compulsory, and that is- aircraft. Aircraft is never in a more dangerous position than when it is leaving the ground or just landing. These are the times when quite small accidents may cause the machine to turn over; and an accident which should result in nothing more than bruises and cuts results to-day in a terrible bonfire in which people are killed and burned. The introduction of the Diesel engine is not wanted very much by military machines because it has not got the performance but, British aviation has by virtue of geography to go on the basis of very long nights; and even to-day, owing to the Diesel engine using half of the weight of fuel per horse power per hour, if the journey is over five to six hours, it becomes already a lighter form of power. We had two years ago a magnificent engine called the phoenix, built by the Bristol Company. Why was that not encouraged? The only company using one now is the German Junker Juno, and they are going well ahead. It is essential to look at these things well ahead, because the first person who gets a fleet of aeroplanes flying on fuel other than petrol will, I believe, get the monopoly of air transport. Nobody is going to tolerate the dangers which are attendant on the use of petrol.
I hope that the House will accord us this inquiry because it would be a wonderful thing to take civil aviation right away from any idea of party politics. It is so absurd to think it has anything to do with party politics. We were not very wise when aviation was born. Why should the Government of the day have
440
been expected to hit on the most perfect organisation? After a few years of it let us review it again to see whether we have put the whole thing en the right lines. This wonderful development has been very costly in life, and I think that all who were keen to see the birth of aviation gladly gave their lives thinking it was going to lead to a good and wonderful new form of transportation. The real tragedy has been that in all those years we have created an armament and not a method of transportation. That cannot go on for ever. It is not the Government's fault. They have been pressed into that by the foolishness of man. It cannot last for ever. We must soon get back to a normal and sane outlook on life, and then the possibility of transport by air will be of paramount importance to this country owing to its separation from the other countries of the Empire. That is why I hope that the House will grant the inquiry in order to see that the development of our civil aviation is going along sound lines, and that later, when the great armament programme has ceased, not only in this country but in others, we shall be producing the best aeroplanes in the world for our own overseas use and for export and shall not be left behind, and have to purchase abroad.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. Muff: I hope that the Under-Secretary will advise the members of the self-satisfaction group to withdraw the Amendment which they have on the Paper because, after the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins)—a speech made with moderation and without any undue feeling or prejudice-—I suggest that an unanswerable case has been put before us for accepting the Motion, no matter to what party we belong. I have not the technical knowledge of the hon. Member and I am not able to follow him. I intervene in order to put the position of the municipal authorities who responded with great patriotism and public spirit when the Air Ministry in 1928 asked them to prepare municipal aerodromes. Up to July, 1936, 30 great authorities had responded to the appeal. The position is, however, that the Air Ministry has left them in the air and they are now in possession of not very beautiful white elephants. The lowest cost of these aerodromes was £23,000. One

441
municipal authority spent £230,000, and Birmingham Corporation is proposing to spend about £500,000 in providing aerodromes. If these municipal authorities had not responded with such zeal and public spirit, the Air Ministry would have had to find the money for aerodromes from national sources. I would ask the Air Ministry to have some sort of policy and to abandon the old British habit of trying to muddle through in the planning of civil air routes and aerodromes, and to try and see how far these aerodromes can be connected with the Air Ministry for other purposes.
We have had the Maybury Report which jettisoned any prospect of usefulness for municipal aerodromes. That report, however, was practically stillborn, and I hope that the Ministry will say they have done with it and do not want to hear any more about it. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down put before us the position of the only company which is endeavouring to develop civil aviation upon the North-East coast. We know that this company has been blanketed, or, to change the metaphor, that the stranglehold has been put on it. The Hull Corporation was one of the first to respond to the appeal of the Air Ministry, and, as a consequence, the ratepayers, besides paying a rate of 19s. for other purposes, have to meet a rate of 4d. to pay for the aerodrome. All that the Air Ministry offers to such authorities as Hull is to give them some weather reports and a promise to consider the advisability of helping them to equip themselves with instruments for night and blind flying.
These great authorities, which have spent such huge sums of money because they believed in the good faith of the Air Ministry, are now left with the dog to hold, or, as the Under-Secretary would say, they have been left with the dirty end of the stick. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have something positive to say on this matter and will give an adequate reply to the hon. Member for Stroud, because, if I can judge the temper of the House, we shall not tolerate with any patience the attitude of mind which the Under-Secretary displayed in answering perfectly reasonable questions last week. We hope that there will be a change of heart and that when the Under-Secretary replies to the
442
perfectly reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Stroud he will give us some satisfaction.
5.14 p.m.
Sir M. Sueter: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"whilst emphasising the importance of a progressive policy for British civil aviation and desiring to impress upon the Government the need of speedy attention to necessary improvements, is not of the opinion that a public inquiry would at present serve any useful purpose."
The Motion has been put before the House in a most able manner by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). He spoke with great sincerity. He is a tried airman. He flies all over the Continent, and we value very much his contributions to this Debate. The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion is our pioneer airman, the first man to fly in this country, and we are always delighted to hear him, and I hope that for many years to come he will give us the benefit of his great air experience. The Mover of this Motion and the Seconder have placed before us a very black picture indeed. I should like to try to paint a little less dark picture. The hon. Member who moved the Motion wants a public inquiry—I think he wants two inquiries—but I think our old way is the better. Some 15 years ago Sir William Joynson-Hicks, afterwards Lord Brentford, who was then a Member of the House, was chairman of our Conservative Air Committee. He and I talked together and said: "Could not we take air matters straight to the Prime Minister?" He agreed. I took air matters before the late Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister; and Mr. Bonar Law was also always very sympathetic to anything the airmen put before him.
It was exactly the same in the case of Earl Baldwin. If we wanted to put any air matters before him he received us and the matters were looked into. It was the same when the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. We took many air matters before him. When there was a dispute about whether the Schneider air cup race should be run or not, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald received us and we went into that question, and it was settled within half an hour. Exactly the same happened when we wanted to

443
improve the position of the Director of Civil Aviation. Afterwards he was made Director-General of Civil Aviation, because we had placed the matter before the Prime Minister. I submit to my two hon. Friends that the best way to proceed is for a small deputation of Members who are keen on air development to go straight to the Prime Minister. Generally he has the Air Minister and the Under-Secretary for Air with him, and matters are gone into and are settled right away. As the whole question of air development is in its infancy, that is the better way to do it rather than to have a public inquiry.
The hon. Member for Stroud has put before the House the question of pilots, particularly in connection with Imperial Airways. There is no Member of this House who has had more to do with pilots than myself. I had hundreds through my hands when I was running the Royal Naval Air Service, and I always pitied the director of an opera company when he had to deal with prima donnas, because I often found those gallant men very difficult to handle. I submit to Imperial Airways that they should treat their pilots lightly; look at matters from the pilots' point of view and handle their pilots with a velvet glove. That is what I learned when I ran the Royal Naval Air Service—to handle pilots gently. They are gallant men, they take great risks, and they look upon matters rather differently, perhaps, from the point of view of the directors of their operating company.
Mrs. Tate: They are already handled very lightly as regards their pay.
Sir M. Sueter: The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) will have an opportunity of speaking in a few minutes. If she will let me get on with my speech I will do so as briefly as I can. She can then make whatever remarks she thinks desirable and criticise me. I was saying that the directors of Imperial Airways and all air operating companies should treat their pilots lightly and handle them gently. We have heard from the hon. Member for Stroud that he is of opinion that these pilots of Imperial Airways have been victimised. When I heard that I looked up the directors of Imperial Airways, and I saw one name, that of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir John Salmond.
444
He and his late brother were great men in the development of our air services; their names stand high; and I refuse to believe that when a company is formed with Sir John Salmond's name among the directors, and he is an active director, there is any victimisation of the pilots.
Mr. Perkins: Is he in England now?
Sir M. Sueter: I do not know whether he is in England or not.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I can inform the hon. Member on that point; he is not.
Sir M. Sueter: In addition to Sir John Salmond there is the chairman of the company, and he said in his annual speech that he had gone into all these cases and there was no victimisation.
Mr. Mander: Gone into them with the pilots?
Sir M. Sueter: It is not within my knowledge whether it was with the pilots. I do not happen to deal with the internal affairs of Imperial Airways. All I am saying is that in his speech the Chairman of Imperial Airways said that he had gone into this matter and that there was no victimisation. All I ask is that the great operating air companies should look into the whole question of their pilots' grievances. I think the suggestion has been made that the pilots of these operating companies should form themselves into an association, whether it be a guild of pilots or not does not matter, I think. If they did so the first thing to be done would be to have their grievances sifted by the executive of their association, and then place them before the directors of the operating companies. If the directors of the operating companies refused to look into their grievances they could appeal to the Air Ministry; and if the Air Ministry failed to give them satisfaction they could have their grievances laid before this House by their Members. I should like to see a strong association of them, and I do not believe that the directors of these operating companies would object to that collective action by their pilots.
Certain remarks have been made about Imperial Airways machines. I flew the other day in the "Canopus "—it was only a short trip down Southampton Water and over the Isle of Wight—and I

445
was amazed at the great progress which has been made in these flying boats. The Royal Naval Air Service introduced the first flying boats in this country. I bought the first flying boat, a French one, the Donnet Leveque, which went through her trials at Juvisy, just outside Paris. Then we produced the Sopwith Bat boat and purchased the first Curtis Atlantic flying boat and others of this type. We developed dozens of flying boats at Felixstowe, and they all did good work in the War, but the latest flying boats are a real advance on anything we produced at Felixstowe. Great foresight has been displayed by the Government, Imperial Airways and the contractors in turning out such efficient machines as these new flying boats. The hon. Lady the Member for Frome smiles.
Mrs. Tate: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I am smiling because he is pleased when he thinks there has been an advance since the War, which was 20 years ago.
Sir M. Sueter: The reason why the advances have not been greater is that, unfortunately, we have experienced economic depressions in this country and the money has not been available. To show the value of these flying boats, two of them, after being fitted with additional tanks, have flown the Atlantic 10 times. They were not machines designed for Atlantic flying, they were simply adapted by being fitted with additional tanks. Now Imperial Airways are designing new machines—I think they have three on order—and instead of being machines of 18 tons they will be 35-ton machines, which is a tremendous advance. There is an enormous future before this country in the use of flying boats, and that is why I have more than once asked the Air Ministry to look into the question of the harbours which can be used by flying boats in the Mediterranean and within the Empire. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will advise the Secretary of State for Air to set up a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to go into the whole question of harbours for these flying boats. Lord Strickland is perfectly right in trying to get a flying boat harbour built at Malta. We ought to have one at Cyprus, too. There is a salt lake at Akadtiri in Cyprus which has a Venetian
446
sluice fitted to it and that could be flooded and could make a harbour for these flying boats. Flying boats will develop enormously. The cost of them will increase probably up to £100,000 in a few years, and surely we should provide proper shelters for them. We should develop aerial transport not only in this country and in the Empire but throughout the world. We should transport goods by flying boats to every part of the globe, in exactly the same way as me have mastered transport by sea. We ought to have harbours in many parts of the globe for these flying boats and encourage every company operating them. We have to face up to this development of flying boats, and I submit to the Under-Secretary that he should give the matter of flying boat development very serious attention.
In regard to land machines. Imperial Airways have 14 of the Ensign class on order. One is about to be delivered now and will soon be put through her trials. There have been delays and that has handicapped Imperial Airways, but the fault has not been with Imperial Airways. We have been rearming, and naturally you cannot produce machines as quickly when you are rearming as if you were not, and I think it is unfair to try to blame Imperial Airways for that position. When Imperial Airways have the Ensign class running and the four of the Albatross class, which the De Havilland company are going to build, with a speed up to 230 miles an hour, I am certain they will make a far better showing on Continental routes. Imperial Airways have not only had to blaze the trial on these great air routes throughout the Empire, right out to the Far East, but have also been the pioneers of these big passenger-carrying seaplanes and aeroplanes, and we must give them credit for that.
I have a little criticism to make of the Air Ministry, and that is that they have been so backward in finding a company to fly the Southern Atlantic. For years I have been asking for this. The Germans and French have had companies operating in the Southern Atlantic for three or four years, and only a short time ago I received a letter from a retired naval captain living in the Argentine in which he said the prestige of this country suffers because no British aircraft come with

447
mails across the Southern Atlantic to the Argentine. The German machines carry our air mail. I do not know what figure the hon. Lady the Member for Frome was given to-day in answer to her question on the point, but according to the latest figure I have the Post Office have paid some £60,000 a year to get our mails across the Southern Atlantic. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has a different figure.
We are paying that large sum, and I submit that we should get British Airways to speed up and get their machines across the Southern Atlantic. That would be a fine training-ground, exactly as the French and Germans find it, in training our pilots in long-distance flying, and the sooner we start that service the better. There is also the West Indies. I do not think we ought to depend upon Pan-American Airways to run our West Indies Service. An hon. Member for one of the Liverpool Divisions raised this subject three or four years ago, but nothing has been done, and I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that he might look into the whole question of the Southern Atlantic and of the West Indies Service to see whether something can be done to hasten matters as much as possible.
When we first started the naval and military air services we had many criticisms from the different Departments. The Department which has helped civil aviation more than any other is the General Post Office. The former Postmaster-General, now Minister of Health, established an all-out service for getting all first-class mail matter into the air, wherever its delivery could be accelerated. That was a very wise policy and it has helped civil aviation. The present Postmaster-General has carried on that good work and we now have an air mail service throughout the Empire. Our mails are carried without surcharge at all. That shows very great vision on the part of the two Postmasters-General concerned and their able staffs at the Post Office, and that service is the admiration of the whole world. I submit to the hon. Member for Stroud that this air mail service throughout the Empire is surely not a black picture in our air history.
I agree with the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches about municipal aerodromes. We heard a great deal in the debates during the last two
448
days on the subject of air-raid precautions about a id. or 2d. rate. I would ask the Government to consider whether municipalities can be helped financially a little. A great city like Birmingham has to put up something like £500,000 to build an aerodrome. It is in the interests of the State to have such aerodromes, but it means an extra rate on everybody. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to look into the suggestions made by more than one hon. Member on this subject. The Langstone Harbour aerodrome, which is the aerodrome for Portsmouth, seems to be a long time in its development, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to speed it up. It is not fair to the pilots of Imperial Airways who operate in Southampton Water. When they come down there it is very restricted, and they may be in trouble because of the tidal waters and the yachts that are anchored there. I would ask him to see whether he can go into this question with the Portsmouth authorities.
I agree with everything said about the Diesel engine by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). In the submarines we used to have a petrol engine until we submarine men pressed for a safer engine. That led to the development of the Diesel engine for submarines, to avoid disaster from the explosions which you might get from petrol engines. I agree that if we can develop the Diesel engine for air work it will save a good many disasters. The only disadvantages about the Diesel engine in this connection are its great weight and that you get a good deal of vibration with it, but that may be overcome. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he can look into this matter and encourage firms. Let him give them a money prize, as we did in the early days of aeronautics, for the development of an air engine, for the best Diesel engine that can be produced for air work.
I have been connected with air development now for 29 years. That is a good long time. I have had to attack many people in authoritiy, at the Admiralty and also in this House, to try to get more air development undertaken in this country. I have seen many Prime Ministers about it and I have attacked them in the Press and in books with the object of getting air development advanced as much as possible, but I have never, I hope, done anything to undermine air

449
confidence. Air confidence is a very delicate plant indeed. Loose words are often said in this House and loose phrases made, and also on the public platform. Such phrases and words are taken in the Dominions as representing the ideas of a good many people in this country and they are placarded in the papers. I have two newspapers in my hand here, but I shall not read from them. They are very responsible papers in Sydney. One of the headlines is nearly a f inch headline and if anybody reads those headlines, representing what has been said by a responsible airman, they would realise the harm done to British air prestige. In the Dominions they have to place orders for machines and if they see headings such as I have in my hands they would never place another order for a British machine. Hon. Members above the Gangway will realise that when disarmament is finished we shall want all the orders we can get.
Mr. Ede: When does it start?
Sir M. Sueter: I should have said rearmament. We shall want all the work possible for the companies who build air machines; otherwise men will be thrown out of employment. If we lessen confidence among the Dominions we shall not get those orders. I beg hon. Members on all sides of the House to be careful in the criticisms they make, because words are taken out and are placarded all over the Dominions, and the result may be that we shall not get so many orders. We have a great responsibility in this matter. We ought to lead the world in civil aviation, but we shall not do it if we get too much destructive criticism. Nobody objects to creative criticism but destructive criticism leads nowhere. It does harm to British aviation and to British air prestige.
5.40 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Motion which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and seconded by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) calls attention to the present position of civil aviation and demands a public inquiry. That demand, coupled with the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud, leaves no doubt that the Motion is intended to be a private Member's Vote of Censure on
450
the Government and very definitely also upon the Air Ministry. The hon. and gallant Member who has proposed the Amendment, and myself, cannot agree with such a Motion, and we feel certain that the House would rather support an Amendment which, while emphasising the importance of a progressive policy in civil aviation and desiring to impress upon the Government
"the need of speedy attention to necessary improvements, is not of the opinion that a public inquiry would at present serve any useful purpose."
We are supported in that view by the knowledge that, within recent years, two Committees have covered a very wide field of inquiry and have made very definite recommendations.
In 1934 the Gorell Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey was a member, made many suggestions relating to administrative questions and intended to free private flying from the unnecessary and even harmful restrictions to which it was then subjected. The Government appear to have lost no time in considering the recommendations of the Gorell Committee. The Air Navigation Bill was introduced in 1936, and in many directions it implemented the recommendations of the committee. I do not want to give a complete resume of the Air Navigation Bill, which speedily became an Act, but I would remind hon. Members that it covered matters relating to compulsory insurance, the setting up of an Air Registration Board, to which the Secretary of State for Air has already delegated many of his activities, inaugurated a new basis for the payment of subsidies, gave compulsory powers to local authorities to acquire land for aerodromes and assured fair wages and conditions of employment for all those engaged in air transport companies receiving a direct subsidy. The Government acted promptly, and their proposals received the endorsement of this House when the Bill became an Act.
Secondly, as recently as the end of 1936, the Maybury Committee issued their report. They made recommendations referring to the development of civil aviation and its general efficiency and usefulness in the United Kingdom. The then Under-Secretary of State for Air made it clear that the Government accepted the proposals. It is only fair to recognise that their application is comparatively

451
complex. A large number of small companies run the numerous air lines in this country, and many aerodromes are owned not only by the Ministry but by municipalities, private companies and individuals. The varying interests concerned cannot be unified and co-operated without some difficulty and considerable time. I believe it to be unreasonable to suggest that every recommendation of the May-bury Committee should by this time be in operation. Quite apart from the reports of these two committees there is the Fisher Committee, a standing Departmental Committee the functions and constitution of which were very fully described to the House by my right hon. Friend who is now the First Commissioner of Works. All air problems which affect more than one Department are referred to that committee, and I have no reason to suppose that such problems do not receive careful and prompt attention from the Fisher Committee.
I should like, if I may, to try to dispel the pessimism of the two hon. Members who placed this Motion on the Order Paper. As my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken has already said, I do not think that a true-to-life picture of British civil aviation need be painted in such dark colours. There are many signs of encouragement; in many directions British civil aviation is making considerable progress, and in some directions it is leading the world. I will try, during the next few minutes, to draw the attention of the House to some of the more notable achievements of British civil aviation, but at the same time I shall not hesitate to point out directions in which further action by the Air Ministry is urgently needed. I believe that neither the Air Ministry nor civil aviation need hang their heads in shame. On the contrary, although I know that much still remains to be done, I think they may take justifiable pride and derive considerable satisfaction from what has been achieved in times of considerable difficulty.
In reviewing civil aviation, it is convenient to divide it under two main heads, namely, external routes and internal routes, and it is with our external air routes that I wish to deal first. It has been the policy of the Government almost from the beginning to grant a monopoly of subsidy to selected companies over given air routes, and, whereas for some
452
years there was only one such selected company, namely, Imperial Airways, today there is a second, British Airways. But before dealing with these two subsidised companies I want to mention the other seven or eight enterprising companies who run some 13 or 14 regular services to foreign countries, carrying passengers and freight. I have no hesitation in saying that the ground organisation for these companies is entirely inadequate, particularly as regards night flying and blind flying. To overcome this difficulty, I would beg the Minister to urge municipal authorities to provide more aerodromes, and to ensure that existing aerodromes are fitted with up-to-date wireless and are subject to proper traffic control.
A second way in which companies such as these might well receive some assistance is in the construction of prototype machines. Because of the uncertainty of demand, because of the pressure of the rearmament programme, because of the lack of large orders, no constructional firm to-day is prepared to undertake the comparatively large expense of designing new types of machines. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution this afternoon have drawn attention to the fact that in some cases we have been forced to buy foreign machines. I am advised that to prepare the drawings and careful designs for a new machine may cost anything up to £10,000, and if a small-scale model is made, say a half-size model, which some constructors prefer to any wind tunnel test, a further outlay of some £20,000 may be required. No constructor can face that outlay if the probability is that at the best he will only sell one, two or three machines. He has to be assured that, if the machine is a real success, he will receive orders for 10 or more.
I suggest that the Ministry might bring the small operating concerns together, endeavour to get agreement on a design for one suitable machine, and even go so far as to subsidise the construction of the prototype. If that is done, there will be a reasonable chance of evolving a medium-sized machine of modem design and up to modern requirements, capable of carrying some 25 or 30 passengers—a machine, probably, too small for the requirements of Imperial Airways, but badly needed by these smaller companies. If that is not possible, I would suggest as an alternative that, while constructional

453
firms in this country are so completely full of orders, and when there is no unemployment, but rather a shortage of labour, consideration might be given by the Government to the question of the desirability of removing the tariff on foreign machines. The conditions of to-day are entirely exceptional.
I come now to the two companies which are receiving a direct subsidy from the Air Ministry, and I want first to say a few words about British Airways. This is a young company, but I believe that any unbiassed observer will agree that it has fully merited the confidence which was recently placed in it by the Air Ministry. I have some figures here which will illustrate the growth of this company during the last year, and I would like to mention that this company, as far as I know, is the only British company which runs a regular night mail service to the Continent. Between 1936 and September, 1937, the mileage flown by this company increased by 64 per cent, to over 1,000,000 miles, and the number of passengers carried increased by over 21 per cent, to 15,206. The operating efficiency on the day routes was well over 90 per cent.—over 97 per cent, in the case of the London-Paris route; and even the night mail service, in spite of a somewhat unfortunate experience with a particular type of machine, maintained an efficiency of 85.7 per cent. I submit that so far as this company is concerned, at any rate, there is nothing of which either the company itself or the Air Ministry, or, indeed, this country, need be ashamed.
I am not, however, altogether sure that the Air Ministry have treated British Airways fairly in one respect. When the company commenced operations, it used Gatwick as its terminus in this country. Unhappily, Gatwick has been found to be quite unsuitable for the work, and application was made by British Airways to be allowed to remove its terminus to Croydon. But, although foreign air lines are given every facility at Croydon, it was only with the greatest difficulty that British Airways obtained permission to use that airport, and even to-day no facilities are given for housing their machines at Croydon, or for repairing them there, or for doing the usual maintenance work. Machines have to be flown from Croydon, where the journey finishes, to Gatwick, if any work has to be done on them, or even if they have to be housed
454
for 24 hours or a week or more. I understand that the Air Ministry promised British Airways that Heston Aerodrome, which has quite recently been purchased by the Government, would be made available for British Airways very shortly. Indeed, the first promise of the Ministry was that Heston would be available in September of this year. That date has passed, month has passed month, and the Air Ministry have been compelled to advise British Airways that the date from which they could go to Heston has receded. The latest news that I have from the company is that they are now told that they cannot go to Heston until May of next year. As far as I know, operating companies are discouraged—I think prohibited—from owning aerodromes, and it is obviously the responsibility of the Ministry to provide a Government-subsidised company with a suitable terminus in this country. I hope the Minister will make a note of that, and will see if something cannot be done to make better arrangements for this most progressive and enterprising company. I have not much to say about the proposed route across the South Atlantic, but this route also has been entrusted to British Airways, and I have no reason to doubt, nor do I think that doubt has been expressed in any quarter, that British Airways will earn the confidence of the Ministry and the country over this route, as they have in the case of those over which they already fly.
I come now to Imperial Airways, and I want to say at once that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who raised the question of dismissals among the pilots of Imperial Airways, must have the sympathy of the whole House. To say the least of it, it must be decidedly disconcerting if the association which my hon. Friend has taken a prominent part in forming finds that its chairman and vice-chairman have been dismissed by the company which employed them. I do not want to make the point that disruptive elements are likely to take the lead in forming an association of this sort; I believe that trade unions and similar organisations do far more good than harm. British Airways, Imperial Airways, or any other operating company, had better recognise at once that sooner or later they will be called upon to deal with a trade union of this sort, and I hope that that time may quickly

455
arrive. But my hon. Friend himself said that Imperial Airways was nothing more nor less than a public utility company. He cannot have it both ways, and I cannot see that he can attempt to deny to this ordinary commercial company the right which is enjoyed by other commercial companies, of dispensing with the services of the members of their staffs if they think it advisable. The House may care to hear the contents of a letter which I received only to-day. It is a communication signed by seven or eight of Imperial Airways' most experienced pilots, and it reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned Captains of Imperial Airways, Limited, wish to put it on record that we have complete confidence in the direction and management of our Company, and wish to dissociate ourselves from any statements which have been made to the contrary, with which we entirely disagree."
Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that only seven out of 200 pilots employed by the company signed that?
Colonel Ropner: Yes. I am only quoting the communication I have received. The feeling of the other 193 I cannot say, but I do think it may be of some interest to the House to know the feeling of those seven. So far as I am concerned, I will allow the matter to rest there. During the last few weeks and again this afternoon, the hon. Member for Stroud has very severely attacked Imperial Airways, and particularly their European services. He has said that those services are the laughing-stock of other countries. I submit that they are nothing of the sort. He makes no charge, so far as I know, that they are inefficient, or that there is bad organisation, or that the pilots, or even the machines, are unsafe, although he did endeavour to produce statistics, which went far from convincing me, that Imperial Airways' machines are not as safe as is popularly supposed. But the chief burden of his complaint is that machines are out-of-date, particularly with regard to speed. Speed is one of the most expensive luxuries of modern times. You can have it if you are prepared to pay for it. If the subsidy received by Imperial Airways is compared with that received by its foreign competitors, I would say that criticism might be just if the speed of their machines did not equal that of their foreign competitors.
Mr. Crossley: The hon. and gallant Member has just been praising British Airways, who also get a subsidy, which also presumably does not compare with that of other countries, yet their machines are among the fastest in the world. How does he meet that?
Colonel Ropner: I am quite prepared to meet that. I will show that Imperial Airways have some machines which are among the fastest in the world, but I am going to show first that, on the subsidy they receive, it cannot be expected that all their services will be the fastest in the world. I have a note of the subsidies paid to the Italian lines. They receive just over is. iod. per traffic ton-mile. The German company receives 3s. 2.8d. per traffic ton-mile. Air France receives from the French Government 7s. 2–7d. per traffic ton-mile.
Mr. Simmonds: Does that include the South Atlantic route? If it does it entirely alters the position.
Colonel Ropner: I would like notice of that question, but I have tried to get out figures which are a fair comparison. Imperial Airways get from the Air Ministry only something less than is. 6d., so it will be seen that the German service gets a rate of subsidy which is more than double the British, and the French company a rate which is nearly five times as great.
Mrs. Tate: I should like, then, to have an explanation as to how the hon. and gallant Member accounts for the fact that this poor, under-subsidised company managed last year, in spite of a trading loss of £630,000, to pay a dividend of 7 per cent., plus a 2 per cent, bonus.
Colonel Ropner: I am not concerned with the dividends paid by Imperial Airways. If the hon. Lady looks up the record of dividends, she will not find that the company has been over-generous to shareholders in the last few years, but, whatever the rate of dividend, it does not alter the fact that, on a subsidy far lower than that of its Continental competitors, Imperial Airways runs an extremely efficient, if very slow, Continental service, and in so far as the Empire service is concerned, leads the world. Perhaps I might be allowed to give further particulars with regard to the European service, which has been the

457
subject of such vigorous attack by the hon. Member for Stroud. He has said that it is a "hardy annual" to be told that Imperial Airways carries 50 per cent, of the passengers on those routes. I am told that the figure is about 50 per cent., but, even if it is something over 40 per cent., that is not a bad record, with the machines it possesses and which I do not deny are at the moment slow and out of date. Fifty-two thousand people crossed to Europe by Imperial Airways last year, and 1,100,000 passenger miles were flown on these services. No one is going to persuade me that 52,000 people flew to Europe by Imperial Airway machines solely on the grounds of patriotism.
The fact is that the Hannibal type, although it may be out of date to-day, has done more than any other machine possessed by any country to put civil flying on the map. It is certainly out of date, but, as has already been mentioned in the Debate, the fact that Imperial Airways have not more modern machines is not their fault. Over three years ago the ordered a fleet of modern land planes, and delivery was promised in September, 1936, but, owing to the pressure of the rearmament programme, delivery is more than a year overdue. I think it is rather unfair of the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate to blame the operating company when, in fact, it is the fault of the constructional company that these machines are not flying on Imperial Airways routes to-day. But what was most unfair in his speech was that the hon. Member made no mention of what is being done on the Empire routes by Imperial Airways. From April to September, Imperial Airways have maintained services over 22,364 miles of Empire routes. If you take into account the services rendered by the Quantas Company, the total mileage served by Imperial Airways rises to over 26,000 miles. That is an astonishing mileage, but the flying over it has been conducted with a regularity of 99.72 per cent., and I submit that that is not equalled by any other air company in the world running a comparable service.
Other statistics are, that the total freight carried over the Empire routes was more than 5,000,000 ton-miles, and the passenger miles amounted to more than 188,000,000. Those are a few statistical points from what, I submit, is a truly magnificent record. The hon. Mem-
458
ber for Stroud and the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey are both far more experienced pilots than I am. I wonder if they have ever flown by Imperial Airways, and if either of them has ever flown along an Empire air route.
Mr. Perkins: I have been on a British Airways machine.
Colonel Ropner: I asked if the two hon. Members who proposed this Resolution had ever flown by Imperial Airways. Have they ever been to Australia or South Africa?
Mr. Perkins: Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that my criticism applied only to Imperial Airways in Europe. I have again and again said that, so far as the Empire services are concerned, I am more or less satisfied.
Colonel Ropner: I think that is a very grudging admission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] To say that he is more or less satisfied with Imperial Airways on Empire routes is decidedly a grudging admission. I suggest to the hon. Member that if he travelled on Empire routes, and saw what appears to me to be the magnificent organisation of Imperial Airways, he would be thoroughly satisfied. I have not time now to go into details on what is probably the greatest triumph of civil flying in all the world, namely, the inauguration of the Empire air mail service. This is a colossal undertaking, costing many millions of pounds and taking months of planning and preparation, and it cannot be wondered that it cannot be brought into operation in a few weeks, or even in a few months. Neither did the hon. Member pay a tribute, as I think he might have done, to the entire success of the experimental flights across the Atlantic. Neither the American nor the British machine was designed for the Atlantic crossing, but I think we may take some pride and satisfaction that it was the British machine that eventually held the record in both directions, and we may express our gratitude that they were achieved without mishap.
Now I would deal with problems which arise out of internal flying. I believe that there is something in what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey said, when he remarked that there is a danger that internal air routes may become a monopoly. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us this

459
afternoon that a licensing system will be put into operation as soon as possible. We do not want a monopoly in air services in this country, but rather co-operation between a number of firms.
There is one other question which is a matter primarily for this House and not for the Government to decide, and that is that we should ensure that the booking ban on air companies is removed by the railway companies from their agencies. I believe that if it became known, as it could soon be known, that a sufficiently large number of Members of this House had pledged themselves to obstruct in every possible way every single railway Bill that came before the House we should ensure within a few weeks that the railway companies would remove this ban. It is primarily the work of the Air Committee but it should be made the concern of the whole House, and if we cannot get the Government to take action in this matter the House itself can effect what we want and I hope that it may be done in the very near future.
Before the House could agree to a further inquiry being either necessary or advisable the Propeser or Seconder of this Resolution would have to show that some branch of civil aviation was in a very bad way. Neither of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the Resolution made out a case of that sort. If another inquiry was to be commenced it would be bound to retard the development which we all want to see. The Maybury Committee took nearly two years to report, and I certainly hope that we are not going to wait for another two years while another committee makes up its mind as to a series of recommendations. I believe, moreover, that no one would be more angry than the hon. Member for Stroud himself, if the Government had suggested a further inquiry and so shirked responsibility for immediate action in a number of directions. I hope that on consideration he will agree that the Amendment which we have placed on the Order Paper in fact expresses in better form than his own Motion that which he has in mind and with which I am sure we all agree.
Mr. Wakefield: Before the hon. and gallant Member sits down—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Ede: We have had 40 minutes of him.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Mander: After the somewhat extended remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) I intend to endeavour to compress my remarks within the shortest possible space. I rise to say a few words in support of the proposal brought forward by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) in one of the most masterly speeches that I have ever heard in this House. No real attempt has been made to deal with the many criticisms he has put forward. I should like to pay a high tribute to the great services rendered to aviation in this country by Imperial Airways. There is no doubt at all that they are a great national institution who have developed that side of our national activities with great skill and resolution, but they are not above criticism. They were created by this House, and we are represented on the board, and there is every reason why we should, whenever a suitable opportunity arises, say what we think of the way they are conducting air affairs. The Empire services are magnificent, and I fully agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said just now. I shared with him that interesting little flight at Southampton. Imperial Airways have been attacked on account of their European services, and I think that a good reply has been made, because they appear to have done all they can, but they have not been able to obtain the machines from the manufacturers.
The main point with which I want to deal is the question of collective bargaining which I raised by Private Notice Question at the beginning of this Session. The dismissal of 10 pilots raises the whole question of collective bargaining, and it cannot be met by furnishing the names of distinguished persons who are members of the board, one of whom is not even in this country, as it turns out. You have to get at the responsibility and see not only whether so-and-so has gone into the whole question, but whether he has heard the other side, what could be said on behalf of the pilots themselves, and whether they have had an opportunity of putting to him personally exactly what their views may be. The precise position, as I understand it, is as follows. The Chairman, in his speech

461
at the annual meeting, on 10th November, said:
"We have no objection to our officers joining any association, and we regard this as a matter entirely for their own discretion. We have no evidence that our officers as a whole wish any association to negotiate with the company on their behalf. We have no objection to the principle of collective bargaining, but, if only in fairness to our employés, we must be satisfied before undertaking such bargaining that we are dealing with those who, in fact, our employés desire to represent them."
In order to take the matter further I put down this question:
"Whether Imperial Airways, Limited, are now prepared to meet representatives of the British Air Line Pilots Association to discuss the terms of service of pilots in their employment in accordance with their wishes?"
The answer was:
"I understand that Imperial Airways, Limited, are not prepared to meet representatives of the British Air Line Pilots Association for the purposes indicated by the hon. Member."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth November, 1937; cols. 1864–65, Vol. 328.]
It was a clear admission of willingness to accept collective bargaining, but a refusal to accept a particular organisation which desires to speak on behalf of these pilots. I wish particularly to say what I can in their support, because I have always felt that pilots are among the most gallant and admirable of all the citizens of this country, and ought to be given fair play in every way. I feel that what has happened in this case is the natural reluctance of all employers to face the fact that they have to deal with those who wish to speak on behalf of their employés. No employer likes it, and it is only after reluctance that employers can be forced, in the end, to accept it. I agree that they have to be satisfied that the organisation is really representative, and that it is lasting. The hon. and gallant Member opposite said that seven pilots had sent a letter saying that they were perfectly satisfied. Is he aware—and I should like to inform the House—that over 80 per cent, of the pilots employed by Imperial Airways belong to this organisation? Their names are available and they have nothing to hide. They have, all of them, expressed the desire that this association should act on their behalf in meeting the directors of Imperial Airways.
I should like to know—and perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us—what the Government directors think
462
of it. Over 80 per cent, of the pilots desire this association to act for them, and Imperial Airways refuse to recognise it, although they have accepted the principle of collective bargaining. There is a very interesting incident in this connection which I should like to call to the attention of the House. Imperial Airways accepted the principle of collective bargaining in the case of the wireless operators. Would the House believe that for eight years Imperial Airways refused to recognise the particular organisation representing the wireless operators? The organisation joined the Trades Union Congress, and within a fortnight they were fully recognised, and everything has gone straight forward ever since. I wonder what will happen if this organisation in the end thinks it necessary to link up with the Trades Union Congress. Possibly the fortnight's record might be broken.
With regard to victimisation, it is, at any rate, a very curious coincidence that these particular pilots, the chairman and vice-chairman of the organisation, should have been dismissed at that particular moment, and, upon a mathematical basis of probability, the odds are very heavy indeed against there being no connection between the two. I understand that the pilots who were flying the Budapest services represented that the machines were not safe to operate during the winter season because of the icing that was liable to cover the machines and bring them down in very dangerous territory. Imperial Airways accepted that advice but, although these men were senior pilots with long experience, they found that there was no longer any need for their services. Whatever may be the true facts, even if there is no relation between the two events, there is no doubt at all that the persons concerned, the pilots and employés of Imperial Airways, most definitely feel that there has been victimisation, and that fact alone is a reason why there should be a most careful and searching inquiry to find out the true facts, and to satisfy all concerned. Some suggestion has been made that the Guild of Pilots might join up with this air line association in some sort of amalgamation, but I understand that the suggestion is being made that one condition of that taking place should be that all question of collective bargaining should be dropped. I do not know whether that

463
is so, but that is my information. If that is the idea, it is perfectly fantastic, and nothing of the kind is likely to happen.
I have dealt with my main point, and I now want to emphasise various questions that have been put to the House. I should like more information about the progress of the South American service which has been handed over to British Airways. What is the policy of the Government in regard to civil aviation in this country? We ought to have a clear statement. Is the report of the Maybury Committee to be carried out soon, and is a licensing authority to be set up for the purpose of better co-ordination and organisation among the existing services? If it is delayed much longer and no action is taken, there will be nothing to co-ordinate because there will only be one company left. The railways control the greater part of the services, apart from certain minor small companies, and North-Eastern Airways is the only one operating at the present time. They are linking up the east coast. They have no subsidy. They fly from Croydon to Perth in the winter and to Aberdeen in the summer. Is it the wish of the Air Ministry that this company and other companies should be squeezed out and be forced to surrender and go into the railway combines? If that is not their view, they ought to state very clearly and plainly what their policy is.
A good deal has been said about the difficulties of booking. This is a very serious handicap. Here is one example. Of the services that are run from this country in the summer to Le Zoute in Belgium, one is run by North Eastern Airways with no subsidy and no booking facilities, and the other is run by Imperial Airways, with subsidy and booking facilities, but not by British machines but by the Belgian Sabena Company, which is put in front of North Eastern Airways and given preferential treatment against this British company, flying British machines with British pilots.
My final point relates to municipal aerodromes. I know how strongly they feel about this matter in the Midlands. They have been encouraged to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on most admirable and useful aerodromes, which are bound sooner or later to be an asset to the country. What is to be the policy of the
464
Government? Is any assistance, financial or otherwise, to be given to them? Let me give one example of the cost. In my own constituency it is costing a rate of I¾d. per year. Can the Minister say what the prospects are of a place like Wolverhampton, sometimes called the Queen of the Midlands, receiving the aerial support and, connections from the main lines which a great centre like Wolverhampton, with its surrounding districts of Wednesfield and Willenhall are entitled to expect? I support the desire which has been expressed for an inquiry, because I believe that through that we shall the sooner and the quicker arrive at a state of affairs when we shall be well on the way to being supreme in the air, as we ought to be.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Montague: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment took a great amount of time on somewhat irrelevant matters. That is a pity, because the questions that have been raised are of a very serious description. I agree with one speaker that the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) was a masterpiece. I could not help being intrigued by the hon. Member's suggestion that conditions in civil aviation in this country are of such a character as to make him, a Conservative—there is no doubt about his political and economic convictions—feel favourable to the idea of nationalisation of air transport services. If conditions are as serious as he said, I think a case has definitely been made out for an inquiry into the present position.
Speaking personally and also for the party I represent, I believe the case for nationalisation of air transport services is overwhelming, and that case has been abundantly supported by the two speeches which began the Debate. The amount of confusion and the quantity of material that have been presented, suggesting that things are not all that they ought to be in regard to air services, and particularly that long list of competing air companies, with their own problems and difficulties, together with the difficulties between themselves, suggest that the time has come, indeed it came long ago, for air transport to be regarded as a public service. That is important from the point of view of what has been said about

465
monopoly. There must be monopoly in the air; you cannot help it. Even if you try to destroy that monopoly it remains monopolist in character, and because of that and the fact that the air is a service of the character that it is, without boundaries, without any question of private property in the air—all these things make out a case for a public air service.
Our attitude with regard to Imperial Airways and British Airways is that we do not want too large a distribution of responsibility for air transport services in this country, any more than we want it in regard to European and Imperial routes. The time will come when we shall have to nationalise air services in some way or other. Imperial Airways is a Government concern. It is by way of being a public utility society. There are Government representatives upon its board, and the Government have a certain financial interest, not very much. Because there are the beginnings of public responsibility and public utility in Imperial Airways we are justified—in fact that is one of the important considerations—in bringing to this House questions of criticism in a way that could not be done otherwise, and also in a way which will allow Imperial Airways, through the Air Ministry, to deal with some of the questions raised.
May I make a suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State for Air and those concerned with the Debate this evening? I do not think there can be any question that a large number of hon. Members, if not the majority, would like some kind of inquiry into the present position of civil aviation. The hon. and gallant Admiral, the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) suggested that a public inquiry would be undesirable on the ground that it would be public and that we did not want to depreciate civil aviation in this country and did not want to make too big a song about any discrepancies that might exist. That argument hardly applies to a private inquiry. True, the records of a private inquiry will be made public for those who are sufficiently interested, because they will be able to obtain records, but I think the disadvantages suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would be overcome if a private inquiry was substituted for a public one. I invite the Under-Secretary to agree to that suggestion. If he does
466
so, we might avoid a Division. Such an inquiry would do a great deal to allay much of the suspicion which undoubtedly exists in regard to the conduct of civil aviation in this country. I should like to know, when the Under-Secretary replies, whether some arrangement of that kind could be entered into.
The question which interests the members of the Labour Party particularly is that of the recognition of trade unions representing the air pilots. The usual answers given by Imperial Airways and those who are supporting them and defending them are quite familiar to those who are connected with trade union matters. They do not mind the workers organising and having their own union, but they must not interfere in any affairs of management or discipline. There is not a trade union representative who has not heard that kind of argument put over and over again by employers who do not want interference with management and discipline. In other words, they do not accept the principle of collective representation and organisation. Sir Alan Cobham, in a long letter to the "Times" says:
"We can sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Stroud to benefit the members of the Air Lines Pilots' Association, but that is, of course, a different thing from allowing them the right to interfere in the management of their employers' business."
I read this morning that Imperial Airways agree to a measure of trade union or collective representation from an organisation known as the Guild of Air Pilots. They say, according to the "Times," that while they agree to that, no interference must take place in matters of management or discipline. The Guild of Air Pilots is an admirable institution. I had something to do with its foundation, to the extent of lending the prestige of my office to their inaugural banquet, but the Guild of Air Pilots is no more a trade union than is a motor club. On the other hand, the Air Lines Pilots' Association, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has pointed out, is a representative organisation. It represents 80 per cent, of the pilots of Imperial Airways, overseas and home, and its members number 270 out of 320 air line pilots throughout the country. There is no question about that organisation being representative. It was formed in May of this year.

467
What is the trouble? "Interference with management." Yes, interference with management if criticism is interference, if raising questions about the effect of management on the lives of pilots is interference. This organisation of Imperial Airways is by way of being a public utility body, but even if it were not, even if it were entirely a private concern, the time has gone by for people to talk in terms of non-interference with management. The question of management is important for those who work either for companies or for private employers, and it is doubly important, overwhelmingly important in the case of air pilots who have to take such a large responsibility in their everyday life, and have to take innumerable risks.
This question was first raised on representations made respecting the type of machine which had been put on the Budapest route for winter service. That machine, a perfectly good one for its purpose, was manufactured for tropical and sub-tropical use between Singapore and Port Darwin. It is a biplane with the usual struts which, on a winter service, become encrusted with ice. That machine does not serve the purpose of winter work, structurally or otherwise. The pilots pointed that out. They were so correct that Imperial Airways were bound to withdraw that machine. But the chairman and secretary of the Croydon section of the Air Pilots' Association were dismissed. Of ten pilots who were dismissed, nine were members of the Air Pilots' Association.
Let us see what happened. In that service there were many crashes over a period of years. It may be an exaggeration but the pilots have used phrases like, "The course is strewn with crashes "—crashes more or less of a serious character, and there were one or two deaths. A crash may mean anything from a small accident to a serious one, but the pilots were not satisfied with the machine and collectively, not individually, they surely had the right to make representations to the company as the people who would have to take the risk. They wanted these machines withdrawn. Three captains were dismissed, important persons, and the secretary and the chairman of the Air Pilots' Association. And they were dismissed in rather a curious manner. The same thing has happened before. They
468
were dismissed for lack of discipline; they did not do as they were told. What were they told to do? All the pilots were told to qualify so that they could put another machine on their certificate. They all did so, including those who were dismissed.
They put up a number of objections. What were they? Their objections were based on the fact that the machine had been turned down officially on behalf of Imperial Airways by one of the pilots four years before. He was asked to fly it to discover whether it was a suitable machine for the service of the company, and on behalf of the company he reported four years ago that the machine was unstable, of high landing speed requiring an enormous area to make a proper landing, and that it was a machine of lateral instability. After four years it should have been obsolete, but when the question of this organisation and its attitude was in dispute they were told to do this. They wanted to discuss the matter among themselves and there was a certain amount of delay. They were not given a date at which this had to be done. It was holiday time, and they had to do this qualifying in addition to their ordinary work; and because it was not done quickly enough they were dismissed. That is not the whole story. Imperial Airways appointed an operating officer who told these men that certain things were expected to be done. May I say that I am speaking, of course, at second-hand, and I shall be only too glad if what I say can be really contradicted. These are the facts which have been given to me, and I have no reason to doubt their truth.
These men, when they made representations about the weather and conditions generally on the routes they were expected to fly, were told, "You know you have a good record; you do not want to break that record." Over and over again I am told they have been met on the principle of getting as much out of the pilots as possible, yet at the same time their pay has been reduced by certain devious devices, by one-third in many cases, while the directors' fees have been increased by as much as 25 per cent. It must be remembered that the 9 per cent. dividend does not come out of the normal operations of the company. It comes out of the public subsidy; the State pays the dividend of 9 per cent. The pilots have objected to this. They claim to have a

469
right to a say in the conditions of their own service. Is there any hon. Member who will say that they have no such right; that no workman has a right to a say in conditions of service by means of collective organisation? The only way in which a man can feel safe is when he has the backing of his own fellows.
There is another fact in connection with the dismissal of another captain which if it is not shown to be untrue, is a really terrible thing. One of the captains was dismissed on the ground of a superfluity of navigating captains; there were, it was said, too many navigating captains. He was dismissed at the time the conflict took place between the Airline Pilots' Association and Imperial Airways. Yet a fortnight earlier two first officers were promoted to captain out of their probationary period because there was a shortage. That was within a fortnight. The captain in question is one of two pilots in the world with a master pilot's certificate for both land and marine flying. In the same week that a man with these qualifications was dismissed the "Courtier" crashed at Athens. It was flown by a man who had only one trip on a flying boat and that as a supernumerary. That case must be answered. I hope it can be answered, but a case like that and the fact that these men are feeling in this way is a complete justification for the demand for an inquiry, either public or private. There was the appointment of an air superintendent after the pilots' strike in 1924, and I suppose the idea is that they do not want another strike. After all they want the service to be efficiently run and the pilots of Imperial Airways and other companies are loyal men; they are not people who are likely to go on strike for the fun of it. But they are fully dissatisfied, there is no question about that, and the matter surely ought to be looked into.
I have said already that an earlier incident suggests that the attitude of Imperial Airways is old-fashioned in relation to trade unions. This is not the only case of people being dismissed for organising themselves as a trade union in Imperial Airways service. Some few years ago a similar attempt was made by the stewards in the service and I believe by some of the refreshment staff. They were not directly dismissed; there were other methods of dealing with the situation. I
470
understand that everyone concerned in that proposed organisation to establish a trade union was afterwards- offered a change of occupation, a change of venue. Difficulties were put in their way, they were asked to go to West Africa, and things of that kind. That was the method by which it was done. But there is not a single steward left who took part in that organisation. If that is true we have full justification for raising this question and for speaking as we do upon the subject.
I will not say anything very much about municipal airports. I have received letters from municipalities with airports who are much concerned about what are now practically white elephants to them. That again is a matter for inquiry; it is a question which should be looked into. These municipalities when it comes to elections are always criticised on account of their expenditure. The London County Council are turning down their responsibilities for a big London airport; and I do not blame them. When the gables of London are plastered at election times with attacks on the extravagance of the London County Council I do not wonder at their refusing to handle such a big venture as this, which should certainly be a State venture with full State backing. If there is any money to be set aside for a subsidy for aerodromes, London, the centre, is of great importance.
What about the Maybury Report, which is now well on the way to being a year old? What is being done to implement its proposals? The general reorganisation of internal air services has been referred to, but I will confine my remarks to one side only of that matter. In the report it is said that:
"If regular operation is to be maintained, the technical equipment at all standard commercial aerodromes should be identical, irrespective of their situation or the volume of the traffic using them …. It is important also that control should be impartially exercised and be divorced from any commercial interests connected with airport or aircraft operation; and the power to control will have to be exercised by an authority recognised and accepted by all concerned."
The condition of air control is in a sorry state. There are 17 wireless telegraph and direction-finding stations available to civil aviation. Three of them work on a wave length of 900 metres, one upon a wave length of 826 metres, and 13 upon a wave length of 862 metres.

471
A great deal of jamming takes place. Whether it is due to the difference in metres I do not know, but in any case there is jamming as a result of the difference in power of the stations. These are matters which should be looked into because a pilot in bad weather may have to wait 15 or 20 minutes before he can land. One of the reasons for it is that very powerful wireless telegraphic stations jam each other as well as jamming the weaker ones. Also the company's traffic information is transmitted on aircraft wavelengths. In the event of delay in attaining magnetic bearings pilots can only estimate their position and when they are flying at 195 miles per hour there is an error of two minutes facing them 6| miles out. There are certain aerodromes with officially controlled zones and others with semi-officially controlled zones. The official ones have trained control officers while the semi-official ones are controlled by men knowing little or nothing at all about flying. I believe that Speke at Liverpool is one of the civil aerodromes where conditions are not all that they should be with regard to wireless information to the pilots and general air control. Some of the semi-officially controlled are, I am told, in charge of men who have no control over other aviation, and there is one northern aerodrome where there is no control over club flying, which takes place the whole time, whatever the conditions may be with regard to ordinary transport. That is the case even when the conditions are bad and it is necessary for the pilot to take advantage of his instruments and ground control.
The Ministry has stated that the Lorenz system is under examination. They are not quite sure about it. It is about time they were sure about it. It is not a very difficult thing. It is quite simple. I do not mean the technical side of it. Here we have German machines coming into Croydon with that system and our machines careering round without any sight of a landmark, subject to drift in fog and not being able to see the fights of the aerodromes. They have to depend entirely upon the information that they get from the control tower and may wander around for 18 or 20 minutes or even half an hour while the German aeroplanes, with the proper system, are able to land. That is wrong. It is also wrong that there should be unqualified people—
472
because they are technically unqualified—in charge of important aerodromes in respect to these questions of control of the air in bad weather. There is great danger and pilots realise that danger. That is one of the reasons why they want to organise themselves. The danger is one that is bound to go on increasing.
The suggestion that I have made, which has, I believe, the support of those responsible for the Motion and the Amendment, is that a small committee should be set up which could meet privately in order to examine all methods relating to civil aviation. The questions that I have raised about Imperial Airways should be examined and I feel sure that if that course were adopted not only would this House be better satisfied but the public and the country would be as well.
THE CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
7.4 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) started by saying that he was going to demand the head of the Secretary of State on a charger. He certainly executed a lively dance, though it was not conducted in the conventional costume. The Movers both of the Motion and of the Amendment went to a great extent on parallel lines. They both admitted perfectly readily, as anybody connected with aviation must admit, that all is not perfect in the realm of civil aviation. They also emphasised, quite rightly, that we must concentrate our attention on a progressive policy for civil aviation. It may be said that that is a commonplace of all Departments, but it applies most particularly to a thing like the air in the present stage of scientific development, and I was therefore sorry that the hon. Member for Stroud frequently repeated that people in the Air Ministry sit back with folded arms. Quite definitely he put an idea into my head.
Mr. Quibell: That is worth something.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Where hon. Members differed was as to the necessity or desirability of public inquiry. Undoubtedly there are many attractions

473
about the sound of a public inquiry. Anybody with a grievance to ventilate or a suggestion to make believes that a public inquiry may be the means of putting it right.
I was attracted by what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said when he emphasised that this Debate had not been in any way affected by sentiments of party politics. It is quite plain that the House to-day has debated this subject from a really ad hoc standpoint. But when it comes to the question of an inquiry one has to consider first of all what the scope of the inquiry has to be, and, secondly, what is the actual need for the inquiry, that is to say, what are the objects which can be brought about by an inquiry that cannot be brought about by any other method.
It was significant that both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment were not by any means sure that everything was all right. They had many suggestions to make and many subjects on which they wanted information. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) mentioned the question of Portsmouth as an Imperial Airways terminus. That is a matter which is being very actively considered. Then there was the question of the South Atlantic route. Yesterday or to-day, I am not quite sure which, representatives both of the company and of the Air Ministry left these shores in order to survey that route. He also mentioned the question of the increased use of flying boats and the very important question of making sites in harbours where they could land.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) mentioned the particular point of British Airways but he did not press for an inquiry. One has too to consider what organisation exists for dealing with these affairs and what day-to-day machinery is in existence for dealing though not in a strictly public form with cognate matters. I think hon. Members will agree that the field of civil aviation as far as inquiries are concerned has been fairly fully covered. The Gorell Committee in 1934 went very carefully into the question of regulations, particularly in regard to private flying. Then we had the very comprehensive Maybury Committee in 1936. The terms of reference were wide.
474
I think hon. Members must agree that between those two inquiries the field of civil aviation from the inquiry point of view has been fairly adequately, and certainly recently, covered.
The hon. Member for Stroud in relation to the Maybury report mentioned the question of the inadequacy of the present air port for London. Perhaps the inadequacy of London's services in that respect is the fault of London for having grown to such a size before aviation was introduced, and the same remark applies to Paris across the water. She is in the same plight in regard to her central airport, and although the distance in London is longer the interval elapsing between arrival in Croydon and arrival in the heart of London is no longer than between the Paris airport and the heart of Paris. One is up against that difficulty of the growth of London and it is significant that the Maybury Committee in paragraph 116 stated:
"We have considered proposals for the unification of ownership of all aerodromes west of London. The advantages; of such a scheme are not apparent at the moment, but it is too early to make recommendations on this point until further evidence is available."
Now I want to deal with what I call the structure and organisation of committees which, although not strictly of a public nature, and therefore not satisfying the requirements of some hon. Members, are in existence for the day-to-day or periodic consideration of matters relating to civil aviation. Firstly you have got the Inter-Departmental Committee on International Air Communication. That is in continuous session. Then the Empire Air Mail Committee is very shortly to be set up, which will include representatives of the Empire countries affected. You have got the committee on transatlantic flight, representative of the United Kingdom, Canada, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. Then there is the Civil Airworthiness Committee, which is in permanent session, where you have represented the constructors, the operators, and the insurers, and a representative of the Air Registration Board will shortly be added. Finally you have got the quarterly meeting, which has just been started, of the Aerodrome Owners' Association. Its first meeting has been held and the municipal aerodrome owners were represented. That is what you have got in the way of standing committees and hon.

475
Members will agree that it covers a pretty wide field.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said that he thought the Government might do a great deal more in the production of prototypes. I would remind him that it was really owing to the Government's taking upon itself the task that the DH91, which will shortly come into use in Imperial Airways, was constructed. I think that although hon. Members may wish that it had been constructed earlier, they will agree that it is a very fine machine. In point of fact, the Government have taken steps recently to press on with this sort of question. We have had meetings with the civil air companies at which we have tried to thrash out what is so essential, namely, a common specification, or common specifications, for certain types of aircraft for civil work which will meet the needs of civil companies operating in this country and abroad. The Air Ministry has been in consultation with the civil companies on that matter. I presided at a meeting recently, and although I do not suggest that that added any merit to it, at least I was able to hear at first hand what was being discussed. I suggest that a public inquiry on this matter could not get any nearer to the bone than the Air Ministry and the civil companies get in direct consultation.
Some hon. Members would obviously have preferred it if the reply to this Motion to-day had been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport rather than by myself. One is always hearing suggestions that civil aviation should be divorced from the Air Ministry. Although the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey will disagree with me, I believe that civil aviation would lose enormously, from the point of view of technical development, if there were not this direct link.
I think I have given the House some indication of what we are doing on what I may call the ad hoc side. I wish now to deal briefly with the Maybury Committee. That Committee has very recently reported on the whole sphere of civil aviation in this country. I know that hon. Members hold various views as to the possibilities of civil aviation in this country, but at all events the report of the Maybury Committee represents a real
476
effort, having regard to all the considerations, to try to make civil aviation a success.
The points connected with civil aviation which were chiefly raised in this Debate related to bookings and municipal airports. The Maybury Committee stressed very strongly that there should be as much co-operation as possible between air and land transport. One has to bear in mind, however, the fact that although the railway companies may have certain statutory advantages, there is a very definite commercial side to a railway company. Many hon. Members seemed to suggest that there should be more governmental use of the big stick, but I think that they advocated a principle which, if it were applied generally and not only to their pet particular subject, they would deplore. There is then the question of municipal airports. This matter, particularly with reference to subsidies, was carefully gone into by the Maybury Committee. They indicated clearly in their report that one did not want the idea to get round that municipalities were starting aerodromes and that then they would be, so to speak, "sold a pup." They stated in their report:
"When municipalities were being pressed to provide aerodromes, it was urged and, we understand, generally accepted that receipts would be negligible for some years. It was also urged that they should be looked upon as a service to the community rather than as a source of profit, and with this view we concur."
The Committee ended that passage in their report by saying:
"We do not, therefore, recommend any State subsidy to civil aerodromes."
I think it is clear that the Government have not been guilty of any breach in that matter. We have had that clear and very recent recommendation with regard to subsidies to municipal airports. The hon. Member for West Islington, and other hon. Members, raised other questions, and asked in particular what was being done to implement the Maybury Committee's report. Hon. Members will understand that the licensing order requires a great deal of care. I think they realise the implications of a licensing order of this description and that it is something which cannot be done lightly. All I can say is that that order will be placed before the House at no distant date.

477
I come now to what I think was the main burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud, that is to say, the question of Imperial Airways. The hon. Member used a phrase which is frequently used when he spoke of Imperial Airways as being the chosen instrument of the Government. Many hon. Members feel that that chosen instrument should be 100 per cent, perfect, and I concur with them. It is true to say, with regard to Continental services, that Imperial Airways are behind; it is equally true to say—and I hope this will also receive applause—that with regard to the Empire air route and the trans-atlantic route, Imperial Airways are very well ahead. In the nature of things, with air development, one is bound to have certain cases where a concern such as Imperial Airways falls behind in one thing and goes ahead in another. I am reminded of a song, "When one grasshopper jumps right over the other grasshopper's back." It seems to me that that is what is always happening in the sphere of aviation. I am sure the House appreciates why the new machines which have been ordered by Imperial Airways have not been delivered, and I do not think that is a subject in connection with which a public inquiry would serve any useful purpose. It is pretty well understood that the reason for the delay in the delivery of these aircraft is influenced by the rearmament programme. With regard to the question of de-icing or anti-icing—the House naturally appreciates the distinction—I do not think the hon. Member for Stroud was quite right in insinuating rather doubtful trade motives for the particular course which Imperial Airways have adopted. It is true to say that the Air Ministry itself has not yet decided on anything in the nature of a perfect de-icing apparatus or anti-icing apparatus. In recent instructions and regulations that have been issued on airworthiness, the Ministry has been careful not in any way to recommend something which it is not absolutely sure is efficient.
As to the other allegations made by the hon. Member for Stroud and other hon. Members against Imperial Airways, the policy of the Government towards the company has been well described and is well known. When the hon. Member for Stroud talks about subsidies on the one hand and dividends on the other, he should remember that, after all, the
478
arrangement entered into with Imperial Airways was on the basis of certain subsidies with a certain dividend limit, and that that arrangement has been continued not only under the present Government, but under preceding Governments. The hon. Member said that the Government insinuated that it had no responsibility for Imperial Airways. It has never insinuated anything of the sort, but a very clear dividing line has been laid down.
Mr. Montague: In view of the short time remaining, will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the important question of the dismissed pilots?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I shall certainly come to that point, but I may say that the hon. Member did not allow me a tremendous amount of time. There is a dividing line between the commercial activity of the company and the control of the Government. The Government have two directors on the board of the company, and I do not mind mentioning again the name of Sir John Salmond, because I think he ought to be a guarantee that in one of the Government directors we have somebody who really has technical knowledge of what is required of a pilot. His absence from this country at the moment is due entirely to the fact that he is travelling on the company's business, largely in order to inspect the conditions of pilots in foreign parts.
On the subject of victimisation, I made it clear in a statement which I made to the House the other day that the Government are satisfied, and have the confirmation of the Government directors, that no victimisation has taken place. They are also satisfied that the company does not object to the principle of collective bargaining as such; but clearly the Government are not going to try to force on a commercial company, with which it is contractually connected, the recognition of any particular trade union or organisation. This is a matter which is very largely for settlement between the company and the pilots. I was very careful to point out the methods by which pilots could under the Fair Wages Clause, which is laid down in the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and in various agreements, take grievances coming under that particular procedure direct to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Stroud will agree that in public and in private I

479
have been very careful to point out that method of dealing with grievances. Ii seems to me that the letter which the hon. Member read is one which he could quite rightly have taken before the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for West Islington made a suggestion which I could not help thinking he made with a recollection of his own days in Office. I think he had Departmental considerations in mind, no less than the opinion of the House generally, when he suggested that the word "public" should be omitted. Certainly it is a very helpful suggestion and one which I think is in accordance with the sense of the House.
The Secretary of State authorises me to make the following statement: (1) In view of the specific allegations that have been made, the Secretary of State will, in fairness to both sides, set up a Departmental inquiry into the charges of inefficiency made during the Debate. The findings, with reasons, will be published. There will be no inquiry into matters already dealt with very recently by the Maybury Committee, the Government's decisions on which were announced to and approved by the House. (2) The Secretary of State will discuss with the Government directors of Imperial Airways the system employed by the company for dealing with its staff, including the methods by which pilots and others are enabled to have their grievances or representations fairly considered. It is impossible for the Government to conduct the business of the company, and the Government will not go into specific grievances or the cases of individual pilots. Nor will it dictate to the company as to the recognition of any particular union. The company has already stated that it has no objection in principle to collective bargaining.
If that is not actually the head of the Secretary of State on a charger, I hope the hon. Member for Stroud will be satisfied that it is the scalp.
It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Simpson: I beg to move,
"That, realising that the present competitive system in transport has failed to provide satisfactory facilities and involves serious
480
waste, and in view also of the part which transport must play in a proper planning of the nation's economic life, this House is of opinion that co-ordination of transport is essential, and that complete co-ordination can only be secured through unified public ownership."
This Motion raises what is, essentially and traditionally, a Parliamentary subject. The earliest Parliamentary history has been concerned with transport in its elementary forms, and the evolution of transport has meant the creation of an arterial system, increasingly complex, on the maintenance and reciprocal strength of which the industrial health and the very existence of the modern community depend. In a Parliamentary Report of 1808 we read:
"Next to the general influences of the seasons upon which the regular supply of our wants and many of our comforts depends there is perhaps no circumstance more interesting to man than the perfections of the means of internal communication."
Those were, indeed, wise words, but like so many other injunctions, they were soon neglected or overborne by clamant sectional interests. Evidence of this was all too soon to be forthcoming, when the steam engine arrived—described as
"the greatest impulse to civilisation of any single cause since the gates of knowledge opened to the human species at large."
The steam engine and the railway systems of this country are still the dominating power in transport, in despite of the amazing progress of subsequent alternatives. I have had the privilege of some personal experience in the realm of transport, and I hope that in this House some knowledge of the subject may not be regarded as a disqualification. At any rate, it saves me from induging in wild and uninformed animadversions upon existing railway management as such. I have no hesitation in claiming that the British railway administration is as good as and, in many respects, possibly, better than any other in the world. We are familiar with outstanding personalities of deservedly national eminence at the head of various transport organisations in this country, and behind these, the possibly less known but no less able administrators and technicians and supporting staffs whose skill and reliability are possibly the best guarantee that, harnessed to this greater task, they are equal to its admittedly heavy claims.

481
My submissions are based on national considerations, although I am not unmindful of the working conditions and status of those who serve the country in these vital capacities, and who, together with their dependants, must number something like 3,000,000 of our population. I was familiar with service conditions when they were infinitely worse than they are to-day, and, contrary to many arguments advanced in old and recent times, the regular character of the employment even under those conditions proved a great social asset and made for a discipline and efficiency advantageous to employés and their calling alike. That is not to say that there is not a very sorry history, from the workers' point of view, in regard to railway development. But the victims of those times are now beyond the pale of redress and complaining and their troubles have gone with them into a buried if not a forgotten past. In other realms of railway history, however, the evil that men have done has lived after them in many respects of which we have evidence in the burden of present liabilities—a penalising proof of rapacity and crazy competition and an anti-social consequence of almost unbelievable proportions. The mushroom growth of the railways of this country, and the unprecedented speculation that has been associated therewith have left us a legacy of misfortune which is the central feature of our present problem. The chaotic and ill-directed paths of our railways remain the permanent monuments of that early folly.
I cannot to-night develop this black picture in full, but in a sentence I can say that in so far as railway progress in this country has been in the public interest, it has followed, however tardily, the principle adumbrated in this Motion. Various and conflicting transport policies have been vigorously debated in this House from time to time, and it is interesting to note that in the very earliest years, George Hudson, that tragic and extraordinary figure in railway history, the protagonist of private enterprise, described by Carlyle as the "big swollen gambler," was Member for Sunderland. It is also interesting to note that one of the most successful advocates of State control was the Member for Ipswich, James Morrison, who was regarded as a much more sagacious and dependable person than the advocate of private enter-
482
prise in those days. In all the reports and inquiries of those times, the establishment of permanent and effective controlling boards by the State was advised, and this process culminated in the well-known Act of Mr. Gladstone in 1844 providing for modified State purchase of the railways. It is unfortunate but true that the recommendations on which that Measure was based were whittled down and the Bill was substantially weakened before it became an Act, the Government succumbing, as usual, to pressure from financial interests to the detriment of the national purpose of the Measure.
It is true, of course, that the railway pioneers, like all pioneers, made mistakes, but it may be said that the largely negative attitude of British Governments to the railways is in strange contrast to the positive attitude adopted abroad, with its logical sequence of State ownership. In those early days, I suppose, they had many other problems to deal with, but the amount of Parliamentary time devoted to private railway Bills was enormous. In the two years 1846 and 1847 no fewer than 116 committees sat for 1,502 Parliamentary days, during which time 466 railway Acts were passed. Even in those days some of those Acts were for amalgamations giving evidence of the weaknesses of early private ventures. These figures are of special importance as giving a clue to the colossal sums, variously estimated as representing the cost of these various applications and contests. Certain it is that a huge slice of existing railway capital consists of legal, Parliamentary and other extortions—a record of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once described as "scandalous pillage" the liability for which the present generation is expected to shoulder. The weight of that early and unjustifiable debt has necessarily hampered the treatment of obsolescence, and has delayed the initiation and integration of transport improvements and inventions such as the motor and electricity. It has been a great drawback to real transport advance in this country. It is true that the railways have suffered under certain statutory limitations, but the combination of those factors has impeded technical and economic advances which would have been of great advantage to the country as a whole.

483
I have no time to enter into the vexed question of watered stock and other current handicaps under which the present systems suffer. But under pressure of necessity, which is, after all, a poor substitute for intelligent government, the number of railway companies has been reduced from about 1,000 to the four principal companies with which we are familiar to-day. Obviously, the next step should be the welding together of the existing rail systems, eliminating waste and overlapping and securing standardisation in essentials, without stultification of means and methods of progressive service. Before the advent of road motor competition, the railways were subject to very little challenge except from the canals and coastal services. The canal systems have fallen into such abject oblivion in these days of speed fetish, that I am afraid their importance is largely overlooked. We have in this country, roughly, 4,000 miles of canals and navigable waterways, but they are not in very fit or efficient condition. With about one-third of the canals owned by railways which are interested in eliminating rather than developing parallel services, the country is largely deprived of the most economical form of heavy traffic transport, which has been exploited to the full by Continental countries. The canals, if modernised and worked in conjunction with road and coastal services, would provide a vast and useful field for relieving fast transit routes from congestion and providing correspondingly low freight charges for commodities which do not require quick transport.
Again, in a country like our own one would have imagined that we would have utilised our sea-board to the greatest advantage. The facts are, however, that the coastal services have made little or no advance in proportion to the vastly increased transport demands. We have a coastal fleet of approximately 1,300 vessels, excluding sailers, of which 300 are liners, the remainder being coastal tramps. I submit that the conditions in this coastal service are anything but creditable to the present age in regard to equipment and staff in particular. These services are subject to-day, I understand, to very undesirable forms of foreign competition which undercut British standards, for what the latter are worth. They
484
naturally link up with rail, canal and harbour concerns, and in the latter connection we find that of 330 harbours, one-third are already under the control of public trusts, and of 10 leading ports the railways control three. Here, again, are obvious and desirable contacts that should be co-ordinated in order to secure efficiency and meet the varying needs of industry in this country.
There is another form of transport, not mentioned in the Motion, namely, the air arm, which already has Government intervention, and for effective co-operation and commercial advantage this should be organically associated with road and rail services. In referring to Government intervention and action in this matter, I do not, of course, refer to the kind of Government intervention that has been dealt with in such devastating fashion by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) this evening, and many of his criticisms might be usefully interpolated in what I have to say.
For the sake of convenience, I have left the major and most urgent factor in the problem, the advent of road motor transport competition, to the last. It has been said that British railways were built for eternity and that nobody had the foresight to think that any challenge would arise in such phenomenal fashion as to provide us with the problems which road motor service has left us to deal with at the moment. The history of road motor development has been less blameworthy, possibly, than the railway ramp; nevertheless, the early negative attitude of the Government has allowed a network of vested interests to take root, leaving us as usual to deal with damaging effects instead of dealing constructively with the causes which are responsible for them. There was special justification for Government interest and intervention in regard to the road services inasmuch as this new competitor to the rail was flagrantly exploiting public roads, at public expense, for private profit.
I cannot to-night analyse the economics of road and rail services, but it is clear that the rate advantages that have accrued have been largely subsidised at the public cost, at the expense of other transport users, or at the expense of road staffs. The invasion of public highways by heavy, unsuitable, unnecessary, competitive traffic is not only a crying scandal

485
to-day, but definitely a public menace. Pedestrians and cyclists especially have been victims. Fatal and other accidents on our roads to-day amount annually in casualties to the total of a nineteenth century war, and during the short span of this Debate on transport to-night on October figures no fewer than three or four people will have been killed on our roads and 100 injured. I am not pretending that the introduction of competitive road transport is entirely responsible for these figures, but they are sufficiently appalling to justify mention in this Debate. There is no responsible person, I am sure, who would desire to obstruct any proper advance in transport amenities, but without the control that is asked for in the Motion the community is robbed of the real and net advantages of this new form of transport.
It seems to me that the demands on transport will progressively increase, and to mention only the one factor the impending holidays with pay to millions of workers in this country, the existing resources in holiday periods are taxed to the uttermost, and before these new holiday demands arise some effort at spreading and planning would seem to be absolutely necessary to give even the best transport organisation a chance. But even under existing conditions there is a very urgent need for additional equipment of all kinds, or during those holiday periods transport work will be a nightmare for the railway staffs, and, so far as many holiday makers are concerned, it will be merely a change from one form of discomfort and worry to another. Similarly, the outrageous conditions obtaining to-day, in which millions of people have to travel to and from their homes in this and other great cities, urgently call for improvement.
I am appreciative of the fact that in some directions the railways have indulged in enterprise that one is loth to condemn as an effort at improvement. We have, for instance, the spectacular streamlined luxury trains which are keeping railways in the news at the moment. But these aristocracies of travel under existing conditions can only be created with unfortunate repercussions on the many ordinary travellers and intermediate services, and they throw into vivid contrast the antiquated stock and services for the multitude. But in spite of the
486
predilection of this Government and previous Governments for private enterprise, the facts are that they have been compelled largely to institute a monopoly for road transport at the present time, and what remains of competition in the realm of transport is largely a struggle between road and rail. It is true that the battles at the licensing courts are nothing but a financial bagatelle as compared with the struggles for powers in days gone by; nevertheless, they represent a very considerable amount of cost and waste for which the public ultimately have to pay. All these conflicts add nothing to public convenience, and duplications and fighting costs have finally to be borne by the people who use the service. It is obvious, therefore, that a scientific and rationalised system of co-ordinated control is far more necessary to-day than when these principles were clearly set out 100 years ago. Experience has amply proved the claims of the early pioneers for State control and management, and every increase in transport has accentuated the argument for that change. Population has increased enormously, and so have the trade and commerce of this country, and again in that proportion the change is more necessary.
There are one or two wider considerations to which I would like to refer. In these days of military strategic needs, these facts and considerations cannot be overlooked in regard to our transport services, and they have always influenced the attitude of foreign Governments. What possibly are of greater importance are the strategic needs of industry, for which this reform is urgently required. The basic industries of competitive countries have always been related to their transport policy. We have a Government to-day that is always tinkering with subsidies and artificial assistances, all in the direction of increasing prices, and I submit that in this proposal there is ready to hand a remedy of assistance to our basic industries by means of co-operation which will represent economies of a useful kind and provide a reduction of costs for everybody concerned.
I have time to give only one illustration of the reactions of imperfect and inadequate transport services in the realm of labour and industrial life. Early this year at one pit, for instance, 800 miners refused to go down owing to the shortage

487
of railway wagons. The dislocation and lack of service had necessitated short-time working, which meant that the miners were able to earn only £1 a week, and in those circumstances they were deprived of unemployment benefit, making those working miners worse off than if they were on relief. Examples of that kind could be multiplied, and I only give that as a specific instance.
Furthermore, it is now accepted, I think, even by a Conservative Government, that basic industries such as agriculture, mining, and electricity must all come within the ambit of Government influence and control in some fashion. The establishment of a national transport service would dovetail into these fundamental schemes enabling a Government really to get to grips with location of industry and assume some control of our social destiny. In conjunction with this and other planning of a similar kind, given the application of this remedy that I propose, a framework at least of an ordered State would be in sight and something more than economic patchwork and alleviation made possible. There is no need, and I have no time, to cite foreign or Empire examples for the purposes of this argument. Chairmen of railway companies, economists, and business men of high repute have all urged the merits of this proposal on broad lines. It is true that the concepts and emphasis have varied in character, and indeed the Amendment which stands on the Paper is really flattery by imitation. The only reservation in the opinions to which I have referred has generally been that control should be free from wanton, mischievous, political interference.
I must leave my hon. Friends to develop the administrative and financial sides of this proposal. I only want to add, in conclusion, that whatever ideas may have existed as to managing industry from some attic in Whitehall, they are not the conceptions contained in my Motion. If those ideas existed at all, they must have been the natural ante-thesis to the conclusion that the industrial future and fortunes of this country could be safely left to directors in bath chairs and masterly Government inactivity. We may all be reluctant to accept new theories, but at least let us learn from history and from compelling circumstances, and let us recognise the
488
existence of ripened processes that we have been indifferent otherwise to discover. The proposition that I have tabled is no simple one, but it is by no means beyond the genius and capacity available, freed from the trammels of the existing systems and stimulated by a worthy and urgent national objective.
It is, perhaps, a rather melancholy reflection, and evidence of slow-footed hope, which the Amendment would still further defer, that with the slightest of paraphrase one can fittingly conclude with a peroration which Mr. Gladstone used, after a two-hours' speech, by the way, in 1844, in his Second Reading speech on his Bill. He said:
"I contend that this Measure, so far from being a Measure of violence, is characterised by the utmost moderation, and feeling that we have right and justice on our side, I say-that, although private interests are powerful, I do not think they have mounted so high, or that Parliament has yet sunk so low, as that at their bidding you will refuse to sanction this Motion."
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Motion.
I am gratified that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is present this evening. He is the Member of Parliament for North Hackney, I am the Member for Central Hackney, and we all know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and I hope there will be enough right thinking on transport from the two Hackney constituencies other than the Parliamentary Secretary's to flow over and convert him to this proposal. We are offering the House this Motion, not merely because it is in harmony with the political philosophy of Members on these benches, but because it is an example of good business organisation. It would be an undoubted advantage to the people of Great Britain to secure the co-ordination of transport under public ownership, and it is tremendously important that this nation should have the best possible form, system, and organisation of transport. I suppose there is no other single factor that has made so large a contribution to civilisation and progress as has transport, and it is an old saying of mine that the world stood still for 2,000 years while there was no improvement in transport. Napoleon could only move his armies about Europe at the

489
same speed and for the same distance as Caesar 2,000 years previously.
During that time transport had remained unchanged. Then came the steam locomotive, and the development and progress in civilisation have roughly been contemporary with the existence in transport of steam locomotion. An interesting little pamphlet was recently written by G. B. Lissenden entitled "The Civilising Influence of Transport." The foreword was written by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The writer of the pamphlet clearly sets forth what an enormous part transport has played in lifting the general level of civilisation. One of the most delightful essays that has been written in our language is that of De Quincey in which he described his experience when he sat on a stage coach that took the news of the victory of Waterloo in 1815 from London to the city of Bath. It took then a considerable time for that information to go what to us is now an exceedingly short distance. News now goes like a flash. A fair idea of the improvement that has occurred in transport and communications can be gained by contrasting 1815 with 1937. The improvement began with the coming of the steam locomotive. It was increased when Gustav Daimler and Otto Benz, working independently, hit on the idea of the internal combustion engine.
To-day we have all the engineering requirements of a really excellent transport system. We have the railways. Their early history, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, was characterised by some terrible mistakes. One of the worst was when they made the gauge of the railways 4 ft. 8½ inches instead of 6 ft. as Brunel had arranged, and Brunei had to alter his gauge to the far inferior gauge of to-day. There were any number of financial mistakes. Large sums of money were spent most improvidently in compensating landlords, in huge litigation fees, and in all sorts of wasteful expenditure. The importance of that is that the errors of a century or 80 years ago have been built into the existing transport system. The railways, in particular, are struggling with a weight of debt that is far larger than it ought to be to run the undertakings efficiently, while the workers are expected to earn dividends on money that was collected and spent in that wasteful way years ago. I
490
recently came across an old book published in 1879 which described the life of a railway stationmaster and detailed his experiences previous to that year. One could see from the plain and interesting story which he told what a vast number of mistakes were made in railway management in those old days.
We have the railways and the roads available now for transport facilities, and to them has been added the air. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will agree with me, but I have always felt that civil aviation ought to come under his Department as a branch of the transport services instead of under the Air Ministry. There has been some coordination in the realm of transport. There was the Railways Act of 1921, which reduced the 100 or so undertakings to four great organisations. There have been the pooling arrangements whereby the companies agree to pool the receipts from traffic conveyed between points in which they are mutually interested. There have been working agreements between the railway companies and road undertakings and some rudimentary and fragmentary form of co-ordination of services. There was the Road Traffic Act of 1930, passed by a Labour Government, which makes for intelligent organisation on the road, and is steadily but rather slowly systematising the arrangements for road motor traffic. That Act left the ownership question untouched. Ownership is mixed. There has been practically no co-ordination or organisation in goods motor traffic. Then the local authorities have wisely organised passenger traffic inside their own boundaries. Most of them are doing it exceptionally well, and the undertakings are of great use to the citizens for whom they cater.
In spite of these rudimentary and first beginings in organisation and co-ordination, very little has been done. If we compare, for instance, transport with the General Post Office, we see what an enormous contrast it is. In the Post Office there is the postal, telephone, and telegraph services, and they are coordinated and interlocked. We can send a telegram over the telephone, and it can be delivered by the postal authorities as a letter would be. All three services have been combined in one unit of operation by the Post Office. It would be absurd, and no one would defend it for a

491
moment to have postal arrangements in which there were four different pillar boxes at each street corner and four competing post offices in the main roads of our cities. Everyone realises that that would be the height of absurdity. It is equally absurd to have the railways split into four separate organisations. I know that some of the competition between them has disappeared and that there are working arrangements, but still there are four separate undertakings with separate capital, and separate boards of directors, and even now there is some competition between them for traffic.
We suggest that it would be good business for the nation if the whole of these transport facilities were operated as a unit, and for there to be established a National Transport Board which should be charged with the responsibility of organising and co-ordinating all forms of transport—road, rail, canal, coastwise shipping and air—in order that the utmost contribution from each one for transport services could be procured. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) spoke about the absurdity of transport being organised from an "attic in Whitehall." No one believes in that kind of administration. We desire a transport board which should be composed of the best transport minds in the country, men with a public spirited outlook, which should endeavour to serve the community to the utmost of the needs of the community. Sometimes we are taunted by hon. Members on the other side with desiring confiscation. They ought to know by this time that we desire nothing of the kind. Our proposal is that these undertakings should be taken over on reasonable and fair compensation. There ought to be no question on that point in 1937. My hon. Friend made some play with what Mr. Gladstone said in 1844. We have often heard the question asked as to what he did say in 1844. What he said in legislation in that year was:
"It shall be lawful for the Lords Commissioners to purchase any such railways upon giving to the said company three calendar months notice in writing of their intention and upon payment of a sum equal to 25 years purchase of the annual divisible profits estimated on the average of the three then next preceding years."
I do not suggest that that particular form of words should be the basis of compen-
492
sation, but I say that the way to discover the value of the railways is to discover their profit-earning capacity and multiply that by a given and agreed number of years. On those terms compensation could be given. There are some people to-day who, in the light of more recent developments, are tempted to decry the part which the railway industry plays in transport. They talk about the railways as being down and out. Of course, that is not the case. The railways are a very profitable undertaking. Out of every pound paid for goods transport or for tickets bought through booking-office windows in 1936 4s. 5d. was distributed to debenture holders and to shareholders. Any industry which can distribute nearly 25 per cent, of its gross revenue is certainly not an industry which is down and out. There was enough money distributed to provide for a dividend of 3¼ per cent., on the average, on all the existing railway capital. It is not the fault of the workers or of the nation that railway capital is so badly organised that certain shareholders get 5 per cent., some even more than 5 per cent., while some of the poor ordinary shareholders receive little or none.
I notice on the Order Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). When I read that Amendment I rubbed my eyes, wondering what had come over the Conservative party, because doctrines are included in that Amendment which would have made the predecessors of those who now sit on the Conservative benches turn in their graves. First of all the Amendment recognises the importance of a properly co-ordinated transport system. That is clear and obvious. Everyone in this House is against anarchy in transport, and we can count on the support of hon. Members opposite on that point. Then the Amendment goes on to say that the ownership of transport should be divided between public and private hands. We can all agree on that. No one on these benches suggests that all forms of transport shall be in public ownership. We do not want public ownership for bakers' carts or undertakers' hearses. All that our proposals cover are large-scale undertakings, the great railway companies and the large-scale road undertakings, and if the

493
Amendment also means that there is no division of opinion between us. It is a great step forward for hon. Members opposite to make a proposal which supports the idea of public ownership of any form of transport.
The meaning of our Motion is that, instead of the disorganised system which prevails to-day, instead of the control of transport being in the hands of directors who are concerned merely with their own section of transport, and use it without regard to any other section, there shall be some co-relation of all the different forms of transport in order to obtain the best possible results. We are urging that, first of all, there shall be co-ordination inside each section, that all the railway companies for instance shall work together as a unit; and, secondly, that there shall be co-ordination between the different sections, so that road and rail may work in an interlocking way to meet adequately the transport needs of the country. In spite of all the mistakes of the past, in spite of the over capitalisation of the railways, in spite of other errors which have been, so to speak, built into our transport experience, I believe that if the nation through a National Transport Board accepted responsibility for organising nationally its transport, the effect would be beneficial to industry and beneficial to the men and women of this country and would provide something far more acceptable and far more advantageous than the present arrangements.
8.20 p.m.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House recognises the importance of a properly co-ordinated transport system, but considers that, having regard to the complex nature of transport requirements in this country and their widely varying conditions, there are definite public advantages in having transport undertakings under both public and private ownership and operating under such measures of statutory regulation and control as may be necessary in the national interest."
I think the whole House listened with great interest to the two speeches made in support of the Motion, made, I notice, by two men whose lives have been spent on the railways, whose whole interest in life has been centred on the railways. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson started by paying a high tribute to the organisation and the
494
efficiency of British railways. He said that British railway administration is as good as, and in many ways better than, any other in the world. He also said that it was equal to the admittedly heavy claims made upon it. I was very glad to hear that tribute from him, but later in his speech he must have forgotten it, because he brought up very heavy criticism and examples of bad management. If the railways are so well managed—and I took down his words at the time—I fail to see what the further object of the two speeches could be. The rest of the time he seemed to spend in telling us how appallingly bad the management was 100 years ago, and therefore we should have to nationalise the railways to-day; and I must say that he did exhibit the most appalling bias against the roads. Apparently, the whole case was that nationalisation will cure any troubles that there are. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), who seconded the Motion, and seconded it very well, brought up the story of the General Post Office, and said what a wonderfully efficient organisation it is. I join with him in that tribute, but though I am going to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), who is supporting my Amendment, to deal with that point, I would remark that the General Post Office hires a lot of its transport from private enterprise. It does not run its own transport.
Mr. Walkden: It owns a great deal of its own transport.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: But it is none the less true that it has to go to private enterprise for some part of its transport. Another point made by the hon. Member was that we should think it ridiculous if there were four pillar boxes of competing post offices in one street, and drew an analogy between that and the four railway companies. The position is not comparable. The four railways are not serving the same districts.
Mr. Watkins: In a good many cases they are.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: In very few cases, and where there is overlapping it is a matter for the management and can easily be cured. To say that nationalisation is the cure-all for everything is a parrot cry which does not bear much re-

495
petition. It is a dictator's cry. Dictators use nothing else. If hon. Members want a reference for the use of nationalisation let them ask Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini. At the same time it is highly recommended by the Trades Union Congress. I do not understand why the Trades Union Congress agree with dictators in so many things like that. It is dictatorship that is recommended. We agree that proper co-ordination is necessary, but what we do not want is to see the dead hand of bureaucratic dictatorship on any industry. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion pointed out that there are at least five methods of transport in this country—road, rail, canal, coastwise shipping and the air. I am going to leave the air aside for the moment. Although air transport may be a factor of some importance in the future, at the present moment it is of no really great importance in the transport industry of this country, and I very much doubt whether it ever will be a very great factor, because the distances here are so small from an air transport point of view.
I have looked with great interest at the report of the Transport Advisory Committee on services and rates. I found a most excellent definition of co-ordination of transport, which, I think, was put forward by the Chamber of Shipping. I think hon. Members would do well to study this definition and see what we mean by co-ordination. The definition is:
"A state in which the various forms of transport, irrespective of ownership, can, under equitable conditions, function efficiently, not only within their several spheres but also as part of a comprehensive whole, under a system either imposed or reached by mutual agreement conditioned by public interest."
It adds:
"For the carriage of goods by the means of transport which offers the greatest advantages, present and potential, of economy, efficiency, public convenience and national well-being."
That is a very excellent definition of coordination of transport such as I think all would agree we desire. There have been such flattering remarks from the other side about my Amendment that I am fully confident that hon. Members will accept it as an improvement on their own proposal.
496
The Transport Advisory Council has a special paragraph in this report about coastwise shipping. They say:
"We are fully aware of the importance of the industry, both from the trade and national point of view, and of the need which therefore exists for taking no step which would be detrimental to this industry."
Coastwise shipping is an essential part of our transport service. In ordinary times it is important, but in times of civil emergency it is absolutely essential. It is estimated that in 1935 coastwise shipping carried about 33,000,000 tons of cargo—no small proportion of the total services, and a considerable factor. The hon. Member pointed out that there are three types of coastwise shipping: the coastal liner, the coastal tramp of over 1,000 tons and the coastal tramp of under 1,000 tons. The reason why I have differentiated in the tonnage of the coastal tramp is because it is the smaller, under 1,000 tons, which is mainly subjected to foreign competition. That makes a rate agreement almost an impossibility.
What steps would hon. Members take under nationalisation to deal with this foreign competition? Would they stop it altogether? If we attempted to stop foreign competition altogether and forbade the entry of foreigners into that trade we should infringe the freedom of the seas, and we should bring in that discrimination which we have fought very strongly. We have had a lot of trouble against discrimination by Portugal, but that matter has been amicably settled, eventually. We should also very badly injure British shipping in other parts of the world, because those of our ships doing coastwise trade in those parts would naturally suffer. The repercussions from any attempt by nationalisation to stamp out foreign competition could be extremely dangerous. The coastal ship-ping trade relates the cost of the service to the freight charges. It is quite easy to do so and to estimate your costs. The road system can also carry out a similar method, but railways would find it very difficult to do so. I do not want the House to think that I am making an attack upon the roads. That is the last thing I would do, especially as it would not be in the spirit of the Amendment, which calls for co-ordination and cooperation. This very valuable report, which I commend to the House, suggests that co-ordination is best achieved

497
"by securing to traders adequate alternative facilities,"
and that there should be
"an unfettered right on the part of the trader to select the form of transport which he approves and which is the most economic "for his purpose."
Those are two strong recommendations and I hope that I shall have time to return to them a little later on in my speech.
It is obvious that we cannot secure coordination of the transport services until road systems become stabilised. The Government recognise that, and in tire Gracious Speech from the Throne they foreshadowed a Bill for an alteration in the law dealing with the wages and conditions of service in transport services. There is, in Command Paper No. 5440, the report of a committee on the regulation of wages and conditions of service in the road motor transport industry for the conveyance of goods. When that legislation has been before the House and has been discussed, passed and implemented, we shall have got a great deal further on the road towards really good co-operation. The roads will then be able to get their rates on a better basis than at present. Up to the present, a very large measure of agreement has already been obtained, and the report embodies agreed representations made by road, rail and coastwise shipping. It has, therefore, begun to help in a very practical way towards this co-operation and co-ordination that we so much desire, even though it may not have secured the full approval of the industry.
The road industry is very individualistic. Over 50 per cent, of the vehicles are owner-driven, and therefore it is not the most suitable industry for nationalisation. It should be obvious to anybody who considers the matter that with that proportion of owner-driven vehicles the industry must be unsuitable for nationalisation. The words of the Motion are:
"failed to provide satisfactory facilities."
I cannot see that that is the case. I consider that there has been ample provision of satisfactory facilities. What has happened has been that a succession of Governments, during the War and since, have failed to provide facilities proportionate to the development of motor transport, which has taken place to such a
498
remarkable extent. The roads are neither good enough nor wide enough, nor sufficiently organised to take the transport which wishes to go on them. It is wrong to restrict transport in the way that is happening to-day. Approximately 800 new mechanical vehicles come on to the roads every day; that is a net figure and takes into account the old vehicles which are taken off the roads. This constant increase of road traffic will get far worse until some measure is taken to deal with it. I am convinced that the Minister of Transport realises the position, but I would tell him that the line to take is to develop, and not to restrict. Restriction is the wrong way to deal with this matter in these days.
I do not want to put before the House the report which was drawn up by Members of Parliament who had an opportunity of seeing the big motor roads in Germany. Those of us who went over there were in the difficulty of not knowing how to apply what we learned to the conditions that exist in this country and which are very different from the conditions in Germany. That we learned something is undoubted, and our conclusions are embodied in a report which has been issued by the Parliamentary Roads Committee. The Minister was good enough to refer to it as a valuable document, and from it those who are interested will be able to see whether our conclusions are sound, and to assist us to assist the Ministry in dealing with the matter.
The traffic problem of London is one of extreme complication, and it is likely to lead to still further complications in the near future. The idea of taking cars off the road in London is wrong. We must see how we can get over the problem of dealing with London transport, because otherwise it will grow to such an extent that there will be an almost complete stoppage of transport in London. The suggestion has been put forward, and I would put it forward again to-night, that with co-operation between road and rail, the electrification of the suburban railways having improved to the extent that it has, there is no reason why roads should not be built over the railways where they have been electrified. That would not involve buying up valuable property in order to drive new roads through London, and it is far more feasible than the suggestion I have seen

499
that underground roads should be made through London. Underground roads are always very expensive to construct, and their proper ventilation is very difficult. If petrol-driven or oil-driven vehicles are sent through a tunnel, the most perfect system of ventilation is necessary, because these vehicles exhaust poisonous gases. Therefore, it is far better to use the overhead system if that is possible. The space is there over the railways, and there is no question of destroying buildings or amenities. It is a question of cooperation with the railways.
The railways would have to have considerable compensation for the disturbance caused to them—because it would cause a certain amount of disturbance to the railways—and that compensation would largely assist the railways by reducing their capital debt. I think that this idea deserves the closest examination and consideration, because in my opinion it would go a long way towards reducing the great difficulties of London transport, and especially the difficulties that are now facing us. What is done to-day will have its effect 10 years hence in a far greater degree than can be believed. If we look back 10 years, it is easy to realise that, if some of the projects which are being carried out to-day had been carried out then, the position to-day would not be nearly so difficult as it is agreed by everyone to be. I would put forward one small suggestion, namely, that the Ministry should take a census of all the abandoned-railways. There are throughout the country a certain number of railways which have been abandoned, and which one sees from time to time as grass-grown tracks. Cannot they be used as part of our road system, instead of spending money unnecessarily in buying new land?
No real co-ordination or co-operation can be effected until the thorny question of rates has been settled. As I said a few minutes ago the road transport industry cannot stabilise its rates until the questions of hours of service, conditions of service and wages have been stabilised in that industry. As soon as that is done, it may be possible to come to some agreement on rates. But the real difficulty is that the road transport industry is in competition with the ancillary user. That is a very real difficulty in the problem of arriving at a rate agreement. I believe,
500
however, that that difficulty can and will be overcome.
The railways, starting about 100 years ago, created a monopoly in long-distance transport in this country. The British people have always disliked a monopoly, and we have taken pains through legislation to control monopolies as far as possible. The legislation that was passed to control the railway monopoly has placed very severe restrictions on the railways, and has involved, among other things, a most amazing method of rating on the railways. So far as I can see—I may be wrong, but nobody so far has proved that I am wrong—there is no definite relationship to costs in railway rating. The whole thing seems to be. based on what the traffic will bear, and the rates are levied according to what the traffic will bear. If they are too high, the traffic will vanish, but they are levied as high as possible provided the traffic will bear it. I believe that the common sense which seems to be permeating the transport industry at the present moment, and to be leading it towards agreement, will very shortly bring about a much closer relationship between road transport and coastwise shipping, and more particularly between road and rail, on the question of rates. The Mover of the Resolution talked about the serious waste that was involved. The Resolution says:
"The present competitive system in transport has failed to provide satisfactory facilities and involves serious waste."
I was a little surprised to hear from the opposite benches the desire expressed for mechanisation and rationalisation. Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that such methods of dispelling waste are throwing people out of work, but, if I may paraphrase their plea this evening in language which I think is a more or less correct interpretation, not of what they mean, but of what will happen, it is something like this: "Push half these lorries and lorry drivers and operators out of work, carry as much as you can with as few people as possible running the show, and you will have a much more efficient organisation." That is what would happen. I do not suppose for a moment that it is what hon. Members intend should happen, but there is no doubt about it when the thing is analysed and looked at properly. People with an authoritarian outlook talk about the division of function, and that was

501
rather suggested by the Salter Report. A division of function means that one person is told to send his stuff by rail, another to send his by road, a third to send his by ship, and meanwhile the whole industry will be sent somewhere else. The trader must be free to choose the type of transport that he wants, having regard both to the cost of the transport and to the question of convenience. The transport industry must be prepared to sell its services, and not to sit back and reap the fruits of monopolies. That would be the result of nationalising the transport industry.
Transport is the servant, and not the master, of industry. We already have enough dictatorships of various forms in the world without creating another. As I said before, the railways have suffered from restrictive legislation. The road transport industry at the moment is suffering from objections. Everyone seems to be able to come forward and object to a man getting a licence. What is going to happen in the event, so hoped for by the Opposition, of a decline in trade—[Interruption]—prophesied with such glee, shall I say? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, I will not withdraw; there is no reason why I should.
Mr. Mathers: Justify it.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: The speeches of hon. Members themselves justify it.
Mr. Silverman: In order to justify his statement, the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks of speeches prophesying that something will happen. Will he point to a single speech by members of this party, or anyone associated with the party, here or outside the House, which can be said to have prophesied anything of that sort with anything like glee?
Colonel Sandeman Allen: I do not know about glee. They have prophesied that a slump is coming, and the interpretation put on that by the public is that the Socialists want a slump, and hope that they will be able to get back on a slump.
Mr. Silverman: If the hon. and gallant Member now wants to shelter behind what some anonymous person has said, I cannot complain, but if he is speaking of his own opinion, where is there anything in any of the speeches to which he
502
has referred that justifies the inference that this was prophesied with glee?
Colonel Sandeman Allen: The hon. Member's face is so full of glee as a rule that I put that interpretation on it when he spoke. This sword of Damocles is hanging over the industry. It never knows when everything is to be swept away. When the decline of trade comes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—should the decline prophesied by hon. Members come, the industry does not know what is to happen to it. It is not fair to have the sword of Damocles hanging over road transport. I will finish by quoting again from the Transport Advisory Council Report on Service and Rates:
"Far better ultimate results would be achieved through the more or less free coordination of all forms of transport through rates structures than can be achieved by arbitrary restrictions."
Those words sum up truly the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House.
8.50 p.m.
Sir Isidore Salmon: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to make a few observations with regard to the speeches from the Opposition benches. I feel that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken do not realise the problem which has to be considered when they speak of nationalising the industry. Let me deal, first of all, with road transport. Take the 460,000 commercial goods vehicles in this country. Over 300,000, or 70 per cent, of them, are operated by 186,734 private traders, solely for the carriage and sale of their own goods. It has also to be borne in mind that during the last two years they have increased by 25,000. The remaining 150,000 are operated by no fewer than 63,241 owners. The smallness of the units and the increase in private vehicles indicate some of the main advantages of road transport, namely, its individuality, its adaptability to peculiar local and trade conditions, and its flexibility.
To what extent does nationalisation help the users of the 150,000 lorries, under "A" and "B" licences, known as public hauliers. Industry would still require these lorries for the carrying on of business. To what extent would it free the roads? Who is to decide what alternative method of transport shall be

503
used? Is industry to receive its instructions from some central authority? Is it to be told how it should deal with the goods that it has to deliver or the raw materials it has to receive? I venture to think that this problem has not had sufficient consideration from the hon. Members who introduced the Motion. I feel that when they speak about a board which should decide all this they are a little inconsistent. First, we had a historical survey of the position of the railways of this country, and complaints were made that they made mistakes. I would reply to hon. Members that they will never make a success unless they make mistakes. The proposers of the Motion did pay a compliment to the railways as a whole, although the Mover, or his Seconder, referred to the large amount of capital invested in the railways and alleged that if that had not existed improvement would have been more rapid. Without having any interest in railways, I can challenge any hon. Member to state which railways in the world beat the British railways to-day? It is useless to get up and make loose statements. They sound very nice for the moment, but we have a more important problem to consider. It is not often recognised what really has taken place in the last few years with regard to transport generally.
One of the hon. Gentlemen opposite gave evidence before the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be a member. I remember that Mr. Bromley, the hon. Gentleman, and another representative from the particular trade union gave evidence, but nothing that has been said to-night goes any further than what they said at the time. They made all these statements, but when asked "Why do you think that nationalisation of the railways would give you all the things you desire, and to what extent will the public benefit by having nationalisation?" they answered "That is our view"—a pious opinion. They are perfectly entitled to express a view, but they could give no figures or facts to justify it. I remember quite well pressing that very point, and up to now I have never seen, either privately or publicly, any way in which, if such a scheme of nationalisation of the railways were to take place, it would be a benefit to the public. I do not know and I would not
504
like to suggest that Transport House wants to alter its name to Tammany Hall.
What is behind the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite in pressing nationalisation of transport? I suggest that it is that there is a great patronage attached to the idea of having the whole of the transport workers in a nationalised scheme. If that is the suggestion, we might have a repetition of the scandals that happened under public assistance committees, when it was necessary, in order to end such scandals, to take the matter out of the political arena and put it under the control of independent persons. I suggest that this is a very real danger. Pressure would be put upon the Government of the day to go on paying higher wages and to provide pensions because they were Government servants, and thus you would be increasing and not decreasing the expenditure of running the railways and transport. The result would be that real wages, as far as the worker is concerned—because it would depend upon what he could buy with his money—would be reduced, because transport charges, being higher, would have a consequential effect in increasing the price of the products he had to buy. Therefore, instead of being a help to the country, it would do considerable damage to the country.
The problem that faces industry to-day as regards transport is much more complex than many hon. Members seem to realise. It is so complex that it is impossible to attempt to work it out from one centre by the issuing of rules, regulations and orders. Each industry has its own peculiar problems with which to deal, and what may be perfectly sound for one industry in one area may be totally wrong for another industry in the same area or for the same type of industry in another area. Is not the real truth that each particular factory has its own particular idiosyncrasies as to location, and its own individual distribution problems? Do not let us forget that industry is the servant of the public. We seem to think at times that we can simply make rules and regulations and that the people vill sit still and abide by them. One of the difficulties that the railways have foutd in the past has been the number of regulations and rules laid down by Statute preventing them from having the flexibility which is so necessary to progressive industry. Here again hon. Gentle-

505
men are suggesting a means whereby they would make regulations so rigid that industry as a whole, and consequently the country as a whole, would suffer.
It is interesting to note that the report of the Traffic Advisory Council has laid down three broad principles. They are principles which hon. Gentlemen who may follow me should bear in mind. They are

"(1) That, with a view to avoiding unnecessary overlapping of services and uneconomic competition, it is desirable to establish as great a degree of co-ordination as possible among the various forms of transport engaged in the carriage of goods, so as to ensure that each form of transport is used to the greatest national advantage;

(2) that the best line of approach to achieve co-ordination is to aim at securing for traders adequate alternative facilities, care being taken that the resultant competition is on fair terms;

(3) that there should be an unfettered right on the part of the trader to select the form of transport which he approves and which is most convenient and economic for his purpose."

I would remind hon. Members who are pressing this Motion that in addition we have the recommendations of the Baillie Report on the regulation of wages and service. Under that recommendation, which deals with the licence holder, that is the "C" licence, the worker is being prevented from being exploited. I believe that if you have, on the one hand, the Advisory Council's regulation and the Baillie Report, the public will be properly served and the employes will receive a reasonable and satisfactory wage. The difficulties that are anticipated by hon. Gentlemen opposite will not arise, and generally things will be much more satisfactory. One of the difficulties has been the question of the roads being dangerous because the machines were not kept properly and men worked excessively long hours. All that is done away with now in the recommendation of the Baillie Commission.
Hon. Members opposite ought to have brought themselves up-to-date before they put down a Motion of this sort, because they are not quite realising the progress that the industry is making. Transport to-day in this country is as efficient as any in any other country. It would be made less efficient by bureaucratic control. It is so easy to have enormous staffs. Take the London Transport Board, for instance. It has been suggested that that is an example of nationalisation, but I do not agree that it
506
is nationalisation. I am perfectly prepared to face up to the position, and that is what we are doing in our Amendment. The London Passenger Transport Board is ran by men who know their job thoroughly and who are not responsible to anybody but to shareholders. [Interruption.] They are certainly responsible to their shareholders, because, if the company were not successful, they would very soon hear of it from the shareholders.
I am second to none in my admiration for the services of the magnificent staff in our Civil Service. It is no reflection upon them when I say that it is only natural that they would play for safety, and therefore they would not have the vision and knowledge required to run such a complicated machine as that of transport. When hon. Members speak so lightly about its being easy to do this or to do that, I always feel that if they had more practical experience in dealing with the problem as a whole they would have completely different views. It is often the case that fools go where wise men fear to tread. I suggest most seriously that the problem of trying to merge under one national board the whole of the transport of this country is not a practical proposition which could be worked satisfactorily. There is one school of thought which asks us to take the case of Russia. Hon. Members opposite say that Russia does this or that, but one thing that is wrong with Russia is that the Russians try to do too large a thing at one time instead of building up slowly. I submit that the steps the Government are taking and have taken are such that the Motion should be rejected.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. J. Henderson: In supporting the Motion I should like to offer my congratulations to the Mover and Seconder for the very lucid way in which they moved it. With regard to the strictures of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen) it would appear, if I understand the English language correctly, that if there was national control of transport whoever was at the head of it, and presumably it would be the Minister of Transport, would be a dictator. I think the hon. and gallant Member would hesitate before he applied that description to the Postmaster-General. Could he place such a description upon the general managers of the national rail-

507
ways in our Dominions? I leave out what was said about hon. Members on these benches looking forward with glee to a slump, but I would call attention to what a very eminent industrialist, Lord Austin, has said several times about trading concerns in this country. There are still lions in the path of transport, and I am afraid that the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) has confused Tammany Hall with Cadby Hall.
It will be agreed that an efficient transport system is fundamental to the services of modern life upon which the success and prosperity of the whole of industry depends. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion delved into history. The story of transport is very fascinating. We go back to the days of the turnpike roads of the eighteenth century and to the stage coach in the middle of the eighteenth century, when it took a week to go from London to York. I admit that a certain gentleman accomplished that journey in much less time, but he was on a mercenary expedition. In those days the journey to Edinburgh, in a state coach de luxe, occupied two weeks. I suppose that at the halting places there was as much excitement as there is now at the railway stations where the mammoth locomotives start for the North. The canal system has largely sunk into oblivion. Then came the railway system, and I say authoritatively that no civilised community can exist without railways and that in this country their maintenance is a national necessity. It is illuminating to glance at the figures of the increase of population which has given the impetus to transport development. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the population was 16,000,000, in the middle of the century it was 28,000,000 and at the end of the century it was 42,000,000, while in 1911 it was 45,000,000.
We come from the railways to motor transport. I have not the bias of the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment against road transport, although I have been 37 years in the employ of one of the foremost railway companies. My grouse is that the railway directors, who often on the benches opposite are eulogised for their business acumen would not accept the advice of far-seeing employés and get into the road transport industry long before 1928. They thought
508
that the railway era would last for all time. They were like so many King Canutes, thinking that they could keep back the waves of developing road transport. Road transport has had phenomenal growth. Last year the number of cars on the road was 1,642,850, goods vehicles 459,227; omnibuses and tractor buses 49,116; Diesel buses and Diesel engine propelled vehicles 14,714. Air transport has developed, but I will leave that subject to subsequent speakers.
The Motion decries the waste that takes place. In the railway industry prior to the Act of 1921, when there were over 120 railway companies as entities, they had their various boards of directors. They are now reduced to four, but there is considerable waste yet in that direction. There is redundancy of very highly paid officials operating for companies, oftentimes under cover, which are in very stern competition. In the standardisation of equipment considerable economies could be made if a national system of transport was in operation. There is waste also in the motor transport industry. I shall be pardoned, I hope, for quoting from the Royal Commission's Report:
"We find that the goods haulage branch of the road transport industry is in a condition which lacks all unity and is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals, who, while endeavouring to compete with other forms of transport, are at the same time engaged in bitter and uneconomic strife with each other in their own particular branch. Regarded as a separate industry, the conditions obtaining in the business of road haulage are completely lacking in uniformity, and are very unsatisfactory."
Sir I. Salmon: That is perfectly true, but things have been altered since.
Mr. Henderson: Yes, and that is the reason for this Motion. It is true that things have been altered, because there have been three or four Acts of Parliament passed, in 1930, in 1933, and in 1934, but under the present state of road transport there are still numerous boards of managers which under a co-ordinated system would be swept out of existence. It means that if these services were regulate there would be a lot of dead capital comparable to the structure of railway finances. This has to be paid for by the general public who patronise these firms. Again, there is no organisation with regard to return loads.
Mr. Holdsworth: That is limited by legislation.
Mr. Henderson: Yes, but I fail to see the common sense of a man going from London to Penzance, and because there is no organisation to get him a return load he has to come back in ballast. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment emphasised the congestion on our roads to-day. Pedestrians can no longer traverse the roads unless there are footpaths, and as a hiker I must say that footpaths do not exist in many parts of the country. Then there is the heavy and unsuitable traffic which is on our roads. It is notorious that the traffic passing over the arterial roads is of a weight and dimensions that these roads were never intended to carry. One has only to go on to the Great North Road to see a justification for that statement. If you take a census of the traffic on the roads through Carlisle, which is the link with Scotland, you will find it is traffic which was never intended to go on the roads and streets of little country towns. It is having very serious effects. I know people who own property in the narrow streets of Carlisle near the road where there is this constant stream of heavy vehicles through the night. These people have found that it has played havoc with the foundations of their houses. This fact is recognised by town-planners, who insist on having buildings put back 100 feet from main roads. The fatalities on our roads are appalling, but I need not go into that subject, as my hon. Friend dealt with it.
The question of public ownership is suggested in the Motion. I believe that in all our Dominions there is some form of public ownership. The union with which I am identified, the National Union of Railwaymen, with 340,000 members, gave evidence before the Royal Commission in support of the suggestion in the Motion. I am aware that in 1931 the National Wages Board issued an award which was the subject of protracted and serious discussion among our members, but an addendum supported by representatives of the Co-operative movement and the Trade Union Congress suggested the type of organisation envisaged in the Motion. There will be no dictatorship. The Minister of Transport would be at the head of this national organisation and would be responsible to Par-
510
liament. He would have, other men who understood the road transport side of the industry, the railway side of the industry and the canal and seaborne trade side of the industry under his direction, and they would be free to develop a national service so that the community and traders would have an efficient and cheap form of transport.
It is necessary to evolve some unification and co-ordination of the transport industry in view of the conflict between road and rail interests. There is warfare inside the road motor transport industry itself, and a little competition between the four railway companies. I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong and that there are many centres where two and three railway companies compete with each other. As far as heavy and long-distance traffic is concerned, the railways are best suited to cater for that traffic. What would happen if we allowed road transport of this class of goods to develop? Take the coal industry. An engine-man, fireman and guard will convey, say, 800 tons of coal some hundreds of miles—three persons. I suggest that the logic of the Amendment is that we ought to get a multifarious number of people to handle those 800 tons of coal and thus intensify the competition. As I said before, the railways are suited, and ought to be used, for that class of traffic. They have the huge personnel, they have equipment, they have experience, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the gentlemen who manage the railways are very capable and earnest people but are round pegs in square holes.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misinterpret me. I never suggested for one moment that the railway traffic should always be carried by road. That is ridiculous.
Mr. Henderson: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if there was a co-ordinated system it would mean a diminution of the number of men employed, and of course the opposite of that would be an increase. The railway companies are best equipped to provide this service. They have 90,817 steam locomotives—that is exclusive of electric and Diesel oil locomotives; they have 42,656 passenger carriages, 618,948 wagons of various dimensions—30, 20 and 10 tons capacity; including sidings they have 50,701 miles of track; they have 6,747

511
passenger stations, 6,948 goods stations and approximately 600,000 employés. And may I say in passing that the railways are one of the best customers of the coal companies, because they purchase from the various collieries a total of 15,000,000 tons of coal a year?
Road transport could be linked to the railways. I admit there are difficulties in the matter. We do not suggest, as I believe the hon. Member who seconded this Motion said, that this system should include the undertaker's van and the butcher's van, but the necessary prerequisite of a national form of transport would be the ownership of the railways of this country. Linked up with that would be the services of the motor hauliers, and powers should be given to the Commissioners who would work under the control of the Minister of Transport, and I would suggest, with all due respect, that they would be men of experience, of ability and of public zeal, who would assiduously endeavour to give the traders and the public cheap, safe and efficient transport, and that by that means you would get unified control and ownership. You would get not only a good transport system, but by the economies you would effect and the additional patronage that you would attract you could pay the employés good wages, and give good conditions of labour, and if there were any men who had to be reduced, or transferred from one service to another, adequate safeguards would be provided.
Reference has been made, I believe, to the crisis of 1914 to 1918. There may well be another emergency of that description, though I hope not. The last time it was very speedily overcome because the predominant form of transport in this country then was railway transport; but a very different set of conditions would face whoever had to deal with the situation in the next emergency, and unless some means of control were evolved, such as is envisaged in this Motion, you would then have to improvise machinery and introduce legislation to deal with the new factors, and probably by the time that was developed and adapted to the changed conditions dire consequences might ensue.
In conclusion may I say that in the year 1937 there is an imperative need for efficiency in all forms of transport, for
512
co-ordinating them, for preventing overlapping and wasteful competition, and for ensuring a satisfactory transport service for the country; and these important aims would be achieved, I sincerely believe, if the system proposed in this Motion were carried out, with all the good will that would be given by men of experience, adapting themselves, each in his different sphere, to the common weal.
9.31 p.m.
Mr. Holdsworths Mr. Holdsworths Knowing that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion had for some years breathed the wonderful air of Yorkshire, I thought that for once we should really get an intelligent analysis of what nationalisation really means. I thought we should not merely have wonderful platform speeches in this Debate—the hon. Member who has just spoken twice used the unparliamentary expression "my friends," the sort of thing that I have always heard in discussions of nationalisation from the platform, in speeches consisting of meaningless platitudes and phrases, without any proof of its efficiency or any explanation of what it actually means. Then I went on to read the Amendment, and I did not feel very much happier. I am one of the few in this House who still retain a belief in individualism. Most hon. Members offer apologies when they speak of individualism, and when I read the words "co-ordination," "statutory regulation "and" control "my suspicions were aroused, and they were only slightly allayed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the historical survey given to us by the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson), and I thought that the finest part of his speech was the peroration in which he quoted the greatest of all Liberals, Mr. Gladstone. I want to compliment him on that choice.
One other speech to which I want to refer is that made by the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) smile when the hon. Member was referring to the London Passenger Transport Board. He did not seem to me to object to the structure of that Board, he did not seem to object to the principle involved in the working of that Board. All he was concerned about was that the Labour party

513
should not run it. You can call it nationalisation as long as they do not run it. But I do not for a moment accept the view that the London Passenger Transport Board has given increased or better passenger facilities in London. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney will tell me in what way the public of this City have gained by the setting up of the London Passenger Transport Board. Are they enjoying cheaper fares? Are they benefiting from better facilities? My view is that the management of London traffic received its great impetus from the pirate buses, because better facilities were offered through the sheer play of individual competition.
I want now to deal with the Motion because so much of what has been said in this Debate had no reference to it. This Motion makes a definite charge. It states that private enterprise has failed to provide satisfactory facilities. Can that charge be sustained?
Sir John Haslam: No.
Mr. Holdsworth: Let me deal, first of all, with railways. Every hon. Member who has spoken from the Benches above the Gangway is in some way connected with the railways, and has been, to some extent, speaking from an interested point of view. In all the speeches that they have made during their political lifetime, they have denounced the railways, but now they come to the House and without exception pay a tribute to the railways of this country. Not one of them has failed to say what an efficient railway system we have. Let me say that I believe our railways compare favourably with any in the world. We have a tremendous network of railways, and I do not know what people are complaining about.
In post-War years the whole history of the railways has been a story of cutting down, co-ordination and regulation of every sort, for the purpose of bringing about what hon. Gentlemen are attempting to bring about in another way, by this Motion. I believe that for some forms of transport railways are completely out-of-date, and that they have been supplanted by road transport. We ought to face the fact that they cannot go back to their former position. One might as well talk of going back to the old coaches. The world has moved on. It is of no use the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr.
514
J. Henderson) asking what we are going to do about the railways and saying that they have so many engines which cannot be destroyed, and so many workers who cannot be dismissed. The hon. Member's idea of co-ordination is to keep things back, and not to march forward. He does not recognise that there is a demand for this new kind of transport.
I wish to say a few words about the road transport industry, I think the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was unfair in his criticism of that industry. He made a great many statements which cannot be substantiated. Let it be remembered that this industry is almost entirely a post-war industry. Let us consider for a moment how efficient it is. There is hardly a hamlet in this country where passenger vehicles are not provided for the use of the people living in those hamlets. Not only are there those facilities, but there are facilities which enable people living in urban areas to see the beauties of their native land. Those facilities are absolutely marvellous. Nobody can say that dear fares are charged. The complaint of the railways, indeed, is that the road transport industry is giving the public services which are too cheap. It is not the inefficiency of road transport service about which the railways complain, but their complete efficiency. The services they give are splendid. A person riding in a motor char-a-banc to-day can be as comfortable as a man riding in a Rolls-Royce car.
Sir J. Haslam: More so.
Mr. Holdsworth: The fares are cheaper than on the railways, and a person can get on at the precise point he wants and go to the precise destination that he wants. No charge of inefficiency can be made against the road transport industry, which has changed the life of the people of this country. What does the London Passenger Transport Board do? Before these ridiculous restrictions were put into force, one could go to the Embankment and get a trip to almost anywhere out of London. Now it is said, "Oh, no, these poor people shall not enjoy these wonderful trips into the country, riding in a comfortable bus; we must have some co-ordination and limitation. Why should these poor people, who have never been farther than Lambeth, want to go to the beauties of the South Coast? Why should they get on the bus at a con-

515
venient place? The tram drops them at the Embankment; let them go a mile away, let them have a walk before they begin the trip. "It is not a question of more facilities being provided, but of coordination, of control, a terrible word which I hate.
I would like briefly to deal with the carriage of goods by road transport. In this sphere there has been a revolution. I do not mind telling the House that in my own small business the saving in transport charges, as a result of using road transport, amounts almost to as much as the total profit of the business. Transport of goods by road has worked a revolution, and has cheapened goods. The hon. Member for Ardwick said that if one goes on to the Great North Road at night, one sees these vehicles passing along there. He talked as though it were a great crime that they should be there. What are they doing? They are carrying goods from one city to another, providing the amenities of life for the people of this land. They leave at night and deliver the goods early in the morning. There is no delay, and there are no breakages owing to trans-shipment. The road transport industry is rendering a wonderful service. It has even got to the point of providing special kinds of vehicles for special kinds of goods, such as insulated vans for frozen meat, thus making possible a tremendous saving in packing costs. I would like to give a few figures about this industry, because I want to meet the charge of there being a lack of facilities.
Mr. Quibell: Has the hon. Member any shares in this industry?
Mr. Holdsworth: Not a pennyworth; I wish I had. In 1913 the number of motor vehicles of all kinds in this country was 305,000. In 1936 there were more than 2,750,000. That is what hon. Members call an inefficient industry. The number of workers employed in the industry at the present time is more than 1,250,000. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the charge that motor vehicles are not paying for the use of the roads. What is the truth? In 1913, motor vehicle taxation of all kinds amounted to £1,359,000, and in 1937, it was almost £75,500,000. If hon. Members look up the figures of the Road Fund they will find that the gross expenditure on roads, apart from interest on loan, was £58,000,000 and even in-
516
cluding interest on loan, the total is less than the amount which motor vehicles pay in taxation of one kind and another. It is totally unfair to make a charge of that description.
Then consider the tremendous growth in the production of vehicles. In 1913, the number was 23,000; in 1936, it was 461,000. As to prices, taking 1924 as the standard year and taking the figure for that year as 100, we find that in 1914 the figure for private vehicles was 76, and in 1936 it was 49. In the case of commercial vehicles the figure for 1914 was 78 and the figure for 1937 was 60. I had intended to deal with the question of wages in the industry, but perhaps it is better to leave that matter until the Baillie Report has been studied and the Government have decided what action they are taking. But I do not know of anyone who would suggest that the industry has succeeded by the payment of inadequate wages. That charge cannot be substantiated. In view of the figures I have given, can it be said that the industry has failed to provide satisfactory facilities? Has the hon. Member substantiated his charge?] suggest to the House that it is an absurd charge, and cannot be substantiated.
I ask the hon. Member another question. If there is any lack of facilities, who is to blame? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is one of the persons to blame. The 1930 Act was an Act of restriction practically all the way through, and it was backed up by the 1933 Act. In both there was the same sort of disease—restriction, restriction, restriction all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you vote for it? "] I did not. Hon. Members may, if they like, look up the OFFICIAL REPORT. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did your party do? "] I am not concerned; I am speaking for myself. The whole idea behind all this legislation—and the House knows it very well—has been to put the road transport industry into irons for the benefit of the railway companies. [Interruption.] I do not mind hon. Members conversing with each other, but it is difficult for me to go on while there is a continual stream of chatter passing between one bench and another. As I listened attentively to the earlier speeches, I hope hon. Members will give me their attention.

517
Then the hon. Member suggested that public ownership was the cure for all the ills of the transport industry and referred to State railways. That did amuse me. I do not know whether the hon. Member has been abroad or not, but from my own experience of travelling on State railways I say that there is no comparison between the comfort of the English railways and the conditions on State-owned railways. I have not time to go into details of the conditions on the Hungarian railways, but I will say that the inevitable consequence of the State ownership of railways in all the cases of which I know, has been to relate all other forms of transport to the State organisation. If the State railway does not pay, then the idea is to eliminate every form of competition. I have found that in the cases of certain goods which were carried by the State railway in Hungary, other transport organisations had to pay a fine in order to be able to compete with them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney may be able to tell me that I am wrong on this point, but I put this to hon. Members: Is there a State railway anywhere, particularly in Europe, that is an economic proposition? Is there a State railway in Europe that pays its workers better than ours are paid, gives better conditions of labour, or renders better service in the carriage of goods? I think if one studies the matter one will find that year after year these State railways suffer tremendous financial loss.
What has been our own experience in the post-war years? Before the great development of road transport the railway companies did as they liked. Customers had to appear before them almost as suppliants at the mercy seat if they wanted their goods carried. But the competition of road transport has revolutionised the railways in this country. Indeed, their manners have improved as well as the facilities which they offer. I remember when, if a firm asked that certain goods should be moved, they were never quite certain whether those goods would be moved or not. It once took me three-quarters of an hour to persuade a railway company to provide a track at a dock to lift goods. The way to cure that was by going over to the lorries straight away. Now we find the railway companies very deferential as a result of road competition. It has made them institute cheap fares. Do hon. Members
518
think we should have got all the wonderful excursion facilities which have been provided in the last few years had it not been for road transport competition? Better services are also obtainable. All this is the result, not of co-ordination and regulation but of competitive industry.
I was very glad to hear the statement, and I think we ought to thank Members of the Labour party for making the matter clear, that although they have great ideas of taking over all public service vehicles and all public goods vehicles, they are prepared to allow the man who owns a lorry to retain his own property, and that as far as "C" licences are concerned, we need not worry. Apparently, we have not quite reached the totalitarian State yet. But I wish to put a question to hon. Members. What then do they mean when they talk of the unification of this industry? If they do not mean to take over all private goods vehicles, will it not destroy the other part of their suggested bargain? I believe it to be true, as the hon. Member for Harrow said, that a great number of the vehicles on the road to-day are owned by private concerns. In any case one must say to the Labour party, "Thank you very much for leaving us that little bit of freedom." Apparently we shall still be able to run our own vehicles. I wish to repeat what has been said so often and what is laid down as an axiom in the report, that traders must have an unfettered right to select the form of transport which is most convenient and economic for their own purposes. I believe the hon. Member who moved this Motion did not make out his case, and has simply repeated a worn-out political shibboleth.
I want to say a few words about the Amendment. I said at the beginning of my speech that I was doubtful about the Amendment. Those three terms—coordination, statutory regulation, and control—frighten me. We have an expression in Yorkshire, "We have had some," and if I might use this for the purposes of illustration, we have had control of milk, with what result? We have had control of the growing of potatoes, and if a man grows an acre too much, he is fined £5. It is coordination, statutory regulation, real planning. The same sort of thing can be said with regard to coal, and my experience in this House during the past

519
six years has proved that every time the Government step in with this marvellous idea of planning and co-ordination, the real meaning of it is limitation and dear-ness. I am certain that if we could get a free vote of this House on these things, there would be a tremendous majority for taking them off. One knows what many Conservative Members think about all this co-ordination, and I wish they would put their views into practice in the Lobby. The modern definition of coordination is limitation of production and supply, and the result is dearness and scarcity. I recognise the need of both railways and roads, I recognise the need of vehicles being mechanically sound. I recognise the need of efficient and safe drivers, I recognise the need of adequate remuneration and proper conditions of service within the industry, I recognise the need of measures to assure as far as possible safety to life and limb on the road, but I do not recognise the need of oppressive, unnecessary, and restrictive legislation. The less bureaucratic interference, the better I shall like it.
May I now refer to a speech made some weeks ago by the Parliamentary Secretary? At a dinner of the London and Home Counties Division of the Commercial Users Association, he used these words:
"His Ministry was only a machine which carried out decisions by Parliament."
Well, for six years I must have been living under a misapprehension when I thought that Parliament was a machine which registered the decisions of Ministers. They come down here and say, "Here is a regulation. Come on, boys, put on the old school tie and all vote in the same lobby. We cannot have disloyalty. We have taken this decision, and you must confirm it. The world would be in a terrible havoc if this particular regulation was not confirmed, and if you do not confirm it, you will bring down the Government." I am delighted to find out that I was wrong. I will remember the correct position of the two partners, and I may in the future even venture to remind the Minister of his assistant's words. I do not altogether like the Amendment, but after listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut. -Colonel Sandeman Allen), I do not think there is much danger in voting for it. I
520
think it would be a terrible mistake to vote for the Motion. Transport in these modern days is the life blood of industry. Let it flow freely, stimulated by the food which has built up the prosperity of this country—competitive industry.
10.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I shall not speak at great length, because this is a private Members' day, and I want to give as much time as possible to them. We are having a very interesting Debate, but the more I listen to it, the more I wonder what is in the Motion, because the Mover and Seconder of it and the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment all seem to have had different ideas as to what exactly the Motion contains. It is very refreshing to hear from the Mover of the Motion what Mr. Gladstone said in 1844 as President of the Board of Trade. We have often heard what he said when he was Prime Minister, but this is the first time I have ever heard him quoted as President of the Board of Trade. I would also like to say how pleased I am to see that the historical connection of the Borough of Hackney with transport is being maintained. We have a Hackney horse and a Hackney carriage, and to-night we are having the three Members for the Divisions of Hackney addressing the House on transport.
What does this Motion say? We have to take it as it appears on the Paper, and it seems to me to be one of the most sweeping which has ever been brought before this House at the instance of a private Member. It proposes, in its last sentence, through unified public ownership, to place the whole of the transport industry of this country under public control. In other words, it proposes to nationalise the railways, road transport—both passenger and goods—canals, coastwise shipping, and, according to the Mover, civil aviation as well. I reckon that we should bring under State control, if this Motion were carried, some 1,500,000 persons, or rather more if we brought in civil aviation. I ask myself, who is the superman who is to control all this? Unification surely means one at the head who is to exercise this control. Some people thought that when in 1933 the London Passenger Transport Board was put under one control, it was too large as a unit,

521
but that enormous undertaking is a mere drop in the ocean compared with what is proposed in this Motion. Personally, I never can see anything but the greatest disadvantages in what is called nationalisation. I cannot see what benefit it can be to any industry to take it away from the people who know how to run it, and who probably have run it all their lives, and put it under the control of politicians. Certainly, in the case of an industry with the ramifications of transport, the suggestion seems to me to be little short of madness.
Look for a moment at the wording of the Motion. The Mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who has just sat down, drew attention to the fact that it complains of a lack of satisfactory facilities. In my opinion that is definitely incorrect. Under our present system a trader has a choice of railway, road, canal or sea, and he can make his selection with a view both to his own convenience and to the cost of the different forms of service. There is on the goods side of the transport industry certainly no lack of facilities in this country. In the same way as regards passenger transport, there is probably no country in the world with better facilities, both urban and rural, giving a choice as it does to a passenger of the means of travel which he may wish to adopt. It seems pretty obvious that if this suggestion of nationalisation—or, if you like the word better, unification—is carried out, the free choice which the trader now has with his goods, and which the passenger has as to his mode of travel, will not remain.
The Motion further talks about involving serious waste. That phrase makes me all the more suspicious that if we had unified control under what I might call a transport dictator, the citizens of this country would be told what transport they were to use, and freedom of choice would be a thing of the past. There is one phrase with which I can heartily agree although the hon. Member who has just spoken disagreed, and that is that co-ordination of transport is essential. That was largely the reason for the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 and 1934, for the London Passenger Transport Act, and for the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. It was also the reason for the legislation on what is called the Baillie report, which was promised in the Gracious Speech, and
522
for the Report on Service and Rates, which has been got out by the Transport Advisory Council. We can get co-ordination without State ownership, and that is the difference between hon. Members opposite and Members on this side.
I have not time to go into the details of what a revolutionary proposal of this kind would involve. I understand from the Seconder that it was not their intention in putting down the Motion to bring in the "C" licence holders. We have not heard what is their intention with regard to the "B" licence holders, but if we tried to unify the whole industry, it is difficult to see where we could draw the line. We might have the ridiculous position in the case of the "C" licence holders in which we had a private enterprise dairy with a nationalised milkman. These are only some of the difficulties which, if you go in detail into this proposal, meet you at every turn. The transport industry is an up-to-date industry constantly adapting itself to changing needs and extending to meet new requirements. As the last speaker said, it plays a vital part in the industrial life of the nation. We on this side agree that a certain measure of statutory control is necessary in the national interest. It is, however, our policy to encourage coordination by voluntary methods, supported, where necessary, by legislative action. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Motion and support the Amendment.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Silverman: The Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I do not deal with history, because I am sure that it will be deal with in a later stage of the Debate. I should like to say, however, that the House will be greatly disappointed at the somewhat cursory handling that he has given to what is a vital question. Nor do I wish to deal with the interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). Everybody who heard him will admire the gallantry and courage with which he pursues his lonely battle for a lost cause. He does it with a combination of the loyalty of a Don Quixote with the fidelity to principle of a Rip Van Winkle. I want to say a word to the Mover of the Amendment. I dare say that in the heat of Debate he may have been led to say a little more than he

523
meant, but, as he said it, it is well that it should be answered. I hope he does not believe that we on this side, when we deal with what we believe to be the inevitable outcome of our system, namely, a slump in a few years' time, look upon that prospect with any glee or hope. We realise that when a slump comes it is the people whom we represent who bear the full brunt of it and carry the whole cost of it. The hon. Member and his friends may suffer some restriction in dividends, but they will not lack a meal or a suit of clothes. They will hardly lack another motor car. Slumps do not affect them to the same degree, and when people on this side of the House and those outside who agree with us talk about the slump that is coming, it is with fear and trembling and horror, and not with glee and hope.
Commander Marsden: You will be glad to see it come.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member will have to let me relieve the hon. Member for South Bradford of Rip Van Winkle's mantle and give it to him instead. We do not want the slump to come. What we want the Government to do is to plan now to prevent it, and the burden of our complaint is that they sit back and do nothing. It may or may not be a true complaint, but let not the hon. and gallant Member imagine that we desire the slump to come.
Commander Marsden: Will the nationalisation of railways prevent it?
Mr. Silverman: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me that. I was dealing with the point about the slump because it was dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment, and I was replying to it. Several hon. Members in opposition to the Motion have taken the phrase which talks of the lack of facilities and have indignantly denied that there is any lack. I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would spend a few days in North-East Lancashire. It is a depressed area and has been doing all it can by its own efforts, without any Government assistance, to attract new industries. Railway facilities, transport facilities, in North-East Lancashire, are a disgrace. If there is one factor more than another which prevents that part of the country from sharing in the very limited measure
524
of prosperity which the Government boast about so much it is the totally inadequate lack of transport. I know that I am voicing the opinion of every Lancashire Member, whether he sits on this side or that.
Mr. Goldie: May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that he should do what I did when I was in Burnley: get across to Wakefield, where he will find a fast train to London, first stop King's Cross.
Mr. Silverman: I know that there are many ways in which people who have the means may get adequate passenger facilities, but it is not so easy to do what the hon. and learned Member has said. I am not dealing with passenger facilities, though they are bad enough. With many passenger trains it takes three and a quarter hours to travel the 51 miles between Liverpool and my constituency. But I am not dealing here with passenger transport, but with goods transport. The measure of recovery in Lancashire has confined itself to an area of a very few miles round Manchester, and the reason for that is that when people consider the possibility of starting new industries, and think of the transport facilities, they dare not build new factories or take new industries to North-East Lancashire, because they know well that the transport facilities offered to them are completely inadequate.
I am not saying what is the remedy for that. It may be that what is suggested in the Motion is the remedy, or partly so, or it may be that it is not; but when we are considering co-ordination, or unification, or whatever else you like to call it, do not let us delude ourselves about the facts. If people go away from this Debate feeling that our transport arrangements are perfect, that there is no room for improvement, that services are completely satisfactory everywhere, they simply delude themselves, and make it impossible for them to approach this problem with a requisite knowledge of the facts. I do not wish to say anything else, because there are others who are anxious to speak, but I thought it was worth while making the two points which I am grateful to have had the opportunity of putting forward.
10.17 p.m.
Sir J. Haslam: It is not often that I attempt to address this House, but I

525
could not resist the opportunity to do so to-night, after listening to every speech which has been made on this Motion. Before I come to the arguments put before us, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) whom he thinks that we on the Conservative side of the House represent. He said "they" represent the workers of this country. We have manhood and womanhood suffrage in this country, and some of us have been returned here by huge majorities in working-class constituencies. According to his argument the only Members who represent the working classes are those who sit on the Labour benches.
Mr. Silverman: I did not desire to make a party point at all. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me when I say that anyone, no matter what his party, who feels that he was elected by and represents working-class people will agree that no one claiming to represent working-class people, whether on these benches, or those benches, or those other benches, views the possibility of a coming slump with any glee or with any hope. It is that with which I was dealing.
Sir J. Haslam: I am glad the hon. Member has explained himself, because I have heard that argument used so often from the Labour benches that I thought it was about time—and I do not get many opportunities of laying down the law—it was pointed out that we here represent the working classes, perhaps more so than they do, and certainly as much. I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He spoke about the Liberals and the voting Lobby, and about we of the Conservative party following party ties. I watch his party very closely from the seat which I usually occupy, and when there is a Division if there are a dozen of them in the House four go in one lobby, four go in the other and four abstain from voting. We have heard a lot to-night about co-ordination and unification, and it is about time the Liberal party had some co-ordination.
May I say a word about the subject under discussion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At any rate I am not the first sinner to-night in that respect, and think I can plead some justification for having been dragged away from it. The plea of every speaker seems to have
526
been that if we could have co-ordination and unification it would lead to what the Motion describes as better facilities. What better facilities would be offered to North-east Lancashire, about which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne spoke? Geographically it is almost inaccessible. I knew that district, I think, before he did. Its geographical position, with the hills round about it, makes it difficult for either road or rail transport. It is inevitable, and you would have to put up with it, whether you had nationalisation, coordination, unification, or anything else. The facilities would be no more than they are at the present time. It has been my privilege to travel on most of the railways in Europe, and I say that the facilities offered here are far superior to those of any other railway that I know. We have every reason to be satisfied with them.
I noticed that the speeches in favour of the Motion, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, were by hon. Members who represented the railway companies in some way or other. I have had complaints from transport people in my constituency saying how well consolidated were the railway directors in the House of Commons, and I invariably say that those who look after railway interests in the House of Commons are not always railway directors. After the exhibition we have had to-night, I shall be more emphatic than ever in pointing out that certain hon. Members allow their vested interests to rule their arguments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including bacon."] I think I can ignore such an interruption. My chief complaint about the Labour party is that their principal questions to Ministers and their arguments are about two subjects, which are very well represented by Members sitting on the Labour benches. I refer to the coalmining industry and the railway industry. I do not blame hon. Members, and perhaps it is inevitable that it should be so; but, on the other hand, they cannot claim to be a national party and to represent national interests so much as some other party in this House can rightly claim to.
I am an admirer of the railway system of this country. Somebody has said that it is a national necessity; I agree, and so is the road transport industry, and quite as much as the railway system. I want to see both systems working together as

527
servants and not as masters of the public, -to serve the best interests of those whose servants they are. They should work together for the common good. In this country we invariably follow a middle course and we are doing so in allowing these two industries to work together as far as possible and by giving favours to neither. I would help both industries as far as lay in the power of the House. The railway companies have made huge developments in post-war years and I consider that a good deal of the development is owing to the competition they have experienced from road transport. The Minister mentioned that, in addition to railways, we had canal traffic in this country. It has almost disappeared, comparatively speaking, and some of us know the reason. Fortunately, certain powers have not been able to throttle the road transport industry, although they have made gallant efforts, as happened to the canal industry.
I hope the House will accept the Amendment rather than the original Motion, because the Amendment follows a middle course, which is traditional in this country. We want both systems, and we want them both to be worked satisfactorily. The road transport industry is an industry of which we can be proud, and I hope the Minister of Transport will remember that, and will provide the industry with proper facilities. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and hope that it will receive, if not unanimous support, the support of a large majority of the House.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Walkden: I want to try to assist the House with one or two facts which may clear the minds of hon. Members of a complete misapprehension. The Seconder of the Amendment—who seemed to me rather to have damaged its prospects than otherwise—suggested that no benefit could possibly come, or ever did come, from public ownership and control. I would ask the House to consider the London Passenger Transport Board, which is publicly owned, and which works very efficiently within its present limited scope, which it will extend as time goes on. The improvements it has made in labour conditions are worth well over £1,000,000 a year, but no increased charge has been made to the
528
public to provide for these benefits which have been given to labour. On the contrary, facilities have been increased and certain fares have been reducd.
No one should blame the great mainline railways for not doing what they cannot do. They cannot develop as they would or could have developed if they had had the benefit that public ownership would give them. What they need is new capital to develop their business to meet modern requirements, but under private enterprise they cannot be enterprising enough; private enterprise never is enterprising enough for a great national purpose. The main-line companies have recently had to meet certain labour claims, which were absolutely fair. The cost of meeting those claims and restoring the cuts which had been a hardship since 1931 was £3,000,000. This year the railway companies have had the benefit of an increase in revenue amounting to a solid £6,000,000 en the year, that is to say, twice as much as they need in new money to pay for the improvement in labour conditions. But, they have gone to the Railway Rates Tribunal and, having put their case with superb ability, have been given power to lay on the public additional charges which will bring them in another £4,000,000. They have, therefore, £10,000,000 with which to meet their difficulties. Labour receives £3,000,000, and the public have to provide £4,000,000.
Sir Charles Gibson: Would the hon. Member say what are their increased expenses?
Mr. Walkden: They have not published their increased expenses, but we who are associated with the railways know that they are always effecting increasing economies, and they are not afflicted at all seriously with increased expenses as against the solid £6,000,000 of new money that has come in. I think that that is a fair example of the benefits accruing to the public from public ownership operating through the London Passenger Transport Board, as compared with the main-line railway companies. The mainline railway companies might well have been merged completely under public ownership in 1921, but, instead, a hotchpotch grouping arrangement was brought about by the Railways Act of 1921.
The reply of the Minister's representative was exceedingly unsatisfactory. It

529
amazes me to hear an hon. Gentleman of great education and experience saying that no man could do this job. I beg to inform the Minister that if we are in military trouble this year, within a week, a fortnight, or a month, someone will have to do it. We on this side stand in peace time, as well as in war time, for the services being run for the benefit of the whole community. That is our only motive. I well remember on the night of 4th August, 1914, when Sir Edward Greys ultimatum expired at 11 o'clock the railways were brought under public control at midnight. If they had not been, we could not have carried on the War. All through the War, there was haggling as to the amount the company should receive. Eventually they got an extra £60,000,000 as a solatium for allowing the State to use their railways during the War. I do not want that sort of thing to happen again. I want our country to be able immediately, in the event of war, to have all the transport under public control, and to be able to use it as they wish without any such difficulties.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: We have had a very interesting discussion on the Motion brought before the House by my hon. Friends and the Amendment submitted by two hon. Members opposite. An interesting point that comes out is that, with the exception of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), there was no one in the House to defend the doctrine of competitive capital. It is a very significant thing that there should be such a very wide measure of agreement in all quarters, with the exception of this little island of 18th century thought which still persists in the House of Commons, that in these days transport must be a matter of public concern, that there must be coordination, that there must be public regulation and that the old doctrines of capitalistic free competition are dead.
We must leave the hon. Member for South Bradford alone. He represents the Liberalism of the early part of the nineteenth century, and I apologise to him for the fact that there was a little conversation going on between my hon. Friend at the back and me. I said, "Is this hon. Member a free Liberal, or is he sitting in the wrong place? Ought he not to be a Con-
530
servative?" My Friend said, "No, he is a Liberal all right. The trouble is that the Conservatives would not have him, as he is not progressive enough." The hon. Member was very sure about his point of view. He spoke with a great deal of confidence. He condemned some of my hon. Friends for having been railway men, but they have to get their living somehow; and they do not speak for the railway companies in this House, for, so far as I know, the railway companies are not advocates of nationalisation. They are speaking about the higher direction and higher policy of the industry in which hundreds of thousands of members of the trades unions concerned work, and I am always delighted when trade union leaders and representatives talk about higher industrial policy and direction, as well as about the narrower issues of wages and hours of labour.
My hon. Friends ought to be encouraged in doing so rather than discouraged, but the hon. Gentleman, who condemned what he wrongly called their bias and began to extol himself for his broad-mindedness and impartiality, had not been speaking long before it was perfectly clear that he was a road transport fanatic, with a terrible bias on that side of the picture. I am not complaining, because it is nice to hear a real healthy bias. I am not even complaining about the hon. Member's antediluvian outlook upon economics and Socialist policy. After all, one sees the Conservative party moving. It is true that they are at least always 20 years slower than we are in seeing any elemental truth, but still they move, and they have been saying to-night undoubtedly what we were condemned for saying 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They do move, but always behind the times, and they are never on the spot when they ought to be. They always take longer than other people to see the facts, but still they move, and so it is good to hear the thoroughly reactionary stick-in-the-mud, antique point of view of the hon. Member for South Bradford. If it be the case that he sits upon the Liberal benches it makes him all the more interesting and all the more unique, and we welcome his intervention in this Debate to-night.
The Parliamentary Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), who seconded the Amendment—this is an indication of how

531
they move—have both moved since the beginning of the year 1931. They have both to-night welcomed the London Passenger Transport Board. They have said that it is not nationalisation; it is respectable business management. I told them from the Treasury Bench in 1931 that it was respectable business management, and that it had the principle of public ownership in it as well. I claim that I had combined in the Bill public ownership with good commercial management. This is what we want to do with the transport industry as well. They say to-night that that is quite right, that it is not a nationalisation concern, and therefore they support it. Of course they must, because this Government put the finishing touches to the legislation. Recalling what the hon. Member for Harrow said, that London transport is all right, that it is not nationalisation and that there is nothing Socialistic about it, and that the Parliamentary Secretary by inference said precisely the same thing, would you believe that this Amendment was moved by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to the Second Reading of the Bill in March, 1931, and that these two hon. Gentlemen both voted for the Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill? This was an Amendment to reject a Measure, which they now say was sound and was not nationalisation. They voted for this:
"This House, whilst willing to consider any sound scheme for the co-ordination of London traffic,"—
just like this jolly old Amendment to-night—
"declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides for the nationalisation of London passengei transport; deprives local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings; takes the property of private owners out of their control; gives them no option of sale, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 71, Vol. 250.]
That is what they voted for in 1931. We always welcome the sinner that repenteth. To-night, they have been on the penitent form. They say that, after all, it was a very good Bill and, indirectly, they have complimented me on my enterprise and courage.
I admit that there were Amendments made in the Bill by this Government. The Amendments were not good Amendments. What was the Amendment that Ministers used to prove to their members
532
that there was no Socialism left in the Bill? The substantial Amendment was that instead of the board being appointed by the Minister of Transport it was to be appointed by a body of appointing trustees, the most curious device that I have ever known in the history of legislation. It was a bad Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, with one or two exceptions, the people appointed were the same people that a Conservative, a Labour or a Liberal Minister would have appointed. However, it was an alteration. I objected to it because it was aimed at conferring upon the board that very character of irresponsible, dictatorial power to which we object. It was aimed at removmg all forms of Parliamentary criticism of an effective character. The whole theory was that that took the Socialism out of the Bill.
Captain Hudson: Politics.
Mr. Morrison: Why do the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General appoint the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation? Is there politics there? The suggestion was all nonsense. The Government had to make an alteration so that they might say to their supporters: "You voted for the Amendment to the Second Reading in 1931, but now we have altered the Bill, and those who have been convinced up to now that this was a dangerous, revolutionary, Socialist Measure can go into the Lobby, believing that they are voting for private enterprise." That is what they did.
The essential and most revolutionary provision of the Bill was retained, and that was that the Bill took away the ownership of the undertaking from the existing owners, and did not give them the right to cash in compensation, but compulsorily gave them paper. It abolished the right of the shareholders to elect the directors and only gave them a certain right to apply for a receiver in certain circumstances which they will be very careful about exercising. Never before had Parliament compelled capitalists to take paper in compensation for an undertaking and denied them a voice in the election of directors. Now, we are told by the Government and their supporters that that was good business, but in 1931 they said it was terrible.

533
Let us look at the elements of the problem which the House has been discussing to-night. Here is a little country in size, requiring a great deal of transport of various kinds, railways, road transport, some canal transport, coastwise shipping, air transport and so on. There are two ways of doing that. There is the way of leaving it to private competition, compromised and limited later on by trade agreements, combines and State regulation, carrying on the business for profit-seeking motives. On the other hand, there is the way of the community deliberately planning the transport system so that it will meet the needs of the community in the best possible way. One is the method of planning deliberately to do the job that needs to be done and the other is the method of competitive private ownership which may or may not do the job that needs to be done. It is said that in some ways and in some parts of the country the job is done reasonably well and that in other ways and in other parts of the country the job is done very badly.
Let us look at the matter as a business proposition. Take a railway that is running with all its fixed costs of capital expenditure, its fixed minimum costs of maintenance, and which as the result of competition from other companies and road transport is running railway trains for passenger and goods traffic with a load factor which may be 30 per cent. of its capacity or 40 per cent., 50 or 60 per cent., and sometimes 100 per cent. If it be the case that the railway cannot efficiently do the job and have something towards a 100 per cent. load factor, then it cannot be helped; but if it be the case that the railway can efficiently carry something near a 100 per cent, load then is it not the case that somebody somewhere will have to carry the fixed capital charges, fixed minimum maintenance and running charges, without the undertaking discharging its full effective economic capacity. [Interruption.] I am coming to the business of the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon). It is a well conducted business and within its limitations is an example of the application of Socialist economics to Capitalist ends. The hon. Member does not believe in competition, but in co-ordination.
Sir I. Salmon: I think that competition is the fresh air of trade.
Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member is right, but he believes in the maximum possible degree of a unified, combined, solid almost a dictatorship direction of the business and industry with which he is concerned, and he has played it with great success. But there is a bit of monotony about it. If I go into an ordinary marble top tea-shop in London, as I do sometimes, and ask for a cup of tea. and two sardines on toast it does not matter into which one I go—I do not know how many shops there are in the London area—it is the same two sardines—at least they all look exactly the same to me—the same cup of tea, and the vinegar tastes exactly the same. This is under a capitalist enterprise. And why is it done? It is because if you get a single unified direction of a great service you effect enormous economies. I do not blame the hon. Member or his firm for having done that in the catering business. It is done for the purpose of securing a direction of that business undertaking in the most effective and economic way. But, if it is right in a great catering business, why should not the great firm of Great Britain plan its transport? Why should it not control, consolidate and direct our transport as a united undertaking with a view to getting the most effective economies and the best service for the community?
Sir I. Salmon: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that the company to which I have the honour to belong has no combination whatever? The competition is enormous throughout the country.
Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that there is competition. But the hon. Gentleman knows that within that field of business in this great London of ours the competition is nowhere near as great as it was when his firm began, and as a matter of fact his firm is the really big influence in the catering business of London. But I only say that there is a principle of commercial and industrial enterprise, and I hold that it is a principle which is equally applicable to the State and the organisation of transport. Transport suffers in various parts of the country from there being too much transport and also too little transport. It was notoriously the case all over the country before the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that there were areas where omnibuses were almost falling over one another. The

535
services were too frequent at one hour and insufficiently frequent at another. The cream of the traffic was picked up by the competitors, and it may be that areas which greatly needed to be served but which were not commercially profitable were deliberately neglected.
Mr. Leslie Boyce: The Road Traffic Act does not apply to omnibuses.
Mr. Morrison: I am not talking of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933; I am talking of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. But that is what private competitive enterprise had done, and what was the result? That the public was getting an irregular and unreliable service, that their lives were literally in danger from the unsafety of this system, that the standard of life of the working people in the industry was steadily declining, and that some districts had too many buses and others had not enough. That is true of commercial transport at the present time in a number of districts. It is still true in part of passenger transport and of other facilities. Moreover, there is not enough interchange of traffic. I would like to see every corner of the country covered with transport of an organised character of some sort or another. I would like to see a standardised district collection of goods from the farmers, rapid delivery to the railway stations, trans-shipment, rapid delivery by train, and picking up if necessary of goods at the other end, and individual delivery. But at any rate we ought to have a planned transport whereby the railway does the job for which it is most capable, and road transport does the job for which it is most capable, and so on.
This conflict of road and rail is a senseless business. It is not in the interests of transport, and not in the interests of the country. Our job is to see that each form of transport does the job which it is best capable of doing in the circumstances of the case. That does not mean that no individual journey would be covered by both forms of transport. It might well be so, and we must preserve a proper freedom of choice within reason, but you cannot run this freedom of choice doctrine to the extreme conclusion that you are prejudicing the economic and efficient organisation of the industry itself. We believe that the boards of public corporations should be deliberately hand-
536
picked in order to find good business managers, not to find jobs for pals—I often think, when I watch the appointments of Conservative Governments that they are guilty of that kind of thing, which is improper and wrong—but to find men, on grounds of their ability and competence and not of their class, to whom there should be given, under proper public control, freedom to go ahead and organise the industry in the public interest. I believe that would be a good thing to do.
The hon. Member for South Bradford argued about the London Passenger Transport Board, which is praised by the hon. Member for Harrow and by the Parliamentary Secretary, and he asked what it has done. He said that nothing is better, and that not a single improvement has been made. That is not true. It must be admitted that various forms of London transport were on a pretty high level before that combination took place. I agree that both under private enterprise and municipal enterprise, certain forms of transport were very well carried on; but some forms were very bad. What was the position that we were in? The London North Eastern Railway frankly told me, as they had told preceding Ministers, that they could not electrify their suburban lines, because competition made it impossible, because the capital they had invested was not secure from road transport competition. They said flatly that competition had made it impossible for them to electrify their suburban lines.
Lord Ashfield, for the traffic combine, told me, as he had told my predecessors, that he could not construct tube railways without a State subsidy. He said that the competitive system would not allow it to be done. State subsidies were given. The railways got into—and still are partially in—a public assistance frame of mind. I asked them to electrify the main lines, and they said, '' How much are you going to give us? "I replied," You are a nice lot. You say that if I want the railways to be properly run, you want me to give you a State subsidy. You had better apply to the public assistance committee of the local authority, or give the railways up altogether." That was the state of mind of the railways. Since the Transport Board has existed, wage conditions have improved by over £1,000,000 a year, a point which is often forgotten. Tube extensions have been made, without a State subsidy, although, I agree, with a State

537
guarantee; but there is nothing improper about a State guarantee to a public authority. There was not a State subsidy as in the case of the Morden Tube. There have been tube extensions. Electrification is being carried out on the Great Eastern, and the old Metropolitan private enterprise rolling stock has been steadily improved.
Therefore, I say that private enterprise is far from perfect in many ways. Sometimes it gives too much transport and sometimes too little. Sometimes there is poor rolling stock. By the way, can any railway director tell me why it is that at
many railway stations in the provinces, one finds difficulty in knowing where one is because they keep the name of the station secret? It is known that there are many imperfections in private enterprise, but it is known that public enterprise, in various directions, has proved itself to be sound and in the interests of the community.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 163.

Division No. 17.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hayday, A.

Parker, J.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt, Hon, F. W.

Alexander, Rt. Han. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Hills, A. (Pontefraet)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Ammon, C. G.

Hopkin, D.

Riohards, R. (Wrexham)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

dagger, J.

Ridley, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Riley, B.

Batey, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Ritson, J,

Bellenger, F. J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Kennedy, Rt. Han. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Bevan, A.

Kirby, B. V.

Shinwell, E.

Brawn, C. (Mansfield)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Lathan, G.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Burke, W. A.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cape, T.

Leach, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cluse, W. S.

Leonard, W.

Sorensen, R, W.

Cove, W. G.

Logan, D. G.

Stephen, C.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lunn, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

McEnlee, V. La T.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

MoGhee, H. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Day, H.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Tinker, J. J.

Dobbie, W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Walkden, A. G.

Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

Marklew, E.

Watson, W. McL.

Ede, J. C.

Mathers, G.

Welsh, J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maxton, J.

Westwood, J.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Messer, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gardner, B. W.

Montague, F.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro Jones, G. M.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney,

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Greenwood, Rt. Han. A.

Muff, C.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

Groves, T. E.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Oliver, G. H.

Mr. Simpson and Mr. Watkins.

Hardie, Agnes

Paling, W.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Craven-Ellis, W.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Foot, D. M.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Crooko, J. S.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Furness, S. N.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Crossloy, A. C.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Beit, Sir A. L.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Gluokstein, L. H.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Da Chair, S. S.

Goldie, N. B.

Bossom, A. C.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Boulton, W. W.

Dcland, G. F.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Bowater, Cot, Sir T. Vansittart

Donner, P. W.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Boyee, H. Leslie

Drewe, C.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Duggan, H. J.

Grimston, R. V.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Butcher, H. W.

Eastwood, J. F.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Eckersley, P. T.

Hannah, I. C.

Carver, Major W. H.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Harbord, A.

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Emery, J. F.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Colman, N. C. D.

Emrys-Evans, P. V,

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Colvitle, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Errington, E.

Heilsers, Captain F. F. A.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Bwehan-

Cox, H, B. T.

Evans, Capt, A. (Cardiff, S.)

Higgs, W. F.

Holdsworlh, H.

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

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Holmes, J. S.

Moreing, A. C.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

Munro, P.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Hunter, T.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Hutchinson, G, C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Owen, Major G.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Keeling, E. H.

Peake, O.

Tasker. Sir R. I.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Petherick, M.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Latham, Sir P.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Touche, G. C.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Radford, E. A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Lees-Jones, J.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Wakefield, W. W.

Leighton, Major B. E, P.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Liddall, W. S.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Loftus, P. C.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Lyons, A. M.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

White, H. Graham

McCorquodale, M. S.

Rowlands, G.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

McKie, J. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Salt, E. W.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Magnay, T.

Savery, Sir Servington

Maitland, A.

Seely, Sir H. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Markham, S. F.

Shakespeare, G. H

Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen

Marsden, Commander A.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

and Sir Isidore Salmon.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."
Several hon. Members rose—
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK.
  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  FINGER PRINT REGISTRATION.
  FINGER PRINT REGISTRATION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION (CHRISTMAS TRADE).
  FACTORY INSPECTION (CHRISTMAS TRADE).
  YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF WORK).
  YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF WORK).
  IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (E. B. COUNTER).
  IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (E. B. COUNTER).
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  AEROPLANES (EXPORTS).
  AEROPLANES (EXPORTS).
  SNOWBALL TRADING.
  SNOWBALL TRADING.
  SEA POLLUTION, BRISTOL CHANNEL.
  SEA POLLUTION, BRISTOL CHANNEL.
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE).
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE).
  LOCH LONG FERRY (SCOTLAND).
  LOCH LONG FERRY (SCOTLAND).
  SHARE-PUSHING.
  SHARE-PUSHING.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MESSENGERS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MESSENGERS).
  ARMY REORGANISATION, INDIA.
  ARMY REORGANISATION, INDIA.
POST OFFICE
  AIR MAILS TO SOUTH AMERICA.
  AIR MAILS TO SOUTH AMERICA.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
ROYAL NAVY
  DIRECTOR OF NAVAL STORES.
  DIRECTOR OF NAVAL STORES.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MOY" (STOKER'S DEATH).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MOY" (STOKER'S DEATH).
  FLEET AUXILIARIES (CREWS).
  FLEET AUXILIARIES (CREWS).
  NYASALAND (NATIVE WELFARE).
  NYASALAND (NATIVE WELFARE).
  HONG KONG (TRADE AND REFUGEES).
  HONG KONG (TRADE AND REFUGEES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DOMINIONS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DOMINIONS).
TRANSPORT
  MOTOR CAR PARKING (PRIVATE RESIDENCES).
  MOTOR CAR PARKING (PRIVATE RESIDENCES).
  LOUGHTON-STONY STRATFORD ROAD.
  LOUGHTON-STONY STRATFORD ROAD.
  AGRICULTURE (POULTRY DISEASES).
  AGRICULTURE (POULTRY DISEASES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LOSS OF AIRCRAFT PLANS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LOSS OF AIRCRAFT PLANS).
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITMENT).
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITMENT).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH.
David Bertram Viscount Hanworth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced by virtue of a Patent dated the 17th day of January, 1936, his grandfather, the first Viscount, who was created by such Patent, never having taken his seat as Viscount Hanworth.
LORD PENDER.
John Cuthbert Denison Denison-Pender, Esquire, having been created Baron Pender of Porthcurnow in the County of Cornwall—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Henry Albert, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House views with profound anxiety the progressive deterioration in the international situation that has developed during the last few years; supports His Majesty's Government in their determination to ensure this country's strength and in their attempt to find some immediate solution of the successive crises that now confront the world; but would welcome at this stage a statement, to be made either in the British Parliament or at the League of Nations, indicating a comprehensive policy directed to a consideration of the grievances and disabilities from which certain nations claim to be suffering, and outlining the procedure which His Majesty's Government would favour with a view to the ultimate negotiation of an all-round settlement within the framework
116
of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper in my name, but before proceeding to the debate I am sure it would be in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships that I should fulfil the mandate which I received from the noble Viscount the Leader of this House to make some reference to the great loss that the nation has incurred owing to the death of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. It is a strange act of fortune that the sad privilege should have fallen to me. I enjoyed the friendship of Mr. MacDonald for over thirty years. I have known him in the time of his bitterest adversity, and I have known him in his time of great authority. In a few moments we shall be discussing European appeasement. Surely there was never an occasion more suitable for paying honour to the memory of a man who was one of the great peacemakers of our age. It was he, perhaps more than any other statesman of his time, who was instrumental in bringing Germany into the family of the League of Nations.
He will live in memory for many reasons, partly, I think, because of great qualities of personal character—a factor of no small importance when we think of the future of democracy. That applied to his work on behalf of the Labour Party. With Mr. Arthur Henderson he was one of the joint architects of that new Party in the State, and he brought to bear upon that work not only great qualities of intelligence and administrative skill, but an almost religious quality in his attitude to his political faith. It was in consequence of that combination of characteristics that the Party which he served became so great a Party. He was a great democrat. I think that perhaps he foresaw more clearly than any man of his time the conflict which confronted us between reason and violence as instruments in changing from one social order to the next. He was eager that his country should once more he a contributor to the development of democracy. He was eager that mercy and compassion should come back into the art by which men govern each other. I am sure your Lordships would also wish me to add one word of sympathy for the family he leaves behind, for if ever there was a family in which father, sons and daughters mingled with

117
great love, it was his family; a word of good will to the daughter who is still with him out on the seas; a word of good will to that gentle daughter who carried him through these years of great travail and triumph; and a word of good will to his son, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who is carrying on the high political tradition of his father. I am sure that in saying those few words I am voicing the desire of all Parties and of all members of your Lordships' House.
And now I pass to the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper. In moving it I am going to venture to ask for your Lordships' indulgence, to ask perhaps a greater measure of your time than I have ever dared previously to ask in a debate in this House. I was encouraged by noting a friendly nod from the noble Viscount who leads this House not long ago, when a kindly reference was made to the intervention of those of us who sit upon the Back Benches of this House, and I therefore venture to ask your patience if I claim a little more of your time than I have previously dared to do. I framed the Motion with the greatest possible care. Perhaps I should explain the reason why it appears in this form. There have been many debates on foreign affairs during the last few weeks. I cannot help but feel that some of these debates have not been as helpful in the international situation as they might have been. I have sometimes even wondered whether we were not in danger of seeing foreign affairs perhaps used for the purpose of Party capital. I do not myself deny that one is torn by contrary emotions when one intervenes on the subject of foreign affairs. Personally I know many arguments that I should like to use which would bring home to His Majesty's Government the grave responsibility that they must carry for the deplorable situation that we find at the present moment, a situation which has steadily deteriorated from the mistakes that were made in 1932 and 1933. But I know that there are other emotions as well, emotions that would make me desire to forget the past and to speak constructively and helpfully in the present, and I confess that I have succumbed to these latter emotions.
I have tabled the Motion with the deliberate object of diverting the discussion of international affairs from the somewhat sterile channels into which I think
118
those discussions have recently tended to flow. I do not deny—no one can—that the world is at the moment faced by a series of most outrageous acts of aggression, but I doubt whether it is either helpful or wise that all our debates should be centred upon how we may forcibly resist those acts of aggression. Events certainly demand that we should not surrender the principle of collective force. We used it with success at Nyon. It may be necessary to bring the pressure of quarantine in the case of the Far Eastern dispute. But I propose to ask the Government and your Lordships this afternoon to consider the arts of peace-making and not merely the art of bringing force to bear upon an aggressor. I believe that there is one question which public opinion is asking more insistently than any other at this critical moment, and that question is this: Is there no procedure which we could discover which would lead to all-round appeasement, particularly on the Continent of Europe? May it not be possible that we have overlooked some procedure which could lead to this end? I believe that the answer to that question is the most urgent need of the present international situation.
I shall submit in this debate that the answer to that question cannot be found except by a procedure which is comprehensive in its character. Take, for instance, sonic of the recent debates on foreign affairs. They have dealt one by one with separate crises in isolation. Not long ago we dealt with the Rhineland and Abyssinia, more recently we have dealt with Spain and the Far East. I do not dispute that it may be necessary for the purpose of exercising democratic control over foreign policy that we should have those debates. But what I do suggest is that they have all failed to bring out vividly and clearly the need of this moment that Britain should have a comprehensive design directed to appeasement, which, by the very quality of its comprehensiveness, not only should be able to promote appeasement, but might also help the solution of each one of the separate crises by which we are confronted. Berlin, Rome, Tokyo, Spain are all now interlocked. Each one of those crises is like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle. They lie in disorderly array upon the table. I submit that they cannot be assembled unless some nation is able to come forward at this moment with

119
a map of peace, or a picture of the whole design into which all those separate pieces of the jigsaw puzzle can be fitted. And that is the purpose of the Motion that I have submitted to the House.
But not only must this effort towards appeasement be comprehensive in quality; it must be directed towards an attempt to deal with the grievances, justifiable or not justifiable, under which certain nations claim at this moment to be suffering. In previous negotiations with Germany we have sought to find some alternative to the Locarno Pact, a regional area of security being thereby provided in the West. I do not deny the desirability of these negotiations, but what I do say is that if they are all confined to the subject of regional pacts of security and omit the question of grievances, then we shall make no headway whatever towards that general appeasement that we desire. I tabled this Motion nearly three week ago. At that time it appeared as though there were a complete deadlock in the international situation. Since then has come the news of the visit of the Leader of this House, Lord Halifax, to Germany, and I believe that news has been welcomed by the whole nation, by all Parties in the nation, and by all schools of public opinion. We all realise that there is no figure in our public life who has a more magnificent equipment for the role of an ambassador of peace, and I believe that the good will of this House as well as the good will of all the homes of this land will go out to the noble Viscount in his work of peace-making. None the less, I believe it will be of some value that at this moment there should be a debate which will reveal to some extent at any rate the state of public opinion on this subject of appeasement, provided, that is, that all of us, knowing that this visit is taking place, speak words of discretion and not words of carelessness.
Before I attempt to outline the procedure which is mentioned in the Motion may I, for a few minutes, refer to the policy of the Government as I understand it? I should describe the policy of His Majesty's Government at the present time as a policy of prudence, or, if I may use another word of classical origin, a policy of cunctation. The Government base their policy, as I understand it, on the League of Nations. They desire to
120
rebuild the League of Nations. But what the Government say is that the present position of the League is weakened and is inclined to become even weaker, and that in consequence there must be an element of prudence in the manner in which the League is used under present circumstances. Even in the last few hours we have seen the experience of the three Scandinavian countries feeling themselves unable to join in voting upon a resolution at Brussels concerned with a dispute as far removed from their shores as the Far East. It has often been said that if only Britain would lead, all the other countries would follow. In this case Britain did lead, and you have the abstention of the three Scandinavian countries. That, it seems to me, must be used by His Majesty's Government as evidence of the great need of prudence at the present moment.
His Majesty's Government watch the uprising of dictatorships on Left and Right. They watch these dictatorships, if I understand their policy correctly, with restraint. They wonder to what extent these dictatorships are really permanently well-founded in the morality and culture of the twentieth century. They check their opinion of these dictatorships by reference to books of history, maps of geography, and economic statistics. His Majesty's Government do more than that. They are determined that in the meantime this country shall be strong, and so far as I am concerned, in a world highly armed, where the peoples of all the nations are unwilling to give up their arms, I believe we owe support to His Majesty's Government in their determination that this country shall be strong. No one can travel, as I have travelled, in some of the smaller nations to-day who are clinging to democracy, without realising the return of confidence in those countries which there has been in consequence of the determination of this democratic nation to be strong. Such then, as I understand it, is the policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not challenge that policy, but what I do say is this: if we are to have a period of prudence—of cunctation—a period during which we are able to build up our strength, a period during which we exercise our force with the greatest restraint, then do let us during that period express a formidable initiative directed to the making of peace. I believe it

121
might be possible to unnerve a dictator far more by removing his grievances than by any other process by which he could be confronted, and it is that procedure I wish to outline.
What does the Motion ask? It asks for an indication of policy at this moment during the period of waiting which would indicate the manner by which you could reach an all-round settlement. It is a tragic memory that when for the first time in the history of the world we bound a steel band of the law round the nations at Versailles we bound within it inequality of status. I believe that all your Lordships will agree that if the nations are to respect law, then all nations must be equal before the law, and all nations must know that the law can be changed. We have thought so far of the League and its Covenant too much as an instrument of force and too little as an instrument of justice. The tragedy has been that such changes as have been made since the Treaty of Versailles have all been made as a consequence of threats of force or pressure which had the element of force within it. When I myself was in Germany talking in the post-War years with members of the German Government I realised the infinite misfortune that these changes should have come about in that way instead of as a result of the spontaneous initiative of good will; for, if these changes had come about in the latter way, they would not only have been good in themselves but they would have left behind them a mood of kindness and friendship which would have been of great value as we gradually built the new post-War structure of Europe.
Germany lies at the heart of the geography of Europe, and it lies therefore at the heart of the geography of the world. There is no single event which could do more to prevent a world war and to assist world peace than understanding with Germany at this critical moment. I do not ignore, nor am I going to ignore in the arguments I shall submit to your Lordships, the dangers that can emanate from Germany in her present mood. I am not blind, any more than your Lordships are blind, to the difficult psychological mood in which Germany is to-day, but I make bold to make the suggestion that if we would approach her now, for the first time since Versailles, as an equal nation, we might find that some of those difficulties would be removed. In the Motion I
122
outline a particular form of procedure. I do beg my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, when he comes to reply on behalf of the Government, that he will give such sympathetic consideration as he can to the particular procedure which is there outlined.
And I wonder if I might hope to escape an accusation of arrogance from your Lordships if I ventured a few words at this stage about the past. Some of us have offered advice with regard to the international situation on many occasions since 1919, at the time of the mistakes, not after the event. In 1919 a Treaty was made with Germany, with Germany shut out, not permitted even the normal procedure of argument, after Germany had thrown out from its own land the old Government and its régime. At that time some of us protested. Later on, Germany was allowed to shake off the dust of Geneva from her feet at the time of the Disarmament Conference. Why? For many reasons; partly because of a foolish attempt to enforce upon that nation a probationary test. At that time, not after the event, some of us in your Lordships' House protested. Later on, offer after offer came from Germany. When I look back at some of those offers—and well I remember the details—when I look back at those offers in which Germany was prepared to accept an Army of 300,000 men, and an Air Force of 30 per cent. of the combined Air Forces around her, I look back to an offer which now seems almost utopian. I remember the terms she was willing to consider of coming back into the League of Nations. Fortunately at that stage our Government and our country were wiser than other countries, and it was a tragedy that that offer was rejected, not so much by us but by others. Again many of us in this House protested at the time. Then we went on to discuss, as I have already indicated, pacts of security, not attempts to analyse grievances. Again some of us protested and protested at the time.
I have only ventured to record some of those historical facts because I do plead at this moment that when this Resolution, this particular proposal, comes under the review of the Government they will not unsympathetically reject it, and that those of us who are advocating this procedure may at least be permitted to remind both our nation and the Government

123
that perhaps we have not always been wrong so far as the past is concerned. At the moment there is a new hope and a very real prospect of that which ought to have been done years ago being accomplished now. It seems perfectly clear, as I have tried to indicate in the Resolution, that we can make no headway except by the procedure of an all-round settlement. If I understand the German mind accurately, if I understand the European situation even indifferently, nothing could be more fatal at this moment than to make isolated concessions which were not within the framework of an all-round settlement. I submit that if that is the case the procedure of His Majesty's Government leaves something to be desired. They attempt to build peace piecemeal. They say: "Look at Spain; if only we could eradicate that trouble the road would be clear to general appeasement." I do not believe it, my Lords. I do not believe that you can build peace piecemeal any longer. Every problem is interlocked with some other problem, every area is dependent upon some other area, and behind it all there is a psychological mood which is more dominant in directing the policies of nations to-day than economics or any other factor and which must be taken into account.
Let me now, if I may, just give one or two illustrations of the folly of attempting to deal with the present position by approaching separate problems and separate areas in isolation. Germany says, rightly or wrongly, that she needs access to raw materials, and that she is not in an equal position with other nations in that respect. Very well, the Government, in the desire for peace, proposed the setting up of a Commission which was established at Geneva in order that that disability might be inquired into. It acted in respect of that subject as a subject in isolation. What did it do? It set up the Committee under the auspices of the League of Nations. But the League of Nations itself is one of the elements in the dispute between Germany and her sister nations. It went further. It ruled out from the terms of reference of that Committee anything to do with either Colonies or Mandates when, in the German mind, the subject of raw materials is definitely linked with both
124
those subjects. What was the result? Germany declined, although she was the complainant, to come into the discussion or to join in the work of the Committee.
Take the question of Colonies. Here surely is a subject beyond all others that cannot be dealt with as an isolated subject. It is going to be a burning issue. God grant that it be not allowed to become a festering sore in the body politic of Europe like Reparations before it. We cannot start handing Colonies round as though we were handing cards round in a game of beggar-my-neighbour. We cannot deal with this Colonial question without regard to all the arguments of strategy, without regard to the interests of native populations. We know that this subject is infinitely difficult, infinitely complicated in its reverberations, but at least let us use the right arguments when we are dealing with Germany. Germany says she requires tropical areas for the purposes of surplus population. Why, in 1914, there were more Germans living in Paris than in the whole German Colonial Empire put together, and we to-day, the British Empire, the centre of an area of one-quarter of the earth's surface, have an inward flow of population and not an outward flow. Germany says she wants these Colonial areas for purposes of raw materials, The Foreign Secretary and the Committee to which I have referred have already proved that only 3 per cent. of the world's raw materials come from these undeveloped Colonial areas. What is the good of advancing those arguments which would appear to prove that the Colonies are of no value if, having said to our German friends "Look how ridiculous your arguments are; all these areas are valueless," we then proceed to keep the whole of our Colonial Empire? If anyone had ever tried to negotiate with the German Government they would know the lack of wisdom which comes from the wrong type of argument. Therefore we know that you cannot resolve this question by dialectical discussion, nor can you resolve it by dealing with any one aspect of it alone. You can only deal with the Colonial question provided it is part of an all-round settlement in which the question of ambition is examined, the subject of migration is considered and appeasement is produced.
Take, for instance, the question of Spain. What is going on in Spain to-day is not merely a domestic civil war. What

125
is going on in Spain to-clay is a tragic consequence of many causes, amongst which is one which cannot be ignored—the efforts of Russia, through her Communist International, to carry on her revolutionary activities across frontiers parallel with the life of the League of Nations. It is one of the tragedies of post-War Europe and of the world. There has been not only the league of sovereign States, the League of Nations, in which nations have sat down together in order to modify their sovereignty in the end and learn the habit of international co-operation, but parallel with that league of sovereign States there has been another International in which nations which ought to have been co-operating loyally with the League were seeking to foment disorder across each other's frontiers. It has produced a tragic reply of similar activity from the Right. It stands to reason that you cannot build this great experiment of the League whilst these parallel Internationals continue. If only Russia would have been content to build up her own domestic experiment within her own frontiers, she might by now have drawn, I was going to say all men unto her, but whilst this parallel activity goes on, I cannot see how you can build a successful experiment in international cooperation. That subject cannot be excluded when we come to negotiations for an international appeasement.
Then take Japan, and this is my last illustration. In Japan you have not only a dispute which is concerned with power politics in a particular area. You have a dispute, one of whose sources lies in the subject of migration. When have you dealt in recent years with that subject of migration? The inflow and outflow of migration has stopped, as compared with what it used to be. There again is an illustration of the inability of any group of nations, however filled with good will, to deal with a particular area unless all the kindred subjects like those of migration and others are brought under review. I hope I have said sufficient to prove the point that I desire to make, that we cannot approach the present situation of the world, so far as peace-making is concerned, except by this comprehensive review.
What, therefore, do I ask? I ask for a first step only, a first step towards this general appeasement. I ask for a pre
126
liminary declaration from this nation within which declaration would come reference to all these different subjects which are troubling the hearts of different nations. I do plead that my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth will not accuse me of asking for something for which I am not asking. I am not suggesting that informal discussions should not take place—not at all. They are of infinite value, as I have already indicated, but they are not sufficient. They might even become dangerous, because what is an informal discussion to one nation can easily be interpreted as a sinister manœuvre by another, and even that danger surrounds the present situation. Nor am I asking for a world conference. I know that any one who asks for general appeasement is generally supposed to be suggesting the gathering together of an unwieldy peace conference. Even I have sufficient diplomatic experience to know the folly of any more world conferences without preparation. Even I can tell from such discussions as I have witnessed what disaster may easily arise from that procedure. You might make confusion worse confounded. You might provide only a platform for angry disputation. I do not ask for a world conference. Nor do I ask that the declaration should be the foreshadowing in final and detailed form of the settlement which might ultimately have to be brought into being.
What, then, is the nature of the declaration? It is a declaration made for psychological reasons at a certain moment which reveals the outlook of this great nation, which indicates its ultimate objectives, which is a kind of framework into which it may be possible to fit each one of the subjects under discussion. The nations, at the present moment, do not know where this country stands. Russia thinks, I imagine, that we, the British nation, are the catspaw of Fascism, because of our supposed relationship with General Franco. Italy and Germany think that we are the dupes of the wily Bolshevik. There may be some advantage in keeping the nations guessing sometimes as to what is our policy, but surely not all the time. There may be a moment when it is wise for us to become clear.
What could be included in such a preliminary declaration? Surely we could say, with great psychological advantage,

127
that this nation feels the desire to admit the mistakes that have been made in the past. Probably Germany, if she had won the War, would have imposed upon us and our Allies just as harsh a treatment as we imposed upon her. That matters not. The fact remains that a mistake was made. Surely it would be of great advantage that we should say so. Surely we could say that we are anxious to start this time from the standpoint of absolute equality of status between all the nations; that we want to see some means by which clauses like the guilt clause could be eradicated from the documents which deal with the appeasement of the world; that we would reaffirm what the Imperial Conference has already laid down, that the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League should be dissociated; that we desire to see, so far as armaments are concerned, equality for comparable Powers; that in the difficult question of the relationship of Austria and Germany we do not desire, even there, an international statutory prohibition forbidding union which does not apply between ourselves and Holland; that even though we would insist that no union should occur which was not the voluntary act of all parties concerned, to pick out a particular relationship of countries and let there be on record an international prohibition in law is something which we should not desire to see continued.
We could indicate not only that we admitted the grievances which existed, but also that we desired to propose adequate machinery for their examination. That machinery might take the form of fact-finding Commissions or other more suitable forms. We could be prepared to indicate our attitude to them: we could say that we desired to rule out no subject which any nation might desire to have discussed. So far as German minorities in the countries neighbouring to Germany are concerned, so far as territorial difficulties are concerned, we could say that we desired especially the bringing in, for the expression of third-party opinion, nations which had not a vested interest in the actual Treaty of Versailles itself, and that the gaining of third-party opinion on such delicate subjects as that would be of enormous advantage to the world. We could say that so far as economics were concerned, if there was
128
an all-round settlement in which Germany was a voluntary and consenting party, we were anxious that there might be financial collaboration: a further reducing of trade barriers, a making of the League an instrument of mutual economic advantage and not merely an instrument of power. We could say that so far as Colonies were concerned, although we committed ourselves to no detail until this general appeasement had been negotiated, we did not rule the question out, and that we were for our part anxious to bring into being in tropical Africa the system of the open door which ought to apply in areas where we are acting as trustees on behalf of the world. We could say that, so far as revolutionary Internationals were concerned, we were anxious that steps should be taken that they should be closed down and machinery created for the international supervision of the agreement.
There is one other point, and it is the last point in this declaration to which I wish to refer. It is a burning question. We cannot exclude from any such preliminary declaration the whole subject of security. Everyone knows that the situation has deteriorated. We do not trust each other as nations any longer. Pacts have been signed and pacts have been broken—broken not only by nations which have outstanding grievances, so-called, but also by nations which were victorious in the Great War. We know that the major difficulty at the moment is to get confidence in the signature of any pact. What is the good of my talking here about an all-round settlement, about general appeasement, unless we can find some procedure by which, if that all-round settlement should be drafted, we could rely upon the honourableness of the signatures which were attached to it? There seem to me to be two acid tests which would have to be applied and which would have to be referred to in any declaration that was made. The first, at any rate so far as the huddled Continent of Europe is concerned, is that those who sign a new agreement must become Members of the family of the League of Nations, accepting its rights and its obligations. Secondly, if we are to feel any confidence in the signing of the new all-round settlement, there must be limitation of armaments and the international supervision of the agreement.
Let me be permitted a word on each: membership of the League, and the question of security. Germany must be asked to state her attitude on this question of security, otherwise all the concessions are on one side. What is Germany prepared to put into the common pool so far as this all-round settlement is concerned? Is she only going to offer pacts of non-aggression? Pacts of non-aggression are not worth the paper on which they are written. On Germany's side there must be some revision of her attitude to the system of collective security, or otherwise no confidence can be felt. Look at the position of Czechoslovakia; look at the position of the countries which are neighbouring to Germany. Are they even to be asked to consider possible concessions, possible modifications, if Ger- many is not going to put into the common pool of agreement a desire to come into a collective, system?
But how can we ask Germany in these negotiations to make clear where she stands upon the collective system; how can we even carry through negotiations upon that subject unless we know where our own Government and our own country stand upon it? I understand only too well the present weakened state of the League. I realise that in the present situation we have to take great care lest even those of us who are zealous for the League break the spirit of the League upon the hard fabric of its text and its constitution. I realise that; that is why I want to rebuild the League. But suppose that an agreement were come to from which all the poison of injustice had been drained, and to which there was voluntary consent on the part of Germany and not a signature under duress. Surely then the law to be protected by the procedure of the League and by the procedure of collective security would be one that there would be no hesitation on the part of this country in protecting. We must be clear where this country would stand if an all-round settlement were come to in which the law were at last just in Europe. I plead with His Majesty's Government that, whatever difficulties they may feel about the League to-day, they shall take some early opportunity of indicating their loyalty, not only to the principles of the League, but also to the actual procedure of collective security, when we have a law which is just and a settlement
130
arrived at. But some of your Lordships may answer: "Even that is not enough. Nations have been Members of the League, nations have signed the Covenant, and even then they have broken it." I do not deny it, but never has the law yet been one that all nations felt to be just; never has the act of consent been real. That is why I acid a further acid test, the acid test that there must be associated with the settlement the limitation of armaments and the revival out of the documents of the Disarmament Conference of those various methods which were then under discussion whereby that limitation of armaments can be internationally supervised.
Such, then, is the plea that I venture to put forward. I believe that it might mean that in the case of Europe we should have to build upon the foundations of the League, giving special life to Article 11 of the Covenant of the League. So far as America is concerned, and countries outside Europe, we have the Pact of Paris, which could be made more precise for all purposes, not only of consultation but also of action. It may be that some will argue that we shall not get the response from the aggrieved nations which will give us any hope. I do not know; that may be so. It may be that our noble friend Lord Halifax will ultimately have little of help to give us. We cannot say. All we can do is to bid him and the German Chancellor good will as they talk together. But supposing it were true that, after this effort had been made, made with infinitely more skill and design than has ever yet been the case, still the answer came back: "No." What should we have lost as a nation by having offered justice? Nothing. We should have strengthened our hands both physically and morally. We should have weakened the position of dictators and we should, above all things, have taken a step which, even if it were to lead to no tangible result, would be a step that, in the case of America, would give us the moral support and understanding of that great people as nothing else could do. If all efforts are going to fail, if some catastrophe is again to befall the world, there is nothing that we need more than the full-hearted understanding of the two sections of the Anglo-Saxon race, ourselves and America; and nothing would contribute more to bringing us within the ambit

131
of American understanding than that we should have attempted a policy of justice.
I am obliged to your Lordships for having let me speak at so great a length. I have not asked that this country should be weak: I have not asked that this country should act alone in respect of any policy of force: but I have asked that, if she is to be strong, she should also he magnanimous. This country, in its very nature, is the centre of one of the strongest combinations of Powers in the world, and it is right and proper that this being so, she should take her share in the collective protection of law. But a nation which stands at the centre of a Commonwealth occupying a quarter of the earth's surface, with all the advantages that that gives, if it is to be foremost in the protection of law must also be foremost in ensuring that the law is just. I feel that, if the noble Viscount can return with some message of hope, we shall all of us in this House give him the homage which is his due; and I earnestly hope that nothing that I may have said in this debate will have been aught else than helpful and constructive. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House views with profound anxiety the progressive deterioration in the international situation that has developed during the last few years; supports His Majesty's Government in their determination to ensure this country's strength and in their attempt to find some immediate solution of the successive crises that now confront the world; but would welcome at this stage a statement, to be made either in the British Parliament or at the League of Nations, indicating a comprehensive policy directed to a consideration of the grievances and disabilities from which certain nations claim to be suffering, and outlining the procedure which His Majesty's Government would favour with a view to the ultimate negotiation of an all-round settlement within the framework of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris.—(Lord Allen of Hurtwood.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, may I beg your leave to allow me to preface my remarks to-day with a very brief reference to the loss which Parliament and his many friends have sustained in the death of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald? My excuse for doing so is partly personal, but
132
also because silence on these Benches might be thought to be ungracious, and that we were indifferent to the passing of one with whom we have had long, close and valued friendships. I had known Mr. MacDonald intimately for more than forty years. We had worked together in many causes, in good times and in bad, when we were able to rejoice in success and when we had to bear the grim discipline of frustration and failure. Like myself, Mr. MacDonald was a child of the soil, and his early contacts with the fields and the moors were constantly reflected in his work and his thought. He had not the initial advantage of a planned or systematic education. He had, indeed, no advantage beyond his own natural endowments. What he made of them was the product of his prodigious industry, his self-discipline and his character. Only those who have had to tread the same hard pathway can know how rugged it was.
The time has not yet come when a balanced estimate of his career can be attempted; but, when all the necessary qualifications are made, I believe that the working classes, from whom he sprang, will have in him a hearty and a justifiable pride. I will say only this: he often appeared to lack the gift of seeing events objectively. His own strong personality and his considerable dexterity as a political craftsman sometimes intruded upon and seemed to obscure the issue. Critics have said of him that he found it difficult to make up his mind. But this fault, if indeed it was a fault, might be excused as Charles Lamb excused Shakespeare, on the ground that he had more mind than most people to make up. He had lived a long and a full life. He had fought and endured. He had tasted to the full the penalties both of success and of failure. His work was done, and I rejoice that, when the Dark Mother came to him, she came with unfaltering steps. What greater blessing could any man desire for himself, or his friends desire for him?
Turning to the subject of to-day's debate I should like first of all to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for having placed this very important Motion upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. That Motion is as timely as the subject is important, and I think that all of us, in thinking of

133
it, must feel a burden of responsibility resting upon us to say nothing that can make more difficult the situation that we know exists. It is immensely complex, with a drift towards imminent danger, and we need to take that into account. At the same time mere polite evasion will not be a contribution to the solution of the problem. The Motion speaks of the "progressive deterioration" that has taken place in the international situation. That deterioration has gone on to a quite incredible degree. Let me try, in a few brief word, to indicate what the measure of deterioration has been. Six years ago the League of Nations was active, it was responsible, and it embodied the hopes of the civilised world. The proposal for a Disarmament Conference had met with approval; the level of armaments in various countries was comparatively stable; there was no kind of arms race in progress; there were proposals for a European Commission of Economic Cooperation; Germany was ready for both co-operative thinking and talking, but her progressively minded statesmen were ignored, they were snubbed and discouraged, and we are reaping in great part to-day the harvest that we sowed in the years 1932 and 1933.
I have to ask myself to what this deterioration is due. I must be brief to-day, and therefore I have to summarise rather than to explain; but I suggest that it has been chiefly due to a lack of en oral courage on the part of leading nations, including our own. No one has been willing to supply the leadership in appeasement. We have let "I dare not" wait upon "I would." His Majesty's Government, with their quite invincible flair for self-righteousness, are always saying that the fault is not in themselves but in their stars. Well, I do not know, but I know who would have been blamed for it all if the Labour Party had been in office. I have not the least doubt at all what the outcry would have been. But I notice even now there are voices on the other side which are beginning to grow alarmed. In the Observer of last Sunday we were solemnly told that never in the nation's annals were our simultaneous mismanagements so numerous and world-wide as to-day. Well, that seems to me to be the unkindest cut of all. When the Government's most resounding oracle utters words of that kind, those of us who belong to the
134
Opposition Parties may be forgiven if we attempt here and there to cast doubts upon the quality of leadership which His Majesty's Government have supplied. I should like to remind your Lordships that, although Labour was in office for only a short time, its foreign policy was at least not a disaster. It secured the evacuation of the Rhineland; it restored diplomatic relationships with Soviet Russia; it negotiated the London Treaty for naval limitation with the United States and Japan; itself accepted and persuaded the Dominions to accept arbitration in international affairs; it prepared the Disarmament Conference of 1932, and I have personally little doubt that that Conference would have achieved success had proper leadership been given from this country. But the manufactured panic of 1931 changed the Government, and the present, situation is a part of the price that we are paying for that event.
The difficulties of the present situation are of course obvious. The authoritarian States have gone to lengths of defiance and encroachment that we have not had to record before. Economic nationalism has been encouraged, there have been discriminatory tariffs imposed upon other nations, and I cannot help feeling that if the Government desire a lead in the direction suggested by my noble friend Lord Allen of Hurtwood, the most important contribution that could be made to peace at the present time would be an attempt to return to the old ways, to reduce and destroy the war-provoking, penalty-imposing barriers to trade in various parts of the world, and to return to a free exchange of goods and of services. To-day we are faced with a most serious situation. The League of Nations is more or less impotent, it is half discredited, and we are witnessing a retreat to primitive thought and deed. I could criticise Germany and France and Italy and Japan to-clay if it would serve any useful purpose, but it would do no such thing. What we are called upon to do to-day is not to estimate the faults of other nations, but to try to adjust our own minds to our responsibilities in the time in which we live. Can we assist at this time to lead the world to a new attitude towards war? Can we give support to any attempt at a general appeasement? Let me say at once, if that will be of any service to His Majesty's Government, that the Labour Party will

135
put no obstacle in the way of approaching this subject in a wide and comprehensive way, provided the attempt is made to secure a general, rather than a piecemeal, settlement.
My duty to-day is to ask whether the Government have any proposal to make. We believe—I believe very profoundly—that the world cannot go on as it is at the present time without disaster. If there be grievances to be remedied, let those grievances be examined, and let us face them in a generous spirit. We cannot have civilisation destroyed, either by dictators on the one hand or by truculent and diehard patriots on the other. The issue is too serious to allow of that being done, and I do not believe it is necessary. The world, after all, is full of reasonable people, and they know, as we know, that there is no short cut to peace, that we have to encounter frustration and perhaps defeat here and there, but the world on the whole will be satisfied if we have the will to peace and we are willing to think of what we can contribute rather than what we may lose in the process. Therefore, I think we should aim to remove the economic forces of international rivalry; we should try to enable all nations to share on fair terms the wealth of the world. We should try to persuade all nations, however unhappy they may have been about it, to give the League another trial in an effort to ensure for all political security and economic opportunity. Therefore we suggest that there should be a consideration, within the framework of the League, of the Colonial question, and the possibility of applying the Mandate system to territories at present in our possession and in dispute. There should be a renewed attempt to secure a revised form of procedure, and we should make a desperate attempt to end the arms race.
I will not delay your Lordships longer, except again to say that I think that what we want to-day is rather an affirmation of a principle than a declaration of a piecemeal programme. For myself, I believe that a new approach to the whole subject is necessary and that it is possible. Can we make any contribution to secure the peace of the world and the good will of nations? I am under no sort of illusion about Germany, but, just because I am not, I am all the more
136
bound to see that she suffers no injustice. I am not satisfied with the general chorus on this subject which says that Colonies would not help Germany if she had them. If they would not, we should not suffer much loss if we handed them back to her. I am not sure that these things are possible. All we ask is that they should be examined. There is the question of the natives, which I view with the very greatest anxiety. Germany's treatment of minorities within her own land does not encourage one to believe that she would be generous in the treatment of natives, but then I do not know. I should like that question examined too. What was her record in regard to the treatment of natives over whom she ruled, always remembering that our own record has not been entirely free from blame? Let us not be censorious when we have an opportunity, perhaps, of doing a great service.
I should like to press for international settlement, if not by international conference—one knows how difficult that is—first of all for an attempt to consider how the situation could be faced. In any case we have before us the choice of readjustment or ultimate war and possible destruction. It is at this crisis that the Leader of the House is on a most important mission, and I hope the Government will accept my assurance that both my Party and myself wish to Lord Halifax good speed in the great work on which he is engaged. We are at the parting of the ways, as it seems to me. The days are big with fate for us all, and we are faced with this enormous problem concerning which each must make up his own mind as to where he stands. I personally believe that even now, if our country would show the world the way, the world could be won back to the paths of peace. To that aim we should consecrate all our powers—all that we have of will and service and knowledge and devotion—and then we shall have done all that we can, and having done that, if the nation should be at war, there would at least be peace within us.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, both Lord Allen and Lord Snell referred to the death of Mr. MacDonald. I served in his last Cabinet. I was honoured by his friendship. I was very often guided by his' judgment, and I received at all times

137
the most infinite encouragement in the exacting post I then held.
This is the first time that I have ventured to address your Lordships, but I feel that the subject-matter of this Motion is so important, so crucial to the welfare not only of this country but perhaps of the peace of Europe, that I venture for a very few moments to say a word or two upon it. This Motion, after expressing profound anxiety at the international situation—a view which we can all share—asks that comprehensive consideration be given to the grievances from which certain countries claim that they are now suffering. The object of course is to secure, by some means or other, the appeasement of Europe or, as the Motion calls it, "an all-round settlement." Stated thus simply, I should have thought there could have been no two opinions anywhere that such consideration is desirable, and if such an appeasement can be attained it would be most fervently desired in every country in Europe. As it happens, I am responsible, by reason of the post I now hold, for paying allowances to something like 500,000 or 600,000 people a week, and I have no hesitation in saying that I see little chance of any substantial reduction of that number unless there is such an increase of international trade and commerce as would inevitably flow from such appeasement should such appeasement take place; and, be it observed, that improvement would not only be in this country, it would be in every country in Europe.
I think it would be true to say that the great mass of the people to-day are worried and very bewildered by these recurrent crises. While they are determined, as always, to make every sacrifice and take any steps that may be necessary to defend their country and their honour, and while they welcome the steps which are being taken for their own protection and their own defence, they are worried by these recurrent crises because they see, as they are bound to see, that every one of them is followed by an acceleration of the steps which are so necessary for their defence. They, it is quite certain, would welcome with infinite relief any steps that resulted in the appeasement of Europe; but surely the greatest catastrophe of all would be if either here or elsewhere that feeling should develop into a feeling of fatalism as to the future.
138
I most respectfully agree with what the Prime Minister, in an oft-quoted passage, said at the Guildhall the other day, when he said it was the sincere desire of His Majesty's Government to see relations established upon the basis of mutual friendship and understanding, and went on to say:
"We believe that that understanding, which might well have far-reaching effects in restoring confidence and security to Europe, will be more hopefully pursued by informal discussion than by public declamation."
If the object is, and it must be, the appeasement of Europe, and if it be thought that the best method of approach is informal discussion, what is the position? May I refer to one's own experience in these matters? It was my lot for ten or twelve years to take some part in the settlement of industrial disputes, and it was my business to watch over and over again very closely the negotiations and the conversations which led up to settlement. What one found was this. When the matter was approached for the first time it might well be that the prospect seemed hopeless, almost alarming. Then one was told that this point was so fundamental that no accommodation was possible. Another question would be one of principle which could barely be discussed, still less was there a possibility of an agreement on it. At the same time settlement was desired by both parties. Now what in those circumstances was, I might almost call it the technique, the process? Here I follow what in another connection was in the mind of Lord Allen. You began—I think the noble Lord, Lord Snell, will bear me out in this—by finding out that you did not agree about this point or the other, and you proceeded to investigate what was the relation of this point to that, and it was not until you had ascertained that relationship that you considered the outstanding point in relation to the main objective, which was settlement. Then, at the end, the parties had to consider whether they would come to a decision, whether they would continue the dispute with all the possible and incalculable consequences, or whether their good sense and good will would find some accommodation which ended in agreement.
It seems to me that in this international business there are points in plenty which confront those who would meet them fairly. There are points which, as Lord

139
Allen has indicated, may very well perplex the intelligence of the wisest and confuse the emotions of the most generous. There are questions which are difficult, questions which are momentous and apparently intractable. I deliberately forbear from debating or discussing any one of them, because I am not sure that at this moment it is profitable to do so, but at long last these questions will have to be considered in the light of the final objective, which is the appeasement of Europe or, as this Motion says, "an all-round settlement." In doing so there will have to be borne in mind what it means, not only to this country and Europe but to the world, if that appeasement can be obtained. If such an appeasement is to be secured it is clear that the agreement must be one which is acceptable to all sides. If what the Prime Minister called the basis of mutual friendship and understanding is to be on a sure foundation and confidence and security to Europe is to be restored, then all causes, or alleged causes, of complaint must be discussed and all considerations must be properly weighed. To ignore them would simply invite further irritation in the near future, and the appeasement might probably be indefinitely postponed.
I do not myself feel disposed to say any more at this moment. The Leader of this House, Lord Halifax, left yesterday for Berlin. Lord Halifax enjoys, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, perhaps in a special degree the confidence not only of this House but of the country. I think we may well leave to him his own conduct at Berlin as elsewhere. If it should so be that the conversations which he holds result in negotiations which may make a substantial contribution to the appeasement of Europe and the peace of the world, then he will have performed the greatest service which perhaps it has ever fallen to the lot of man to render.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, you have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and I am sure you will have done so with very great pleasure. I myself am but a new member of this House, newer even than the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I have been here long enough to have had experience of the kindness and courtesy with which your Lordships are
140
always ready to receive new members of this House, and I am sure I am expressing the feelings of all those who are present and the House in general when I say that your Lordships will always be glad to hear further speeches from Lord Rushcliffe born as they will be from the wealth of his long administrative and Parliamentary experience. Having himself for many years exercised with great success the functions of a conciliator, he breathes the same spirit into our debate to-day on this great matter of foreign policy, and his advice will, I am sure, be listened to with respect and followed with gratitude.
He, like the speakers who preceded him, made reference to the loss which the nation has sustained in the death of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, twice Prime Minister. I myself knew him well when we were both young men and at the time of his marriage to that gracious and devoted woman bearing the great name of Gladstone, who was his wife. Our paths separated in later years, and very widely during the War, but came together again at the time of the crisis of 1931. Then I had the privilege of working in very close touch with him and formed the opinion that his course at that momentous juncture was animated by the highest possible sense of duty, and it was that that enabled him to render such great service to the nation at that time. Throughout his life he upheld the honour and dignity of British statesmanship, and I feel sure that this House will wish to express its appreciation of the purposes which he had in view and its sorrow at his death. Mr. MacDonald was always a champion of the cause of peace, that cause which in these days seems so gravely overshadowed.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, who has presented this Motion in so admirable a speech, if I may be allowed to say so, has given us a subject which touches the very heart and core of the politics of our time. Our home affairs are quite overshadowed by international affairs, our finances are dominated by the claim—necessary claim in these days—made upon the public purse for armaments. Social progress, enterprise, trade, all are hampered by the conditions in which we find ourselves, and the looming anxiety that oppresses the whole nation for fear of the disaster of another great war. Lord Allen in these circumstances invites

141
this House to consider the international situation as a whole, and he has presented a Motion which I think, and I trust your Lordships will agree, is admirably framed and deserves general support.
For those who disapprove wholly the political régime which is now dominant in Germany there is, of course, a great temptation to take the negative view with regard to all and any claims advanced by that régime. There is a temptation to say that militarism is ingrained in the German; that the war mentality is ineradicable; that this régime has broken treaties time and again and therefore cannot be relied upon to keep any further engagements that may be entered into; that there is within Germany constant oppression and persecution of those whose politics or race or religion is not approved by the Party in power, and that any concession that might be made now would merely strengthen this régime and help to perpetuate it and would only be an encouragement to further demands. I myself, who was born into the Jewish community and am a member of it, naturally feel this tendency to bias in consideration of these matters very strongly. When one remembers how the Jews of Germany have been denied elementary rights of justice, how they have been brought to economic ruin, how, even worse, they are subjected to every insult and indignity—people who have done no harm but, on the contrary, many of whom have given lustre to Germany in philosophy and science and literature as well as commerce and industry—it is difficult indeed not to adopt an attitude of mere negation. But I remember that it is not the Jews who are disgraced by the ignominies to which they have been subjected, but rather those who inflict those ignominies, just as it is never the persecutors who shine out in history but the martyrs.
When general issues touching the international situation come before the Houses of the British Parliament considerations such as those I have mentioned ought to be put aside. They are not the decisive factor. It has long been a first principle in our politics, and I feel sure it is a sound principle, that international relations ought not to be determined by internal régimes. Before the War we found ourselves obliged, by the conditions of the time, to work in association with Tsarist Russia, although there were many features
142
of Tsarism which were detestable to great sections in this country. Since the War we have been obliged, as members of the comity of nations, to enter into similar relationships with Soviet Russia, although there again there are many features which are equally detestable. There has been recently a declaration on the part of the Imperial Conference. I quote from the records of the Conference:
". … the Members of the Conference, while themselves firmly attached to the principles of democracy and to Parliamentary forms of government, decided to register their view that differences of political creed should be no obstacle to friendly relations between Governments and countries, and that nothing would be more damaging to the hopes of international appeasement than the division, real or apparent, of the world into opposing groups."
There is a formal declaration on the part of the highest authority of a principle which should be, I trust all your Lordships will agree, the foundation of our international politics.
Nor is it right to say that we should be foolish to enter into an arrangement with Germany on matters which might be acceptable for the reason that we suspect that later demands might be made which would be unacceptable. To reject to-day what is reasonable for fear that to-morrow we should be asked to accept something else that is unreasonable would make every negotiation impossible, whether in private business or international politics. Nor obviously should we go into any negotiation with Germany and other Powers on lines referred to by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, with the arrière pensée that in any case we can make sure that nothing will come of it. A character in one of Goldsmith's plays says: "When my mind is quite made up I never object to listening to reason, because then it can do no harm." That is not an attitude which is proper for imitation. It would be a mistake also to regard the issue whether the Colonies which were taken from. Germany by the Treaty of Versailles should be returned to her, as a simple question to be answered "Yes" or "No." No doubt many spokesmen of Germany put the question in that form, but I see no reason why our consideration of these matters should be so limited. It is very natural at the start of negotiations that claims should be put very high, but I see no need to answer simply "Yes" or "No" to any question of that kind.

143
I would rather envisage this question as the noble Lord does who moved this Resolution. Should there be a general settlement of outstanding questions in which concessions in the Colonial sphere should be one element? If the question is put in that form my own view is that it ought to be answered in the affirmative. The Colonial map of Africa and Asia as it stood at the end of the nineteenth century was the result of prolonged and patient negotiations, compromises, sacrifices, withdrawals. The memory of the name of Fashoda shows how grave the strains were from time to time. Yet the Berlin Act of 1885, the Brussels Act of 1890, and later agreements settling these questions of allocation of territories were all reached without a war, by negotiations, by a process of give and take, and if any readjustments should be necessary they may again be so reached. There has been a most interesting discussion, which no doubt your Lordships will have read, in The Times of recent weeks on the Colonial issue, in which every point of view has been expressed by writers of authority, including many members of your Lordships' House. Some arguments advanced in that correspondence, and elsewhere in the discussion on both sides, on examination must be held to be untenable. For instance, it really is not possible to say that our Colonies are of such vital importance to us that in no circumstances would we make any concession, either in territorial or in economic matters, and at the same time to say that they would be so unimportant to Germany that we cannot really understand why she should raise the question at all. To put those two positions at one and the same time only exposes us to the accusation of hypocrisy.
On the other hand, those spokesmen who put the matter so high as to say that the possession of Colonies is absolutely vital to Germany have not proved their case. Dr. Schacht, for instance, writing in an important American organ on foreign affairs last January, said that the question is not one of imperialism or prestige, but of economic existence, for Germany. That, I think, is not accepted by students of the situation. The Scandinavian countries, for example, without any Colonies, have found themselves able to maintain economic existence and, indeed, have greatly enlarged their pros
144
perity in recent years up to the present time. We all know that the difficulty of the German economic situation is due in very large degree to the fact that she prefers to obtain as imports, in exchange for such exports as she can dispose of, the materials for armaments rather than foodstuffs for her people or raw materials for her manufactures. The country that prefers to be combative rather than comfortable must expect to suffer discomfort!But because this issue is not really vital to Germany, it does not follow that it is wholly unimportant, and the fact that it is not vital makes it perhaps more easy to come to some accommodation on both sides.
Nor is the argument sound that, after all, Germany would have done much the same if she had been victorious in the War. That, no doubt, is true. We have only to remember her policy during the War of Mittel-Europa, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the Bucharest Treaty to realise that if she had had the opportunity she would probably have been far more ruthless than the negotiators at Versailles. But what should we have said in those circumstances? We should have said that the Germans had shown bad statesmanship by being ruthless in this matter, and that they had merely sown the seeds of fresh quarrels. Obviously a policy which we ourselves should have condemned is not one which we ourselves should imitate. Nor, again, can I concur in the view that our own strategic interests make it impossible for us to make any concession. It is really an impossible claim to say that no nation which is even potentially hostile is to be allowed to have any possessions in any part of the world where they might conceivably threaten our important trade routes. That is an impossible claim, and if it were pressed it would merely expose us to world-wide animosity. There is also this further point in that connection which I venture to suggest should be borne in mind. So long as Britain has command of the sea, the outlying Colonial possessions of other Powers are not necessarily military assets to them; they may rather be merely pledges for tranquillity and an encouragement not to adventure but rather to restraint.
More important than any of these considerations, perhaps, is the one to which the noble Lords, Lord Snell and Lord

145
Allen, have referred, and that is consideration for native interests. There opinions are divided as to German administration before the War. That there were defects is certain, but defects could also be found in the early days of the administration by Belgium of the Congo, which has afterwards become extraordinarily efficient and successful; in the administration by France of some of her Colonies; and even incidents in our own early colonisation. It may be that such supervision and assurances could be obtained as would fully safeguard native interests. It is said that the natives themselves ought to be fully consulted before any change is made. It might perhaps be a little awkward if Germany were to say that she was quite prepared to accept that principle and would agree to precisely the same procedure as Britain had adopted for consulting the natives at the time when these various territories were acquired!What the safeguards of the interests of the natives should be and how they should be consulted are, of course, matters for further and detailed consideration; but undoubtedly the principle is sound, that native interests should take a high place in any consideration of these matters.
Furthermore, one point which is not often mentioned but is of great importance is that the interests of other nations—one might call them neutral nations in this matter—require consideration also. The Scandinavian countries, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Balkan States—all these, which are wholly law-abiding countries and have no Colonies of their own but have considerable commercial and economic interests in this connection, surely should be consulted and fully considered before any decisions are reached. What form negotiations should take and to what precise objects they should be directed is a matter for later consideration and not, perhaps, for debate in this House and on this day. For my own part let me say that I do not favour the suggestion which is sometimes made, that Colonial territories should be placed under a kind of composite administration, perhaps by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and held in trust for the world at large. There are the strongest administrative reasons against that. They were expressed some time ago by a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Lugard, who is one of the most illustrious of
146
African administrators and has had long experience as the British representative on the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations.
He has pointed out the grave objections to any kind of hybrid—it is more than hybrid; I used the word "compos site"—government of that kind for reasons of difficulties of finance, of the support when necessary of armed forces, and generally of securing harmony among administrators and the spirit of team work. If you get people representing half a dozen different nationalities all engaged in administering the one territory year after year, perhaps generation after generation, you will not secure that team work and that harmony in administration which are essential to good government. In history, where the experiment has been tried I do not think you have ever found that it has succeeded, or that a condominium of two or several Powers has been able with efficiency and success to govern a territory of any importance for any length of time. Some form of the present Mandate, or some revision of it, might conceivably be applied. The establishment of chartered companies is another suggestion that has been made and is perhaps worthy of consideration. The fact remains that Germany is the only one of the great European Powers without any direct Colonial interests. More than that, she has had them. She is not like a Power who has never possessed Colonies; she has had great possessions of her own which were the fruit of long years of effort and sacrifice. She was bereft of all of them at a stroke, and it is not surprising that this should be, and should be likely to remain, a cause of unrest.
The conclusion to which the noble Lord points in his Motion is that there ought to be an all-round settlement. For my own part I should like most earnestly to support a settlement which would deal comprehensively with all the great outstanding questions that trouble the world. It is essential that Russia should undertake to stop effectively interfering in other peoples' affairs. Mr. Stalin has declared that that indeed is his policy; but, in any general arrangement, that contribution to a settlement should be embodied and should be most formally and solemnly expressed. Of course, the Russians may say that this policy of interference was

147
adopted very largely as a reprisal for the invasion of Russia by the White Armies soon after the revolution and the support given from this country and others to an interference in Russian internal affairs. But that is years ago, and now that any such attempt has ceased the Soviet Republics should on their part give a pledge that there will be no continuance or resumption of their former interference. When that has been done, then Germany can be expected to cease breathing fire and slaughter against Russia. Then may come that limitation in the growth of armaments which is so earnestly to be desired. The growth having been limited or stopped by this general arrangement, then perhaps, at some later stage, when the situation has had time to calm itself, we may return to the policy of disarmament and get back to a lower standard of expenditure upon the armaments of the world.
Furthermore, undoubtedly, as part of that general arrangement, the Covenant of the League of Nations should be formally separated from the Treaty of Versailles. They are two different things and ought never to have been combined. The Imperial Conference, which I have already quoted, at the time of the Coronation put on record its view that that ought to be done. The British Foreign Secretary at Geneva has stated that that is the policy of His Majesty's Government. Yet nothing is done. The war guilt clause, again, should clearly come out of the Treaty. Even though it be substantially true (and for my own part, as a member of the Cabinet at that time, I believe that substantially it is true that the world could have had peace if Germany had wished for peace at that time) nevertheless, to put such a declaration in a treaty requiring German signatures is an absurdity. It is like extorting a confession under torture. It is of no value whatever as evidence. Then, in that calmer atmosphere, if those things be agreed, we may hope that the membership of the League of Nations may be completed; but only if the League realises that it has an absolute duty to care for the redress of grievances by peaceful means as much as for the prevention of war on the part of aggrieved parties.
It is not enough to say merely that we should stand by the Covenant. Of course
148
we should stand by the Covenant. But Article 19, which provides for the amendment of international arrangements, is as much an integral part of the Treaty as any other Article. Yet it must be confessed (I say it as one who is an earnest partisan of the League) that there has been no indication of any kind that the League has been anxious to make effective use of Article 19. Mr. Eden, at the Assembly of the League last year, used these words with regard to what is usually termed peaceful change:
"If nations are to be prepared to co-operate fully and loyally for the maintenance of peace, that peace must rest on a basis that appears to them desirable or at least acceptable. They will only strive to maintain a status quo that has won general acceptance, or to prevent forcible change of that status quo if they are convinced that there exist peaceful methods whereby just changes can be effected."
Those are very wise words, it I may say so. Yet here again nothing is done. These declarations are left merely as declarations. They are not followed by action.
Lord Cecil, whose absence to-day owing to his journey to America we all of us regret in a discussion of this nature, continually emphasises the importance of exalting law as against war; but only, if I may say so respectfully, in a parenthesis or in a peroration does he say: "Of course, we are all anxious to remedy any grievances that can be proved to be just grievances." If only he and my noble friend Lord Davies would put that in the very forefront of their policy and insist that the League should take up this aspect of things effectively and actively, I think that they would render even greater service than they now do—and great that service is—to the cause of peace.
So long as the League of Nations gives the impression that it considers itself to exist merely in order to maintain the arrangements of 1919 as though they were to constitute the map for fifty years hence, one hundred years hence, or for all time; so long as the League of Nations is a judicial body, interpreting the law, and not a legislature able to amend the law; so long as it gives the impression that, if there is violence, something happens, but if there is no violence then nothing happens, except speeches and resolutions—so long the present strain is likely to continue and the danger of a rupture is

149
likely to endure. Of course, we have to realise that this globe is not a tabula rasa; that we cannot start as though nothing had been decided by history, as though there were no long-established and legitimate interests. But the fact that there is a situation which is the result of history and that there are long-established and legitimate interests is not a reason for taking no action. It is only a reason for taking careful action as a result of negotiation. I agree wholly with the noble Lords who have already spoken, that it would be futile and foolish to propose at this stage a world conference to deal with these matters. That would be likely to result in failure, if there were not full diplomatic preparation beforehand. But that that diplomatic preparation should begin (and let us hope the visit of Lord Halifax to Germany may be the first step towards it) I for one have no doubt.
It may be said that this debate in the House of Lords to-day may be mischievous; that it may embarrass the Government; that speeches, coming perhaps from unexpected quarters, in support of the German claim may induce them to put that claim too high; that the speeches made here to-day have been in fact pro-German. They have not been pro-German; they have been pro-peace. It is our duty, each of us in his own measure as far as he can, to give guidance to our own public opinion here at home. Furthermore, any arrangement that is made must involve concessions, and concessions must involve some sacrifice, and that sacrifice will certainly be unpopular in certain quarters in this country. The Government of the day—and we are urging them to take action—may offend sections of their own political supporters. Therefore it is the duty of those who are spokesmen of Opposition Parties, not merely to look forward gleefully to taking advantage of any electoral mishaps that may ensue to the Government on account of their action, but rather, in advance, to express their own view and to say that, if they approve the precise methods that are adopted, they will certainly be prepared to support His Majesty's Government and to defend them against such criticisms as may be involved.
Such sacrifices as may be involved ought not of course to fall only on the British Commonwealth. We should be acting in the common interest. France is
150
very closely concerned. France naturally is always in a state of alarm with respect to her most formidable neighbour's armaments. Her people are bitterly resentful on account of the terrible calamities which they suffered in the late War through no fault of their own, and those sentiments in France have, very naturally, led the French people to a certain course of policy which has been marked, as we can see looking hack, by grave errors. There have been two great mistakes made by French Governments in relation to Germany in recent years. The first was the course taken with regard to Reparations and the occupation of the Ruhr. The second was the course taken with regard to disarmament, in which M. Barthou's famous declaration was the decisive word. And now there is the danger that the French may commit a third error and refuse to make any concession of the kind that has been advocated here today that will bring about a general settlement. I hope that in France public opinion will be wise enough to see that a détente is vital and urgent, and that a settlement, in which Great Britain, France and Germany are the principal parties, is in these days the primary need of the world.
I have said that concessions will be inevitable, and this country must be prepared to make some sacrifices. Mr. Amery, in his letter to The Times, suggested, very agreeably, that of course concessions should be made, but the other European Powers may be called upon to make them. It reminds me of an observation by Sydney Smith, that "man is certainly a benevolent animal: A never sees B in distress without thinking C ought to relieve him directly." After all, the British Commonwealth controls one-fourth of the earth. We have been by far the largest territorial beneficiaries by the Treaty of Versailles. We never expected it; it was no part of our war aims; no one in this country enlisted in order to light the Germans so as to annex or control the German Colonies. Yet somehow it happened. And we must take these things into account if we are inclined to yield to the temptation to stand on the old footing; for were we to say we seize whatever we can and we hold whatever we have, we should be doing less than our duty to the world. It is not enough that the position of this country and of this Empire should be strong legally and strong

151
strategically: it must also be strong morally. We have to stand right in the eyes of our own people, in the eyes of the people of Canada and of all the Dominions, of the people of India and of the United States—and that is a matter of great importance—and to stand right in the eyes of history. When we returned the Ionian Islands to Greece, when we abstained from annexing Egypt, were these acts of weakness? The Empire has been not the weaker but the stronger for those acts. The British Empire has played too great a part in the progress of mankind, and stands far too high in the world to-day that it should feel humiliated if, in the general interest of world peace and in this time of crisis, it showed a spirit of accommodation. Its greatness would rather be enhanced. For the greatness of any Empire is not a matter of territorial size only, or of military strength. The moral element comes in, and in the end is decisive.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, there is one difficulty which I think we all feel in the course of these debates—namely, that we know only in part, whereas the Government know much more, and we may raise points to which there really is an absolute answer, and yet the Government may not be able to give it. Still, it does not follow that those points should not be raised. Parliament would be of little use if what was felt outside it were not expressed within it, and of course I do not think any of us will be able to complain if, when the Government spokesmen come to reply, they are neither able to assent nor to refute what we say. There is another feature in these debates which is constant and very curious; that is, the unexpected agreements that are revealed. Five years ago I could not imagine that I should have agreed with, say, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, upon anything; but now I find, when he speaks in these debates, that I agree with some 50 per cent. of what he says, and he may take it that I shall always be glad to do anything I can to protect him from the Chauvinistic fury of his former colleagues.
With regard to the Motion before us, I may say again that I find myself in what formerly would have been most unexpected agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood; that is to say,
152
in the substance of his arguments, though not perhaps in the detail of his text or of the considerations that he has advanced. I do feel most strongly that we have allowed ourselves year after year to be bound too closely by the old associations of the War, and I have felt this very strongly on two occasions. The first was when the offer by Germany to accept a limited standing Army was rejected by M. Barthou. I cannot but think that we ought then to have dissociated ourselves from that decision, just as we did in the case of the Ruhr policy. And among the other unfortunate results of that decision was that I am afraid it impressed on the official mind of Germany that it was useless to try to get anything by reason and that nothing counted but the accomplished fact. There was at that time, however, a certain reason which perhaps influenced our Foreign Office. Up till lately there was the power in France, and perhaps the will among many in France, to take some further drastic action such as the occupation of the Saar, or even of the Palatinate. That was possible, and it may be that only by a close association with France could we exercise a restraining influence. But that state of things has passed. A new situation has been created, and we are now untrammelled, except by our abiding promises. Those, of course, remain and must never be repudiated—the promises we have made to France, the promises we have made to Belgium—and I should not have minded if Holland were brought into the list. But nothing in those promises need make us fight to keep Hungarians under Prague, any more than Tyrolese Germans under Rome.
Then I have felt this difficulty from old associations much more since the time of the Franco-Russian Pact. That appears to me to be another turning point. It immediately resulted in the partial estrangement of Belgium. Its effect on Germany can only have been to revive its ancient traditional fear of Russia which was especially felt by Prince Bismarck. I cannot but fear it has had some effect on ourselves. If we are bound to France, and France is bound to Russia, can we altogether escape some influence of Russia on our own policy? I fear that that has been the case, however unconsciously, upon ourselves. I see it, I

153
think, in the attitude we have taken, contrary to all precedent, about belligerent rights in the Spanish conflict—and that although Russia has lost no opportunity of preventing an accord between ourselves and other Powers, as might be seen in the whole progress of the Non-Intervention Committee. I noticed a very interesting article by M. Flandin, formerly Prime Minister of France, in the Daily Telegraph lately, in which he expected that before the Spanish conflict is over fresh incidents would arise and they would be exploited. Though he did not actually say by whom, it was quite evident what he meant. I do believe a general settlement depends on making it clear that, however indirectly and unconsciously, we are not serving Soviet policy.
There are real grievances arising from the Versailles and St. Germain settlements. I do not abuse the authors of those settlements in the way many do, because at that time passions were so inflamed, and naturally inflamed, that probably what they did was not only natural but unavoidable, but on a cold view these settlements were inconsistent and inequitable. They professed to be based on nationalism—self-determination as Mr. Wilson put it; but they were not applied by the victors to themselves. For instance, Austria which then wished, suppose unanimously, to be united with fellow Germans in distress, was not allowed to do so. In Czechoslovakia there is a large minority of Germans and another considerable minority of Hungarians. A considerable body of Germans in the Tyrol were placed under Italy against their will, and a considerable body of Slovenes at the back of Trieste. Yugoslavia meant an immense increase of Serbian power. No one gave a thought to the Albanians and Macedonians who had been put a few years before under Serbia against their will. So with the Bulgarian minority in Rumania. Then there was Danzig and there was Memel.
I do not say that the extreme nationalism that was enforced on the side of those who succeeded was at all necessary or justified. I think it ran to extremes, but that was the principle and the principle was only applied to one side. I cannot help thinking of the old quotation with which some of your Lordships will be familiar: "Quam temere in nosmet
154
legem sancimus iniquam!"Much censure was passed by the historians of the last century on the proceedings of the Vienna Congress, but at any rate that Congress did secure peace in essentials for a great many years. If it were in my power to evoke the spirits of dead statesmen to solve our present difficulties I would certainly call up Prince Metternich and Lord Castlereagh rather than Mr. Wilson and M. Clemenceau.
That is the position. Are we going to drift? Incidents will be multiplied, and as the incidents multiply sides are taken. If one side is in alignment with another for one purpose it might be drawn into supporting those with whom it is associated for entirely different purposes. One never can tell what new incident may arise in which sides will be taken, and the position will be crystallised into groups, as indeed many people in this country would wish to happen. When these incidents come about it may be that no sinister purpose is intended by the nations who have to deal with them, but even if the policy of one country on these occasions begins with bluff it may not end with bluff. There are certain words of Mr. Churchill in his "World Crisis" which may well be noted. He said, referring to the crisis of 1911:
"It seems probable now that the Germans did not mean war on this occasion, but they meant to test the ground, and in so doing they were prepared to go to the very edge of the precipice. It is so easy to lose one's balance, or a touch, a gust of wind, a momentary dizziness, and all is precipitated into the abyss."
Unless we can face the new situation without being trammelled by the past that is just the situation which I fear may arise again.
I do not in any way under-rate the difficulties of the policy of appeasement. I am afraid it is quite hopeless for a long time to come to work through the League, and I am not quite sure what the mover of this Motion meant when he talked about "within the framework of the League." Not only as an instrument has it broken down, but as an instrument of international policy, as Lord Samuel appositely remarked, it has acquired, and still has, a reputation of being a mechanism for the preservation of the status quo. That must be remedied in some way. Another difficulty is that every time we may seem to yield to pressure; and

155
certainly annoyance is unnecessarily caused by certain propaganda which I need not more particularly specify. There are two dangers in that. First of all I think we may say we are a tolerant and easy-going people but, like an old sleepy dog, we may be nasty when really roused and it cannot do any good that this propaganda should continue. Again, this violent propaganda often has results very different from that which is intended. Just as I believe it was the attacks of the newspapers that confirmed Lord Baldwin in the leadership of his Party, so the results of this propaganda may have the effect of making us more tolerant and more easy in our minds at the idea of co-operation with Russia. But when all is said and done I cannot help thinking it is the higher courage to do the right thing, and to face this question is in my opinion the right thing, even if you lay yourselves open to the charge of having done it from fear.
Of course there is the difficulty of internal politics both in Italy and in Germany. Not only is there in Germany race discrimination, which I may observe does not exist in Italy, but it seems to me amazing, while combating Bolshevism, that the German Government should alienate section after section of their own people, including the great religious bodies, by whom they might well be expected to be helped. It is a most inexplicable phenomenon, and I cannot believe it will last. Yet we must, I think, keep some sense of proportion. After all, in Germany, men and women are not butchered by the tens of thousands merely for their opinions or because they belong to a class. The churches are still open, the clergy are alive, a man can still reap where he sowed, and, above all—and here I echo what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just said—they do not attempt to subvert the institutions of others. Propaganda there may be, but certainly in this country it is bound to be singularly ineffectual, and, whatever may be said against Sir Oswald Mosley, I have never heard it said that he took his orders from Nuremburg. It is not for me to say what exact steps should be taken. I will not attempt to specify, but I do feel this danger of a re-alignment of forces in Europe which ought not to be together against others with whom they ought to be friends. And when I add to
156
all these considerations the many associations of the past, the many things in common that after all we have with Germany, I feel appalled at the bare notion that we should have another war with Germany with Soviet Russia as our ally.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, as the first Government speaker in this debate I should like first of all to associate myself sincerely with all the eloquent tributes that have been paid to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and which, I fear, I cannot hope to emulate. We all very deeply deplore his passing. The services which Mr. MacDonald rendered to his country were indeed most eminent ones, and no one who has followed events could have failed to admire and respect the dignity and courage with which he bore the almost intolerable burden of responsibility which was placed upon his shoulders in the year 1931 and in those years that followed. I agree with the noble Lord who initiated this debate that it is not inappropriate that these tributes should have been paid to Mr. MacDonald during the course of a debate on foreign affairs, for he took a deep interest in and had a profound knowledge of these matters, and it was perhaps in this sphere in which he achieved his greatest political successes.
May I turn now to the matters which we have been discussing? This debate has, as I expected, ranged over a very wide field, although the Resolution which the noble Lord moved was directed towards a specific and limited object, and I therefore think that it is only right that I should in the first place apply myself to dealing with the noble Lord's speech and the arguments that he has brought forward. We all know that the noble Lord has given a great deal of thought and study to these complicated questions, and I need hardly say that I listened to all he said with the very greatest attention and with deep interest as well. May I say in the first place that I greatly appreciate the spirit in which he spoke and the motives which actuated him in bringing this Resolution before your Lordships. I would add that I gratefully realise that he has done so not with the object of criticising or damaging the Government or of making their already extremely difficult task more difficult than

157
it actually is, but that he has spoken rather with the object of being of assistance and with the object of putting forward some really constructive suggestions as a contribution to the various problems with which the world is at present confronted. I can say with complete truth that I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said during the course of his speech. Unfortunately no one can deny his original proposition—namely, that during the last few years there has been a deterioration in the international situation in many respects, but I also agree with him that I do not think any useful purpose would be served by going over the past and attempting to apportion the blame for what has occurred.
I will pass to other points that he made in his speech, and I would first of all say that I was extremely glad to know that the Government had his full support in their determination to ensure the country's strength. It seems to me that in the present state of affairs—and I say this in no alarmist way whatsoever—that is absolutely vital, and I feel that the full realisation of the fact that His Majesty's Government intend to ensure that strength has had, as I think he himself said, a heartening effect in more than one country in Europe. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the support he has given to the Government in their attempts to find some immediate solution of the successive crises with which the world has been faced, and this is, of course, a very relevant point indeed. It means that we can never, at any stage, or that we have never been able at any stage, to reach a period of stability. But though you may have a big general object in view, and whether you are aiming at a general settlement or not, it is perfectly clear that if a crisis does arise at a particular time it has to be dealt with forth-with. Unfortunately, in recent times those crises have been only too frequent. The prospect of pending negotiations of a wider scope does not, I fear, make a settlement of sudden incidents of this nature less urgent.
I honestly do not think that it is necessary for me to emphasise the fact that His Majesty's Government are as anxious as anyone else to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the troubles and problems with which the world is confronted. If there is any misconception
158
on this point—and I must confess that it did seem to me there might be from some of the speeches to which we have listened—if there is any misconception that His Majesty's Government are wedded to a policy of limited negotiation on specific questions, I would like to correct that misconception at the earliest possible moment. That is not so, I can assure your Lordships' House. The fact is, however, that they have at times been driven to adopt this course. But they have always had as their primary object a settlement of a comprehensive character. If they have failed to achieve that settlement it is not through want of trying, and it is through no fault of theirs. His Majesty's Government have, on numerous occasions, made plain their desire for a settlement of this character.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by examples, but I think it perhaps would be appropriate if I referred to just one or two. I would like to remind the House that in February, 1935, after a meeting between French and British Ministers in London, a communiquéwas issued saying that the object of the meeting had been to promote the peace of the world by closer European co-operation, in a spirit of the most friendly confidence, and to remove those tendencies which, if unchecked, were calculated to lead to a race in armaments and to increase the dangers of war. The communiquéwent on to envisage negotiations on the conclusion of mutual assistance pacts, the limitation of armaments, the return of Germany to the League and the conclusion of a regional air pact. Again in July of last year after a meeting in London between French, Belgian and British Ministers, the communiquéwhich was issued stated that the main purpose to which the efforts of all European nations must be directed was to consolidate peace by means of a general settlement. Immediate negotiations for an agreement to replace Locarno were proposed, but the communiquéadded that if progress could be made, other matters affecting European peace would necessarily come under discussion, and a widening of the area of the discussion was envisaged.
I could easily quote other instances of a similar kind, but I think that what I have said shows quite clearly that His Majesty's Government have tried constantly to institute general and comprehensive negotiations and to show that they

159
are not, as I think has been suggested, wedded to a policy which has as its object the solution of problems by means of limited discussions on particular questions. We are as conscious as anyone else of the fact that these grave difficulties and problems, which are at present exercising the world, depend very largely one upon the other, and we are well aware that it is only infrequently that any one of them can be solved in isolation from the rest. But we cannot ignore what has occurred in the past, and it is unfortunately only too evident that in the comparatively recent past the system of the general conference has not been prolific in results.
What actually happened is really this. When a conference of a general character has been faced with a breakdown of these general negotiations, the country has been compelled to fall back on more limited discussions and has been compelled to endeavour to agree at least on a certain number of questions. The reason for that is perfectly obvious. It is quite clear that in their view agreement on a few points was better than agreement on none, and there always remained the hope that a partial success might lead to further progress in the future. Actually this is what happened in 1934 in connection with the Disarmament Conference, and I think it is broadly true to say that this method of limited approach has only been resorted to when the general approach has failed to bring results. I am perfectly prepared to admit that the results achieved on these limited points have not always been encouraging, but I think it is nevertheless perfectly true to say that these restricted meetings have often succeeded where the general conference has failed.
These words have been directed towards trying to impress upon your Lordships' House that a general settlement of the world's difficulties is still the primary object of the policy of His Majesty's Government, but, if I may say so, it seems to me that in his speech the noble Lord was concerned not so much with matters of policy as with questions of procedure. He made an appeal to me to be as sympathetic as possible to the proposals which he has put before us this afternoon. I have every desire, I can assure him, to be as sympathetic as I possibly can, because I am convinced
160
that he was desirous in what he said of nothing more than of being helpful to the Government. But I confess I am at the same time in some difficulty, because in spite of what the noble Lord has said, I cannot pretend yet to be quite clear as to what the noble Lord wishes the Government to do. He wishes the Government to make some pronouncement on the question of the procedure which they think might be followed in order to lead up to a general settlement and a general appeasement throughout Europe. On the other hand—and here I think that I have not fallen into the error into which he feared I might fall—he does not expect us to put forward a comprehensive policy which would put before the world our proposals for solving all these outstanding difficulties and problems.
But my difficulty is this. It seems to me that the distinction between procedure and actual policy is very often not a great one, and I noticed that the noble Lord during the course of his speech stepped very easily, if I may say so, from one to the other, and it was sometimes rather difficult to know whether he was dealing with a matter of procedure or a matter of policy. As I said before, the trouble is that the situation in world affairs has been constantly changing and is constantly undergoing changes. This fact must necessarily have a very close bearing even on a limited problem such as that of procedure. I think that your Lordships will readily understand that in these circumstances the Government might find that to be finally committed even on a question of this character might place them in difficulties and add to the complications of an already difficult position. Even for these limited purposes it seems to me essential that the ground should be very carefully prepared.
Difficulties occur to me very readily. For instance, we ought, I think, to be satisfied that all parties to a prospective settlement should be prepared, or are prepared, to accept the same fundamental notions of international relations. That is a very important matter, and I mention it in no spirit of criticism necessarily, but because it would appear quite clearly from what has been said that the method, for instance, of bilateral discussion and negotiation is definitely preferred by some countries to the method of a more general discussion and a settlement of a more

161
general character. That again the noble Lord has suggested: he suggested it in the wording of his Motion—that any settlement that might be negotiated should be negotiated within the framework of the League. I merely ask the question whether it is certain that such a suggestion would be accepted by all parties. All these points have to be cleared up, and I think that they ought to be cleared up and the ground definitely prepared before the next step is taken.
May I say a word about the position of the Government with regard to the League and the Covenant? Criticisms were made that there was no mention of the League of Nations in His Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne. I want to take the opportunity in this House of assuring your Lordships that the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government still continues to be based upon the principles of the Covenant of the League. I think it is hardly necessary for me to say that, and I should not have clone so except for the criticisms which have been made on this point. We naturally accept fully all our obligations as Members of the League. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord gave a very fair description of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this connection. I noticed, however, that the noble Viscount opposite alluded to certain matters and certain statements which had been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by others in connection with the work of the League which he complained have not been followed up by action. I wish it were as easy—I do not suggest, as it appears to the noble Viscount, but as it might appear to others outside—to solve these difficulties by a few words or by a stroke of the pen. The longer my experience grows, the greater do I realise the difficulties that are intrinsic in almost every problem of an international character. I would only say that I do not think he was quite fair in complaining that nothing had been done in regard to these matters. He referred, I think, to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the question of the separation of the Covenant from the Treaties of Peace. So far as this question is concerned, I should like to say that it was examined at Geneva in September last but that—I do not think unexpectedly—legal questions were raised at once and they naturally require considerable
162
thought and study. The matter is, however, in hand and is being pushed forward as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
I revert, if I may for a moment, to the noble Lord's actual proposal. I want to say that whether the proposal which he has put forward could at some future time be usefully adopted or not, I really do not feel in a position to say to-day; but I am bound to say that His Majesty's Government feel that there are serious objections to it at the present time. My noble friend Lord Rushcliffe made an allusion this afternoon to a recent speech made by the Prime Minister, from which he quoted, and in the course of which the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that we in this country wish to live on terms of friendship with Germany and Italy. In parenthesis, may I say that I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said when he put forward the proposition that the system of government obtaining in one country ought not to affect the possibility of good relations between that country and another which does not live under the same system. Then the Prime Minister went on to say that he thought that the search for that better understanding between us could be more usefully pursued by the method of informal discussion rather than by the method of what he termed public declamation. I feel certain that the House in general will warmly support the view that he expressed.
The noble Lord has said that in his opinion his proposals are not irreconcilable with the method of informal discussion which has been referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech. I am afraid I am not quite so certain. I think that the world has been suffering lately from too many declarations of this character, and declarations of this kind remain binding in the future and prove very awkward indeed, in that, in the first place, they tie the hands of the declarer even more tightly than they are already tied, and they would bring further limits to the area of possible negotiations between that country and any other country in the future. From the point of view of making clear the policy of His Majesty's Government, I really do not think that a further declaration of this character is necessary, because I think that nobody can justifiably say that, as a result of the various statements

163
which have been made by various members of the Government in the recent past, there can be any doubt as to the general principles upon which the foreign policy of the Government has been based and will continue to be based in the future.
A number of other subjects were referred to during the course of this afternoon's discussion. Not unexpectedly, a great deal has been said, and said by, I think, almost every speaker this afternoon, on what is now called the Colonial question. The noble Viscount dealt with this question in considerable detail. But I feel certain that I am justified in assuming that the House will not expect me, particularly at this time, for obvious reasons, to argue this question in detail this afternoon. It is clearly quite impossible for me to do so, and I cannot add to-day to the authoritative statements which have been made on behalf of the Government in the past.
I very often wish that it were possible for me to give more definite replies to the numerous questions which are put to the Government in the matter of foreign affairs at different times, but I feel certain that your Lordships realise the delicacy of the position and are prepared to make allowances for the Government for that reason. I only wish to assure your Lordships that the objects of the Government remain perfectly clear. We intend to strive as hard as we can to bring about a general appeasement throughout Europe and throughout the world. In so doing, the Prime Minister has indicated to us the method in which he thinks this can best be approached. In conclusion I would only like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken, for the allusions that they have made to the visit which is now being undertaken by the noble Viscount who leads this House and for the good wishes which have been expressed during the course of the afternoon towards him in his objective.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the Resolution which has been moved so earnestly and so sympathetically by my noble friend Lord Allen, really divides itself into three sections, with the first two of which I am quite cordially in agreement. As regards the third, however, the invitation to His Majesty's Government to make a comprehensive state-
164
ment of their foreign policy, I am very doubtful how far it would be opportune or possible at the present moment to make such a statement which would be of value, before certain approaches have been made to other countries which must inevitably be greatly concerned. I am the more confirmed in this view by the opinion expressed in his Guildhall speech by the Prime Minister, in which he said that he thought the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government to see our relations with Germany and Italy established on a better and a surer foundation of friendship would be more wisely pursued by informal discussion than by public pronouncement. In that I seem to see a hopeful prospect of some return to the sounder procedure of the old diplomacy, which very often, by competent and informal discussion, served to prevent the tension of national animosities from reaching a straining point, and had to my mind every advantage over the modern procedure of flashing these differences at once on to the screen of publicity.
The new method of diplomacy by propaganda and Press cannot, I think, be acquitted of some share in the deterioration of relations referred to in the Resolution. It has synchronised with, if it has not been altogether or partially responsible for, an apparent readiness to disavow traditional friendships, when obligations and interests are in conflict, and to impute unworthy motives to those who have, for many, many years, decades and even centuries almost, inspired confidence. Perhaps international relations must always be a variable co-efficient. But a disregard, however innocent, of the old methods of international procedure, which long practice had commended as a safeguard against inopportune or intemperate utterances or manifestations by the less experienced, may well tend to an aggravation of tension which it would have been possible to avoid. It would be invidious to quote examples, but I think there are not a few of them which will be fairly obvious to your Lordships.
As to the actual terms of the Resolution, firstly there is, so far as my observation and information go, a very large body of opinion in this country which views with growing apprehension a tendency among the Western nations to divide into two antagonistic groups. And there is also, I am convinced, a perceptible feeling that a too exclusive and

165
almost mechanical collaboration with one particular Power, to which we are bound by mutual interests and definite obligations, has in the recent past circumscribed our own liberty of action, and rather tended to discourage than to promote appeasement and good will. The country will welcome a greater independence of initiative, such as appears to be the policy of the Government to-clay. Secondly, I welcome the fact that public opinion seems at last to have realised that our influence as an element of stability could only be weakened in the council of nations by the disastrous sentimental advocacy of giving the world a lead in premature disarmament, which there never was any real prospect of others following, His Majesty's Government may rest assured of the support of the country in their determination to reinforce our material strength. In doing so, moreover, lies the only hope of eliminating further crises.
Does anyone doubt to-day, especially in view of recent developments in the Far East, which our own divisions in the West may have precipitated, that in the restoration of a good understanding between the Western Powers and in the removal of grievances, real or sincerely believed to be so—a point I shall not go into to-day as the hour is so late—lies the only prospect of maintaining a stable Europe and avoiding fresh disaster? The key to that restoration of equilibrium lies to my mind—and here I am in agreement with the mover of the Resolution—in the readjustment of good relations between Great Britain and Germany, to which there might then seem a fair hope of eventually attracting a France now less disposed than hitherto to reject unconditionally all advances from her eastern neighbour. The main obstacle, of course, is presented at the present moment by the alliance which France has contracted with a Government whose agents are notoriously working to subvert the existing order in other countries. It is not, I gather from my French acquaintances, universally popular in France, but it is there regarded as the alternative to a Russo-German alliance, any fear of which seems to me to show how easily prejudice can obscure political vision.
Those who have studied the Spanish problem from its inception have no doubt, although the Spanish people had their own good reasons for discontent, from whence came the stimulus to open revolu-
166
tion and the main supply of materials with which to maintain it. That initiative has been responsible for the intervention of other countries and has brought into prominence a Mediterranean question which is causing preoccupation. In the Spanish conflict it seems to me our business is to be strictly impartial. We have intended and endeavoured to be so. None the less, the question may arise—and I have heard it put several times—whether unavoidable measures taken to protect our own sea-borne traffic are not penalising one side, in view of the facility with which the other side appear to be able still to command material support. The concession of belligerent rights to both parties seems to me quite consistent with neutrality and with the principle of leaving Spain, whose history and traditions should relieve us of any fear of permanent foreign influence there, to deal with her own internal affairs.
As regards Italy, I look upon the tension which has arisen as largely artificial. It is unnatural as between two countries which, from their insular or semi-insular nature, have a common interest in the freedom of the seas. Much has happened in recent years to which we have been unable to assent, for reasons sound and comprehensible, and not on account of any rival interests of our own. But our difference of view has not altered the course of events, and it is useless to discuss to-day what might have been handled differently, not only by others but also by ourselves. We have to deal with things as they are, and as a settlement seems in the real interests of all concerned, is it not wiser to accept the inevitable graciously rather than grudgingly? As regards our relations with France, they are assured by our community of interests, the security of the Channel, the freedom of the highway to the East, and our position as neighbours in the vast areas of Asia under our control, prejudiced by active Bolshevist propaganda on the one side, and, on the other, by apparent Japanese aims for political and economic hegemony in Asia. Each of us has need of the other, and we are bound to stand together. And if an amicable settlement between ourselves and Germany will contribute to the building of a bridge across which France and Germany can meet in confidence, the sooner the better for the welfare of Europe and the world.

167
I have ventured to put before your Lordships the views of one who watches foreign affairs pretty carefully as to how I see a possible, and perhaps the only possible, way out of some of our difficulties. Having set these forth briefly, may I conclude by saying that, having confidence in the prudence of His Majesty's Government, and believing in their sincere desire to arrive at a settlement, which all agree is the alternative to a renewal of the disasters we have gone through, I am not disposed at the present moment to press for a comprehensive statement and am well prepared to wait until they feel that the time is ripe to give one.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, in the very interesting speech of my noble friend who initiated this debate I did not hear him mention France—he may have done so, but I did not hear him. But I am quite sure he agrees that in seeking agreement with Germany or a settlement in Europe, our relations with France should not be impaired. Speaking frankly, those relations are not hound by any mutual affinity between the two peoples, but are determined more by the security of our respective countries. What many people in this country object to is France's alliance with Russia. I hope I am not going to offend noble Lords opposite when I say it is very difficult to understand the attitude of their Party with regard to Russia. They say they stand for democracy and hate dictatorship, while on platforms throughout the country their followers support the most tyrannical, the worst, and I was going to say the bloodiest dictatorship in Europe. Why should we be friends with such a dictatorship? What does not seem to be understood is that we have got to line up now either with Germany or with Russia, and the time has come to tell our friends in France that the one we will not line up with is Russia.
As I said before, I believe the great majority of the people of this country do not want this alliance with Russia, nor do they like the commitments which France has made with other countries in Eastern Europe, because they believe that we might be drawn into war in favour of an ally of France. Supposing that happened, I say quite plainly that, although we adhere to the Locarno Treaty
168
as far as France is concerned and are prepared to go to the support of France if she is wantonly attacked, we should refuse to be responsible for France's diplomatic frontier. If Germany, for instance, attacked one of France's allies, we should make it clear that we should not go to France's support. If such a calamity were to come about I humbly suggest that we should immediately say to that invader that we would not intervene, but if their troops entered into the departments of France in Picardy, Normandy or Brittany, then we should support France with all our forces. Although we know that air power has very largely increased—and I know many of your Lordships are air-minded—it is true to-day, as ever, to say that any potential enemy of this country which holds Belgium and the Channel ports of France is holding a pistol at the heart of the British Empire.
I am perfectly sure of one thing. I have been in Germany, and have met some of those who influence the Government in Germany, and I am perfectly sure that Herr Hitler, and those who rule in Germany, want to be friends with this country and with France. If France refuses to take the proffered hand I see nothing to prevent this country from doing so. What is it that Germany wants? It is said that she wants fiscal union with Austria and a free hand in Eastern Europe. What has that to do with us? Also we know it is said that she wants Colonies—perhaps Tanganyika. If she wants Tanganyika I should myself be very glad to see her get it, but we must have some quid pro quo, some return, from Germany. I would suggest that we might say to Germany: "Yes, we will give you Tanganyika. There are great difficulties about it, but we will give it on condition that you remain neutral if at any time our Colonies in distant parts are attacked by some other Power, so that we may be free to bring the whole of our forces to bear where they are needed." There are, of course, other conditions which might be imposed. Your Lordships will say, probably: "How about our security? Supposing Germany fortified her Colonies what a threat that would be to our trade routes." You might put in a condition that Germany will not fortify any port in the Colonies which we give to her.

169
It may be said that we cannot trust Germany, that she has broken so many treaties. Modern Germany has broken no treaties. It was the old Germany and not the modern Germany which broke treaties, and tore up scraps of paper. Herr Hitler has himself said that he will not break any treaty he has ever made. A treaty with him is sacrosanct, and no one can say that modern Germany has broken a single treaty that she has made. The Peace Treaty was imposed upon Germany by force majeure. I think we may trust her in this matter of Colonies. You may remember that a short time ago a question was addressed to Germany, as to whether she would be prepared to keep the treaties she had made. Supposing that question had been addressed to this country, how would your Lordships have felt? Great resentment was felt through-out the whole of Germany. I do not wonder at it. Why do we so often assume the schoolmaster attitude and treat other nations like naughty little boys? They resent that. We should feel the same if a question of that sort were addressed to us. I was surprised at the time at the restraint shown by the German papers when they must have felt wounded to the heart at such a question being addressed to their Government.
Another point which I wish to make is that Colonies are an urgent need to Germany. They want raw materials very badly. It is quite true that before the War 1.5 per cent., I understand, of Germany's raw materials were brought in from their Colonies, but in those days Germany could buy from the whole world. Everything now is different. Germany cannot go out and buy as she did before, because it is so very expensive for her to do so, and therefore at the present time she is unable to buy as she could do in former days. Now, if she had Colonies, there would be no currency troubles and she could extract from them her raw materials to an extent unknown in former days. Let us remember Germany as a great and friendly country, akin to us by race, and let us give her what she asks in reason. Let us shake hands with Germany, and if possible get France to do the same. In that way, I believe, lie peace and security.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, with regard to the last speaker, I wish international affairs were so easily
170
and almost casually adjusted as he suggested they should be. He spoke as if the possibility of Anglo-German friendship were a picture of reality. Things are much more difficult than the noble Earl suggests. There are much greater complications in the situation. Nevertheless, I cannot but feel that the debate to which we have listened has been a debate which will do considerable good. When I listen to the speeches of your Lordships on foreign questions my mind addresses itself to the effect which your Lordships' words will have on the foreign Press. Your Lordships' debates on these questions are greatly studied, and they attract considerable attention in responsible quarters. I have no doubt that this debate will attract attention. It will be widely quoted in Germany, and those who, no doubt, look for the restoration of German Colonies will be able to quote this debate as a mark of progress. No doors have been slammed to-night. The only representative who has spoken for those sections of my Party referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, expressed an open-mindedness on this question which shows a considerable change from the views current even six months ago. No doors have been slammed. The possibility of negotiation on Colonial questions has been admitted on all sides of the House. I hope that it will be made equally clear by those who guide foreign opinion that this is emphatically not a question we are prepared to discuss in vacuo; that it must, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, form part of a general settlement and a general discussion; that we cannot even negotiate on the subject unless we are assured that as a result of the great sacrifices which we were called upon to make we shall secure the lasting result of European peace at least for a generation.
In the old days after the War one thought of perpetual peace. Nobody talks about that now. Let us talk of peace for ten years. For that we would be prepared to make a sacrifice and it would be a very great sacrifice. The question has been too much discussed in terms of the Colonies, but to the British people it is essentially the surrender of our responsibility for natives whose protection we have assumed. That is a very serious matter to a race of our Imperial traditions. We cannot hand out Colonies at a mere request or in a mere hope of good tern-

171
porary effects. It cannot be done as a gesture. I would only add one other consideration. I believe that it would be very helpful indeed in the discussion of this problem if some assurances were received from responsible quarters in Germany that the missionary question would receive careful and considerate handling. I do not think it is too much to ask this of Germany, for the treatment accorded to Christian denominations in that country must make us very uneasy. As my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has said, there has been little or no persecution, but there has been a very definite and very deliberate detachment of the German youth from the ideals of Christianity, which is likely in the long run to be far more fatal to the Churches. Some years ago a French statesman who was himself opposed to Christianity remarked that "anticlericalism is not an article for export." If we can receive some assurance that the mythus of the twentieth century would not be considered a suitable doctrine for negroid races it would do something at any rate to ease sentiment in this country with regard to the matter.
But my main purpose in rising to-night—I am afraid it is too late to deal with it any more than by reference—is to mention the fact that the Colonial question is only a small part of the general question of restoring Germany's commercial position. How secure and happy we should feel if Germany was rich, as prosperous commercially, as she was in the days before the War. One feels that had the conditions which preceded 1914 continued only for a few years without an outburst the German commercial interests would have been so great that their public opinion would never have tolerated an outbreak of war. If only to-day we could so assist those interests in Germany which are represented by Dr. Schacht, the commercial peaceful interests, we could feel much more secure with regard to the German military preparations. It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that this would best be accomplished by some general matter of free trade. I think he ignored the fact that free trade is of little value without a currency that can be internationally accepted. Indeed I should imagine—I am no economist—that if free trade were to come to Europe to-morrow Germany would be very severely handicapped with
172
her currency system in its present position. Free trade must surely follow and not precede some improvement in the position of German currency, which is today only kept at its present level by the most ingenious system of manipulation. Would it not be possible, as part of our discussions with Germany, to envisage the abandonment by this country of some of our rights under the most-favourednation clauses in European treaties? It is a suggestion which has been made before, I am well aware. There may be, as Lord Rankeillour has said, good reasons why this offer and other suggestions cannot be seriously considered, but I put it forward as a possibility that might promote the commercial welfare of Germany and through that the peace of the World.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Crewe, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

THE PROPOSED CLUBS BILL.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement as to the date of the introduction of the Bill, mentioned in the King's Speech, to make better provisions for preventing abuses of the law relating to clubs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name I need hardly say that I fully realise the difficulty which there must be in connection with the allocation of the business in a crowded Session such as this, but I would like to say this, before the noble Earl who is to reply speaks, in reference to the exceptional urgency for the introduction of this Bill. As the Government and the House are aware, developments have recently taken place in connection with the establishment of a certain type of club, which have really rendered it urgently necessary that some legislation should be passed to remedy the palpable defects in relation to the present law in regard to clubs.
As the House will remember, the last Royal Commission on Licensing made certain definite recommendations in reference to what was required in this matter. Also, as the House will remember, there is a volume of support for this Bill in the country which is exceptional, I think, in extent and in character. The House will be aware of one fact which is I think of very great importance—namely, the decisive support which this legislation has received from the Magistrates' Association, representing those who are primarily responsible for the administration of the licensing laws of this country. I have put this Question with the object of obtaining from the Government, if that is possible, an assurance that this Bill which
174
has been promised in the King's Speech will be introduced at such a date as will enable it to be passed in the course of the present Session. I beg to put the Question.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that, as the Government have made plain already on previous occasions, they fully appreciate the importance of the subject, and it is their definite purpose to carry out their promise of introducing the Bill during the present Session. The preparation of the Bill is actively proceeding, but it is not at the present moment possible to specify any date for its introduction.
House adjourned at seven o' clock.