Sitting of 16 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION
Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of a large number of persons in the West Midland Traffic Area, against the nationalisation of the road transport industry. The Petition has been signed by 74,611 persons. The Prayer of the Petition is as follows:
"We, your Petitioners, humbly pray your Honourable House to reject any proposals which may hereafter he submitted to Parliament for approval, or for legislation, with the object of replacing private enterprise, in the provision of road transport, by a nationalised or Government-controlled system of transport, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will aver pray."
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Turton: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition, on behalf of a large number of men and women in Yorkshire, against the nationalisation of the road transport industry. This Petition has been signed by 62,677 persons. The Prayer of the Petition is as follows:
"We, your Petitioners, humbly pray your Honourable House to reject any proposals which may hereafter be submitted to Parliament for approval, or for legislation, with the object of replacing private enterprise, in the provision of road transport, by a nationalised or Government-controlled system of transport, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS (PLUG AND SOCKET)
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to secure the immediate manufacture, on the widest
  1580
  possible scale, of the universal domestic electric plug and socket recommended by the Ministry of Works Electrical Installations Study Committee in their Building Study, No. 11.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Manufacturers are proceeding with development work, pending the issue in the near future of a British-Standards Institution specification. Owing to the necessity for re-tooling, however, substantial supplies are not likely to be available for about 12 months.
  Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister give this new development of free enterprise full support, or will it be necessary to send him a petition?
  Mr. Wilmot: Most wholehearted support; a petition is unnecessary.
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Works whether he intends to encourage the use in Government buildings and housing schemes of the universal domestic electric plug and socket recommended by his Electrical Installations Study Committee in Building Studies, No. 11; and when will the relevant British standard specification be published.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The British Standards Institution has prepared a draft specification for the universal domestic electric plug and socket which has been circulated to all interested parties for observations. Until the specification is issued in final form no decision can be made as to its adoption, but it is the general policy of my Department to encourage the use of articles complying with the requirements of British Standards Institution specifications.
  Mr. Erroll: Is it not satisfactory to get a positive answer from the Minister at last?
  Mr. Tomlinson: I should think so

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Surplus Service Vehicles (Civilian Use)
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Supply why he has permitted the sale of Service vehicles to the public which cannot be made to conform to the statutory dimensional limitations for vehicles engaged on the carriage of goods in Britain
    Mr. Wilmot: These vehicles will not necessarily be used on the roads and, in any case, purchasers are under an obligation, and have in every case signed an undertaking to ensure that they comply with the law in every respect. I am unwilling to scrap any vehicle for which there is a demand.
    Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that a number of people have; nevertheless, bought these vehicles, assuming they could be used on the roads of Great Britain, and now find they have purchased "white elephants"?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that many Service vehicles are not suitable, as they stand, for use on the roads, and every purchaser signs an undertaking that he will not put a vehicle on the roads unless it has been made to conform with the law.

    Housing Components (Instructions)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Supply why his instructions, under reference 11/Gen/67, to all manufacturers of housing components and contained in a circular letter, dated 25th October, were cancelled and reimposed by circular letters, dated 14th and 30th November, respectively; and what instructions are now in force.
    Mr. Wilmot: These instructions were issued in connection with the "Finish the Houses" campaign. On 14th November, manufacturers were notified that, after the end of November, no more requests would be made to them to give special priority to orders under this scheme. Since all the urgent orders were not completed by that time, it was necessary to extend the scheme until the middle of December. Manufacturers will then revert to the normal W.B.A. procedure.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he expects manufacturers of mass-produced house fittings to change their production programme three times in five weeks?
    Mr. Wilmot: This was a rushing of special components, under emergency procedure, in order to finish houses already built up to roof level.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these houses have, in fact, been finished?
    Mr. Wilmot: I should have to have notice of that question.

    Machine Tool Production
    Mr. Frederick Leeasked the Minister of Supply at what level is our production of machine tools, wood and metal, in comparison with 1938.
    Mr. Wilmot: In 1946 the value of the average monthly production of metal-working machine tools is approximately three times, and that of wood-working machine tools more than double the prewar figure.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any comparison, in terms of volume?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am afraid not, because machine tools vary. They cannot be aggregated, except under their values, and it should be remembered that there has been a change in the values of the figures.

    Engineering Advisory Council (Formation)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Supply whether any progress has been made in the formation of the Engineering Advisory Council.
    Mr. Wilmot: Following discussions which I have had with the engineering employers and trade unions, I have decided to set up an Engineering Advisory Council to provide for me, in the discharge of my responsibilities for the engineering industry, a means of consultation with employers and workers in the industry on matters of general concern in the engineering field. Matters normally handled by the joint organisations of employers and trade unions in connection with wages and conditions of employment are excluded. The engineering industries for this purpose will comprise mechanical, electrical and radio engineering but not shipbuilding or the iron and steel industry, which falls within the purview of the Iron and Steel Board. The Council will consist of equal numbers of trade union and employer members with myself as Chairman. The names of members will be announced later.
    Sir R. Young: Arising out of that very satisfactory reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he can say when the Council is likely to begin to function?
    Mr. Wilmot: Early in the New Year.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the advice which the Council is expected to tender, and how often it will meet?
    Mr. Wilmot: That will be a matter for the Council

    Aircraft (British Airlines)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Supply what are his present commitments for the purchase of U.S. aircraft; and when it is expected that the needs of British airlines will be fully met by the British aircraft industry.
    Mr. Wilmot: Six Boeing Stratocruisers are on order by B.O.A.C. for their North Atlantic service. The British aircraft industry is already meeting the needs of British airlines except in the case of civil aircraft of the largest class. I hope that by 1951 at the latest, it will be meeting this need also.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: How does the right hon Gentleman reconcile that statement with the fact that we have no air service between Great Britain and Switzerland? Will he publish, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, details of the up-to-date deliveries of British aircraft of commercial types?
    Mr. Wilmot: The operation of an airline between this country and another is a matter for my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is it not a fact that many airlines would be operated now if only a supply of aircraft was available from the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry? How does he reconcile that position with the fact that British airliners are not being operated as they would be operated if aircraft were available?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it takes some years to bring a new aircraft from conception to operation, and that during the years when these machines should have been laid down we were wholly engaged in fighting a war.

  HOUSING

    Steel Window Frames
    Major Haughtonasked the Minister of Works if contracts have now been
    1584
    placed with firms of Dutch contractors for the manufacture of steel window frames.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir.
    Major Haughton: Does the Minister deny that negotiations have been going on with Dutch constructors for the manufacture of steel windows from steel exported from this country?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir.

    Glass, Orpington
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Works why there has been approximately 10 weeks' delay in delivering 1,000 feet super clear glass, particulars of which have been sent him, to Messrs. Loxley Building Company, Limited, Orpington, to enable them to complete houses of which the district is in urgent need; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tomlinson: This case was brought to my Department's notice less than a fortnight ago, and I am informed that the glass is now available. An attempt was made to deliver it last week, but there was no one at the site to receive it.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister realise that this has been going on for months, and that it is a further example of State control? There are frastation and delay in the erection of these houses, which people cannot go into because there are no windows. This is a very badly bombed area.
    Mr. Speaker
    Sir W. Smithers: May I have an answer to my supplementary question, Sir?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Question related to glass, but his supplementary related to a far wider subject.
    Sir W. Smithers: But this is a very serious case. People cannot go into the houses unless there is glass in the windows.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's supplementary was not directed to that issue at all.

    Timber Supplies
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Works the number of houses whose construction has been held up by reason of failure of timber supplies.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I regret that there are no available statistics on this point.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the houses that are held up for lack of timber will continue to be held up until the Baltic ports become unfrozen next summer, and allow for the importation of more timber?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It may be that some are held up at the moment through waiting for an allocation which can be made at the beginning of January. The allocations for the present period have run out.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it not a fact that all the houses that are held up are really held up for lack of timber?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the first supplementary question mean that there is timber in this country which is held up merely because his Department will not release it?
    Sir W. Smithers: That is true.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir, it means that allocations have been made to cover a period in order that the supplies which are available may be used to the best advantage. When those supplies again become available for the first quarter's allocation for next year some relief may be obtained.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken to use alternative materials in place of timber?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Steps have been taken to bring to the notice of authorities and contractors the materials which can be used as alternatives to timber and, in addition to that, the amount of timber to be used in houses has been cut from two standards to 1.6.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter again on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Requisitioned House, Eaton Square (Use)
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Works the rental of 87, Eaton Square, London, F., requisitioned for a
    1586
    civic restaurant; the cost of conversion; the contemplated cost of dilapidations; and how many of the six floors of this house are occupied for the purpose for which it was requisitioned.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No. 87, Eaton Square was requisitioned by the London County Council who, I understand, pay a compensation rental of £325 per annum, to which my Department has contributed £125 per annum in respect of four floors which, until recently, were occupied by the W.V.S. I do not know the cost of the adaptations carried out by the Council, but the cost of the work carried out by my Department was approximately £300. I am not in a position to state the probable cost of dilapidations, as a survey has not been made. The basement, ground and first floors are occupied by the restaurant.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that application was made for an economic rent for this house about six months ago, and that nothing has been done? Is it not a fact that the Minister of Food asked what the cost of conversion would be, to enable him to ascertain what would be a fair price in order to make this house into an economic restaurant?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have no information about either of those statements.

    Building Regulations (Alleged Contraventions)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Works the name of the individual to whom he referred in a reply on 22nd October in the last Session of Parliament as having satisfied him of being innocent of any contravention of the building regulations in Nazeing parish in the county of Essex.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir; I see no reason for making public mention of anyone's name in this connection.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a tact hat all this trouble has arisen because the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) made baseless accusations against Major Berry, Chairman of the Conservative Association for that Division? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that, please?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That is not in line with my information.

    New School Buildings, Horley
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that a considerable amount of prefabricated structures intended for new school buildings at Horley have been lying in a field on the site since August; when it is intended to proceed with this work; and why these materials have been dumped in the open for so long a period prior to their erection.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The materials were delivered at an early stage to avoid delay once a contract for erection could be let. The local education authority was unable to give vacant possession of the site until after crops had been harvested. The authority also revised its building requirements, and this called for new plans. Building work is now expected to start next month.

    Cement and Ancillary Industries (Report)
    Mr. Biratinasked the Minister of Works whether the Committee appointed by him in December 1945, to inquire into the financial structure of the cement and ancillary industries, has presented its report; and when this report will be published.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the Committee's report will be presented early in January, and consideration will then be given to its publication.

    Departmental Forms (Local Authorities)
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Works why local authorities are not being reimbursed for all the extra clerical work placed on these bodies in connection with the multitude of forms and applications required by his Department
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th June this year to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd).

    Horticultural Glass
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Minister of Works what steps he proposes to take to prevent the horticultural industry in the future from bearing a disproportionate share of the decline in glass production caused by the cut in fuel to the glass manufacturers.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, as a result of the cut in supplies of fuel, horticultural glass production has been reduced so that one of the largest industrial users of glass has had its quota cut by 36 per cent.; if he is aware of the serious effect this will have upon horticultural production in the coming year; and what steps he is taking to restore the position.
    Mr. Tomlinson: For technical and other reasons it is not possible to operate fuel economies uniformly throughout glass production. The production of horticultural glass has not been reduced by more than 10 per cent. and this is not, I think, disproportionate. The main loss of output at present is due to the temporary closure of a unit for repairs which, I understand, will be in production again in a week or so.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I send the right hon. Gentleman details about one of the largest firms of horticulturists, who have had a 36 per cent. cut, will he pay particular attention to it?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into it.

    Alleged Illegal Building
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Works why, of 15 cases of alleged illegal building work, five of which were not proceeded with, referred to his Department for action by the Stepney Borough Council in June, no decision has yet been taken with regard to the remaining TO cases.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Only one case of alleged illegal building was referred to my Department by the Stepney Borough Council in June. There was difficulty in tracing the builder concerned and the investigation is not yet complete

  INDIA (EUROPEAN EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTS)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Undersecretary of State for India, if, during the negotiations concerning the setting up of a new government, he will press for the assumption of liability for the contracts made toy their predecessors and for the meeting of obligations under them in respect of pay, pensions and so forth, for European employees.
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): All these matters

  1589
  will be dealt with during the negotiations for the Treaty, referred to in paragraph 22 of the Cabinet Mission's Statement of 16th May, which is to provide for certain matters arising out of the transfer of power.
  Sir W. Smithers: In view of that very vague answer, does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that that will bring much comfort to the thousands of loyal civil servants who have devoted their lives to helping India in the past; and will he make a more definite representation to the Indian Government and country, which he is giving away?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member will appreciate that the time for making representations will be when these negotiations take place in connection with the proposed Treaty. That time is not yet.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make representations?

  NORTHERN GREECE (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representatives on the Security Council of U.N.O. will be instructed to press for the sending of an international commission to investigate the fighting in Northern Greece.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The British representative on the Security Council already has this proposal in mind.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great interest which is taken in this House and throughout the country at the tragic situation in the North of Greece, and will he also bear in mind that many Greeks of all parties are very much puzzled by the behaviour of the British Army in standing by and playing no part, when they are supposed to be there to help to tranquillise Greece?
  Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the first part of the question, I warmly agree with the hon. Member. The second part raises a different question.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is it not a fact that an agreement would have been reached for an international fact-finding Commission to be sent to Greece, and that the proposal was vetoed by the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Mayhew: These things are still to be decided, and our representative is certainly bearing the suggestion of a commission in mind.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not, I take it, to assume from the hon. Gentleman's silence on this point that he agrees with the strictures made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on our Armed Forces in Greece?
  Mr. Mayhew: Certainly not

  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of Poles now in this country; how many of these are still in uniform; and when he expects the remaining Polish military units and headquarters here to be dispersed.
  Mr. Mayhew: The total number of Poles, civil and military, in this country is, to the nearest thousand, and including both sexes, 168,000. Of these, 141,000 are still in uniform, but this figure includes those awaiting repatriation as well as those enlisted in the Polish Resettlement Corps who cannot yet for administrative reasons receive civilian clothes. Such Poles are. of course, unarmed and have been demobilised from the Polish armed forces under British command. The remaining Polish military units and headquarters in this country will be dispersed as soon as enlistment into the Polish Resettlement Corps is complete. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to complete demobilisation of the Polish armed forces as soon as possible.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that not only is there great interest in this country about the presence of these uniformed Poles, but their existence here, and particularly that of the Polish Military Unit, is giving rise to grave misunderstanding in Poland and other parts of Europe?
  Mr. Mayhew: We are proceeding with demobilisation as quickly as we can.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend in a position to say how many Poles there are in Scotland?
  Mr. Mayhew: Not without notice
  Air-Commodore Harvey: May I ask the hon. Member if satisfactory arrangements are being made to reclothe these soldiers in civilian clothes?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, certainly. Those being repatriated are not given civilian clothes.

  BULGARIA (ARMED FORCES)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the size of the Bulgarian armed forces.
  Mr. Mayhew: According to my information the total Bulgarian armed forces amount to 170,000 all ranks. Of these only about 60,000 are in the regular army. The remainder are contained in the Frontier Militia and other branches of the Militia. These bodies, which have been constituted in their present form since the conclusion of the armistice, are fully armed and under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior or of the Directorate of Militia.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend say if these figures are in accordance with the Armistice terms agreed by the Bulgarian Government at the time of surrender?
  Mr. Mayhew: I can say that they are not in agreement with the draft Bulgarian Peace Treaty and will have to be scaled down to come within Article 9 of the Peace Treaty.
  Mr. Mack: Does my hon. Friend realise that since peaceful and progressive Bulgaria has no aggressive designs whatever against any nation, her army has been reduced to a number only sufficient to defend itself from any possible aggressor?
  Mr. Mayhew: They will have to be reduced still further to come within the draft Treaty next year.

  GERMANY

    State Documents (Publication)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether translations will be published of important State documents discovered in Germany.
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. Consultations are taking place between the competent British and American authorities.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister agree that as many as possible of these documents should be on record in English for the information and guidance of future generations?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.

    Political Leaders (Interviews)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Minister of State recently gave an interview to Dr. Schumacher; what other interviews of this kind have been officially given to political leaders of other parties in the British zone of Germany; and if he is prepared to arrange for official interviews to all such leaders
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State received Dr. Schumacher, just as he has received prominent Social Democrats from other ex-enemy countries. The question of an official interview did not arise. No other political leaders of comparable importance have visited this country from Germany. If they did so the question of an interview would have to be decided on the merits of the case.

  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (FOREIGN NATIONALS)
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many King's Medals for gallantry and King's Medals for service have now been awarded to French and Belgian nationals who helped British personnel during the occupation.
  Mr. Mayhew: The question of publication of the figure of British awards to foreign nationals has been carefully considered anew, but I am satisfied that the disadvantages of publication would outweigh the advantages.
  Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Member aware that this is the fourth time that I have asked this Question over a period of one and a half years, and that we seem to make no headway in the matter? Is he satisfied that all is being done by those responsible to get these French and Belgian nationals the awards for which they have been recommended and which they have earned?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that a con-

  1593
  siderable number of awards have been approved since his last and third Question

  GROUNDED IMMIGRANT SHIP, SYRINA
  Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who owned the immigrant ship which ran aground on the island of Syrina on the night of 7 to 8th December; what national flag it sailed under; and from what port it embarked.
  Mr. Mayhew: According to the information so far available, the vessel in question was purchased some months ago by the Greek shipowners Fatsia, who subsequently sold her to a Jewish resident in Athens. This sale, however, does not appear to have been registered. There are conflicting reports about the flag of the vessel. One report states that she sailed under the Panamanian flag, but it appears that the vessel has hitherto been registered under the Greek flag. Investigations on this point continue. The vessel is reported to have embarked Jews at the Yugoslav port of Bakar and to have sailed from there on 26th November.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Fish Allocations, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Aberdeen with the allocation to firms in respect of white fish there; upon what principle are these allocations made; and if he will inquire into and make an early statement on the subject.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Aberdeen merchants are dissatisfied because a group of English buyers who traded at the port during the war still receive an allocation. Allocations at Aberdeen are generally based on 1939 purchases but that for the English group is fixed at 6 per cent. of the allocated fish. This is proportionately less than their purchases before allocation was introduced. These merchants perform a useful function especially in glut periods, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to withdraw their allocation, although he is willing to consider any new points which may be put to him.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are serious complaints of unfair discrimination concerning these allocations, and will she look into the matter?
    Dr. Summerskill: We have looked into it. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that it is a little difficult to reconcile consumer interests with the merchants' views.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what is his policy with regard to old and new firms in the city of Aberdeen which erect quick-freezing plants for white fish; it he is aware of the confusion existing in this matter; and if he will take steps to resolves the difficulties so as to make as much white fish as possible available to the public.
    Dr. Summerskill: Allocations of white fish are made to all efficient and conveniently sited quick-freezing plants. This applies to both old established and new plants, and I know of no confusion on the point. The small allocations being made now are designed to encourage the development of quick freezing, which could greatly improve supplies to the public during the winter.

    Windrush Club, Reading (Catering Licence)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Food why the divisional food officer at Reading over-rode the decision of the local food committee and revoked the catering licence of the Civil Defence Club, now renamed the Windrush Club.
    Dr. Summerskill: The licence of the Witney Civil Defence Club was revoked because the club was wound up and the purpose for which the licence was granted no longer existed. An application for a licence by the Windrush Club is now being considered by the deputy divisional food officer. Should a licence be refused, the club has the right to appeal to the headquarters of the Ministry
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in fact, the Civil Defence Club merged into the Wind-rush Club and the two have been operating together, and that their application was turned down by the divisional officer at Reading before looking at a copy of the club's rules?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree with the hon Member's statement Normally

    1595
    where a club was formed for a wartime purpose, we revoke the licence now the war is over, and ask the club to make a new application. If the hon. Member will look at the membership of this club, he will find it is much wider than the membership that existed during the war.

    Rationed Goods (Controlled Prices)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that much extra work is caused to grocers by the awkward prices of small amounts of rationed goods; that with the present controlled and subsidised prices of butter, margarine, cooking fat and cheese at 1s. 6d., 9d., 9d. and 1s. 1d. per lb., respectively, the weekly rations for one cost 3⅜d., 11/6d, 9/6d. and 1⅝d., totalling 7¼d.; and if he will consider changing the prices to 1s. 8d., 8d., 8d. and 1s., when rations for one would cost 3¾d., 1½d., ½d. and 1½d., also totalling 7¼d.
    Dr. Summerskill: Although a change in prices in the manner suggested would affect the incidence of subsidies and cause a rise in the cost-of-living index I am having the hon. Member's suggestion investigated and I will let him know the result.

    Cauliflowers (Retail Price)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the retail price of cauliflowers has risen by about 133 per cent.; and why he has removed price contol.
    Dr. Summerskill: My information is that the average retail price of cauliflowers in England and Wales during the past week was less than ¼d. per lb. above the former maximum control price for this period of the year. The price of green vegetables was decontrolled because the prospective supplies were sufficient to avoid the danger of any serious rise of prices.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is the hon. Lady aware that her information about the average price of cauliflowers, at any rate in my constituency, is absolutely wrong?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can only tell the hon. Member that we collected information from 1,000 shops.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the Minister bear in mind that the price in a London shop is not necessarily reflected in a similar
    1596
    reward to the agricultural worker or the farmer producing the cauliflower?

    United States Wheat (Price)
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Minister of Food what is the present price being paid in England for U.S. wheat.
    Dr. Summerskill: The present cost to the United Kingdom of United States wheat, including insurance and freight from Atlantic ports, is estimated provisionally at about £25 7s. 10d.
    Mr. Baldwin: In view of the price which is being paid to the United States, would the Minister consider raising that which is being paid to the English farmers so that they may increase their production of food?
    Dr. Summerskill: The prices are fixed in February, and I would inform the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a practical farmer, that the expenses of the United States farmer are higher than those of the English farmer.
    Mr. Turton: Is the price stated by the hon. Lady per ton or per ounce?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry, £25 7s. 1od. per ton.

    Imported Poultry (Price)
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Minister of Food the price paid to Hungary, Yugoslavia and Poland for imported poultry
    Dr. Summerskill: I regret that under present trading conditions it would be inadvisable to publish these prices.

    Bacon and Milk (Changes)
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the future of the bacon ration and about the prospects for our immediate food supplies.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am sorry to say that, as foreshadowed in my statement of 6th December, the bacon ration will have to be reduced from three to two oz. on 5th January next. This is the effect of the acute world shortage of cereals and can only be remedied as that shortage is overcome.
    I have one piece of better news. The non-priority milk allowance to the ordinary consumer, which last Autumn we feared might not be maintained

    1597
    through the winter at even two pints, can be increased from two to two and a half pints on Sunday next, 22nd December. The corresponding increase last winter could not be made till 17th February. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House and the whole country, to thank the British farmers for their wonderful work in milk production which has made this increase possible. But I must add one word of warning. In making the increase eight weeks earlier than last year, we are running the risk that in particular areas, above all, no doubt, in Scotland, there may be difficulties in meeting it in full, especially if we have severe weather. But it did not seem right to delay this relief to the country as a whole because of possible difficulties in individual areas.
    Mr. Mitchison: Has the Minister been able to consider the possibility of a supplementary allowance of milk for old age pensioners?
    Mr. Strachey: We did consider all these possible alternatives, but we thought that an increase of half a pint in the general allowance would be most acceptable.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that it is not so much a question of a world shortage of cereals as of a world shortage of dollars, and would it not be better to spend more on food and less on films?
    Mr. Strachey: The difficulty of obtaining cereals is one of supply and not of dollars.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not one of dollars as well?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Has the Minister any idea how long the reduction in the bacon ration is likely to continue?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I cannot give any date.

    Linseed Oil
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food to what industries and in what proportions the 100,000 tons of linseed oil purchased since 2nd November will be allocated
    Dr. Summerskill: I assume the Question refers to the agreement made with the Argentine Government for 1947. None of the oil concerned has yet been shipped and it is too early to say how it will be allocated
    Brigadier Maclean: Will the hon. Lady ensure that when the allocation is made a fair share is given to the linoleum industry which, at the moment, is in a very bad state owing to the lack of adequate supplies of linseed oil?
    Dr. Summerskill: The allocations are not made by my Department but by a Committee representing all Departments, and I am quite sure they will take every industry into consideration.

    Tea
    Mr. MacLeodasked the Minister of Food why, since 1942, grocers must still obtain tea from the same suppliers whether the tea suits them or not.
    Dr. Summerskill: To allow grocers to change at will their suppliers of tea would make it impossible for wholesalers and packers to maintain a consistent supply of the different varieties and qualities of tea.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does the Minister realise that in rural areas small grocers are very dissatisfied with this and that they have to stock tea which is not wanted by the public who, unlike people in towns, cannot go round the corner to another grocer?
    Dr. Summerskill: I realise that the grocers want the best quality tea, but the hon. Member must realise that it also carries the highest profit, which is probably the reason why they want it.

    Canadian Grain (Shipments)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Minister of Food the total tonnage of grain shipped from Pacific Coast ports of Canadian grain for delivery to 'his country during the present crop year.
    Dr. Summerskill: The total tonnage of Canadian grain shipped to the United Kingdom from the Pacific coast of Canada during the four months August to November, 1946, inclusive was 276,501 tons, made up of 267,412 tons of wheat and 9,089 tons of oats.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Minister state what has been the extra cost to this country in terms of dollars of these shipments from the Pacific instead of from the Atlantic Coast?
    Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.
    Mr. Grimston: Can the Minister say what proportion of the shipments this represents?
    Dr. Summerskill: Thirty per cent.

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food why it is the Government policy to import so much of cur meat supplies instead of a larger volume of animal feeding stuffs whereby a greater proportion of our much-needed meat could be produced at home with consequential substantial saving in foreign exchange.
    Dr. Summerskill: While His Majesty's Government are anxious to produce as much meat as possible in this country, they are unable at present to take further steps in that direction as all supplies of animal feeding stuffs available to us under present I.E.F.C. procedure are being imported
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that other countries are more fortunate than this country with regard to obtaining animal feeding stuffs at present, and that if this suggestion were adopted the Minister might be able to avoid future cuts in the bacon ration?
    Mr. Baldwin: Is it right to say that the I.E.F.C. are responsible for this allocation in view of the recent announcement in which the Minister stated that the I.E.F.C. were responsible only for the importation of oil cake?
    Dr. Summerskill: The I.E.F.C. are certainly responsible for the allocation of protein animal feeding stuffs but they have also designated coarse grains now as human food.

  AGRICULTURE

    Private Woodland Owners (Fire Insurance)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, under the dedication scheme for private woodland owners, he will consider the advisability of instituting a mutual insurance fund against fire damage.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have considered this matter, and I think at this stage it is best left to individual woodland owners to decide whether they prefer personally to carry the risk of fire or to take out an insurance policy in respect of their dedicated plantations.
    Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister realise that if such a scheme had the support of all concerned, it has been esti-
    1600
    mated that only a 1d. per acre premium would be necessary over the whole country?
    Mr. Williams: As I have already said, I think it is a matter for the individual woodland owner at the moment to decide just what he would like. If jointly they made representations, we would be happy to look into the matter.
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the danger from fire, he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to assist private owners under the Woodlands Dedication Scheme to protect these properties from trespass.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. Woodland owners already possess legal remedy for the protection of their properties from damage by trespass.

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture how many Servicemen accepted for vocational training in agriculture have been kept waiting for more than two months before being sent to a farm to start their training.
    Mr. T. Williams: A total of 166, or less than one in 20 of the number placed for 1st January to 18th November this year, waited for more than two months after interview by the selection panel of the county war agricultural executive committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I make every effort to keep the overall waiting period between initial application and final placing as short as possible.
    Mr. Hurd: Is there really any need for a waiting period of even two months, because, after all, farmers have expressed their willingness to take these met as soon as they have been approved? Why should there be any delay?
    Mr. Williams: It is very largely a question of accommodation. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that 50 per cent of all the applicants were placed within 14 days and another 27 per cent. within one month.

    Main-Crop Potatoes
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the wastage of food involved, the Agricultural Research Council is making an investigation into the factors responsible for the poor quality of

    1601
    some main-crop potatoes in colour, consistency and taste.
    Mr. T. Williams: The effect of the conditions under which potatoes are grown on their appearance, consistency and flavour is being investigated at the Long Ashton Research Station of Bristol University and at the Low Temperature Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Mr. Hurd: As there seem to be so many complaints about potatoes going black, will the Minister see that, before the next growing season, the findings of this investigation are published?
    Mr. Williams: That is exactly what the Long Ashton Research Station are looking into—the question of the blackening of potatoes—and certain information has already been circulated in the "Journal of Agricultural Science" relating to the already known causes of potato blackening.
    Mr. Hurd: Will that be made widely known?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.

    Poultry Breeding Stock (Export Licences)
    Sir John Barlowasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the restrictions that have hitherto been imposed on the export of poultry-breeding stock, day-old chicks and hatching eggs to Europe and other countries will be relaxed or removed as a means of re-establishing prewar connections with such countries and to assist breeders at a time when the market for breeding stock is limited in this country owing to the shortage of feeding stuffs for commercial and domestic poultry keepers.
    Mr. T. Williams: The question of the export of livestock from this country to the Continent of Europe has recently been reviewed, and it has been decided that applications for export licences can be more freely granted in respect of poultry breeding stock, young chicks and hatching eggs, and also of pedigree cattle, sheep and pigs. Exports will not be allowed to an extent which would jeopardise the re-establishment of our own flocks and herds and the future home production of milk, meat and eggs.
    Sir J. Barlow: Is the Minister aware that this news in respect of poultry will
    1602
    be gratefully received by accredited poultry dealers in particular, and will he give his reply the greatest publicity?
    Mr. Williams: We will do our best.

    Allotment, Walton-on-Trent
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will reverse the decision of the Derbyshire A.E.C. to give a widow, Mrs. M. Harriman, Walton-on-Trent, a week's notice to quit her allotment, taking into consideration that a week's notice to quit an allotment is not in accordance with the Allotments Act, 1922; that there is no likelihood of a building licence being issued for building on this plot for some time to come; that the land commissioner sanctioned the issue of the notice without seeking the views of of Mrs. Harriman; and that there is much disquiet locally about the way in which the decision to issue the notice was taken.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have already written to my hon. Friend about this case. The notice to quit was served by the Walton-on-Trent Parish Council, on whose behalf the land had been requisitioned for wartime allotments by the Derbyshire war agricultural executive committee. As the land, which was not being cultivated, has now been released from requisition, I am afraid it is impossible to rescind the notice. I am advised that the provisions of the Allotments Act, 1922, relating to the determination of tenancies do not apply to this case, but there is nothing to prevent Mrs. Harriman asking the owner of the land to allow her to grow crops on it next season, if building is unlikely to take place before the autumn,
    Mr. Champion: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the treatment given this widow by his officers is regarded in the district, and everywhere else, as being thoroughly unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Williams: I am not aware of that.

    Unthatched Grain Stacks
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the 1946 harvest in wheat, barley and oats is in stacks which are as yet unthatched; and whether the proportion unthatched is approximately equal in each of these cereals.
    Mr. T. Williams: An exact reply is not possible; but the information I have been able to collect in the time available

    1603
    indicates that not more than 5 per cent. of existing stacks are still unthatched. This corresponds, of course, to a much smaller percentage of the whole harvest, since much grain has been threshed already. There is little difference between the percentages of wheat, barley and oats.

    Cereal Production
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give approximate tonnage of cereals harvested in England and Wales in 1946; and what proportion of this is unfit for human consumption.
    Mr. T. Williams: The latest but not the final estimate of cereal production is 5,285,000 tons. I cannot say what proportion will prove unfit for human consumption; most of the oats and mixed corn is in any case grown primarily for livestock feeding.
    Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend inform me how soon he will be able to say how much is fit for human consumption, and how much not?
    Mr. Williams: That is difficult, owing to the fact that threshing takes place periodically throughout the season until next June.

    Smallholdings, Yorkshire
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there were 104 applicants for a smallholding that recently became vacant in the North Riding of Yorkshire; and what steps he is taking to satisfy the demand for smallholdings in this county.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that there is unsatisfied demand for smallholdings in many parts of the country, but I do not consider that the provision of additional facilities would be practicable in the immediate future owing to the scarcity of building labour and materials. In the meantime the Government's proposals as regards smallholdings will be included in the forthcoming Agriculture Bill.
    Mr. Turton: Surely, the Minister could apply to his colleague for houses to be built in the countryside instead of in the towns?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. It may be possible that I have already made such representations.
    Mr. De la Bère: Well, do it harder still.

    Feeding Stuffs
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to be able to provide more feeding stuffs for chick rearing in order that poultry farmers can by timely restoration of laying flocks use to advantage the large supplies of grain that will be shipped to this country in 1947 and so save the high cost of dried eggs imported from the U.S.A.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the additional cattle feeding stuffs purchased by the Ministry of Food, he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Food, issue a short statement regarding the additional supplies which may be available for 1947 to farmers, stockbreeders and poultry keepers.
    Mr. T. Williams: The Government is making constant efforts to buy more feed-ingstuffs in overseas countries and as soon as larger supplies can be obtained and shipped to this country, ration scales for all classes of stock will be reviewed. Certain increases in rations including chick rearing rations during the period January-April next, were announced on nth December. These increases are as great as are warranted by the supplies available. Our prospective supplies are, as yet, too uncertain to justify larger increases or to enable any statement to be made in regard to the likely levels in 1947 of rations for poultry or any other class of stock.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister hold out any hope of being able to give a definite lead to the farmers by the middle of January when his colleague, the Minister of Food, as he has told us, hopes to know how he stands for cereals?
    Mr. Williams: That would be attempting to enter into the realm of prophecy with all the known difficulties regarding shipping, transport and all the rest of it in any of the exporting countries

    Machinery
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Minister of Agriculture what types and quantities of machinery he has planned to import from Australia and North America, respectively, during 1947.
    Mr. T. Williams: No agricultural machinery is being imported from Australia in 1947. Imports from North America will, I hope, consist of track-

    1605
    laying tractors, special types of wheeled tractors, combined harvesters, drills, pickup balers, binders, mowers, seufflers, hay-loaders, swathers, forage harvesters, ensilage cutters and blowers, sugar beet harvesters and sugar beet loaders. For most items the quantities will not be large, but owing to the uncertain supply position in the U.S.A. it is not yet possible to say how many can be obtained in 1947.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that one prominent firm of agricultural engineers in York has 270 orders with British manufacturers for spare parts still outstanding and if, in view of this evidence that the priority system is not working well, he will take further immediate steps to arrange for the production of spare parts for agricultural machinery for the use of farmers in this country instead of producing machines for the export market.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of the case referred to, or of any general shortage of spare parts for home-produced agricultural machinery. I will, however, have inquiries made if the hon. Member will supply me with particulars.
    Mr. Turton: May I invite the Minister to come to my constituency during the Recess when he will find that the general shortage of farm implements is going to hold up wheat production?
    Mr. Williams: I was in the hon. Member's division not many weeks ago.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that if he goes anywhere in the country he will find that the same sort of thing applies?

    Grain Prices
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the losses incurred by farmers this year through the big margin in prices between milling and unmillable grain, he will consider, in reviewing prices in February, closing the gap so that, in future, agricultural producers will not cease to grow corn for home consumption following their losses arising from a difficult harvest.
    Mr. T. Williams: The difference between prices of millable and non-millable grain does not appear to me to be excessive and is in any case bridged by the intermediate prices which are payable for potentially millable grain. I am confident
    1606
    that fanners, in planning for the future —especially under the present system of guaranteed prices and markets—do not attach undue importance to an occasional bad year.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister make representations to the Minister of Food and ask him to pay more than the minimum price for barley of good quality taken by his Department?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the prices for barley for the following cereal year are fixed in the previous February, and it would be folly for the Minister of Food or anyone else to interfere with the prices fixed.
    Mr. Turton: Surely, the Minister is inaccurate. There- is a maximum and a minimum price fixed for barley and the Minister of Food pays the minimum not the maximum.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure the hon. Member is aware that the Minister of Food pays the maximum price for the quality of barley that is sent for quality purposes.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister look at the differentiation in grading between millable and non-millable wheat, so as to bring a full amount of home-grown wheat into the nation's bread basket in January and February?
    Mr. Williams: We are making strong appeals to the farmers of this country to thresh as much wheat as possible during the months of December and January, because of the known wheat shortage. I am sure the hon. Member knows that the margin between the millable and non-millable is not sufficiently large to discourage farmers threshing at such an early date.

    Hop Growing (Wire)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a minimum quantity of 1,450 tons of wire is required within the next two months for urgent repair work in hop gardens; and what steps are being taken to make the necessary supplies available.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am aware of the shortage of wire for hop growing that has developed, and I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, who is making every effort to increase supplies of wire for this purpose as early as possible.
    Mr. Baker White: Will the Minister consider using War Department surplus wire for certain types of wiring?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir; that matter is under consideration at the moment.
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture if his Department has made an estimate as to how many acres of hops will be left derelict in 1947 unless the necessary supplies of wire are made available for repairs at an early date.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am informed by the Hops Marketing Board approximately 1,000 acres of hops were damaged in the recent storms and will require re-wiring. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, I am taking all possible steps to assist the hop growers to meet the present emergency.
    Mr. Baldwin: In view of the great urgency and the short time available to re-erect this wiring, will the Minister take very active steps in this matter?
    Mr. Williams: Very active steps have been taken.

    Tractor Threshing Machines (Hire Charges)
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture what maximum charge he has approved for Dorset and Somerset, respectively, for the hire of a tractor threshing machine and two men; and what is the reason for the difference in charges.
    Mr. T. Williams: The maximum charges approved are: Dorset, £6 5s. per day; Somerset, £5 15s. for the first day and £5 10s. for each subsequent day. In both cases these charges had been agreed by the county branches of the National Farmers' Union and the threshing contractors in the respective counties before being recommended by the county war agricultural executive committee for my approval. Threshing charges vary considerably from county to county, owing to variation in local conditions, and my powers of control are used to avoid undue increases rather than to secure uniformity.

    Cattle Grazing, Exmoor (Grids)
    Brigadier Peto askedthe Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that about 10,000 acres of the common lands of Exmoor are fast deteriorating through understocking: that these common lands could carry twice the present head of
    1608
    stock if a system of grids could be installed to prevent straying; and what action he will take to assist graziers in this matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: I agree that there is some deterioration on Exmoor common land owing to under-grazing, and that if straying could be prevented an increased head of stock could be carried. As to the last part of the Question, as I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) on 18th November, decisions on questions of the erection of cattle grids on public roads must rest with the responsible highway authorities, and I have no power to intervene.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the Minister of Agriculture consult with the Ministry of Transport, which is presumably the highway authority concerned, the county council concerned and other parties to find a solution to this serious problem?
    Mr. Williams: Gladly.

    Artificial Drying Plants
    Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent plant has been provided in this country where cereal crops may be sent for artificial drying instead of being left in the fields exposed to the weather; and what steps are being taken by his Department to encourage the provision of more plants of this kind to deal with such grain as is not harvested by combines.
    Mr. T. Williams: In the present season approximately 1,000 farm grain drying plants of rated capacity of 1–3 tons of grain per hour each were in use, in addition to many plants owned and operated by corn merchants and millers. My Department is doing all that is possible to secure maximum production and use of drying plants within the limits of available supplies of steel and timber. I would point out that grain properly stacked is proof against ordinary weather conditions and that the drying of unthreshed grain is impracticable.

    Advisory Officers, Norfolk
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give an estimate of the number of fully-qualified officers who will be employed in the agricultural advisory staff in Norfolk on 1st January next; and if he will give comparative figures for 1945 and 1939 of officers doing similar work.
    Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. Why has not Question No. 66 been called?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had just made one of his usual interruptions and his Question was answered with another on the same subject at that time.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I apologise, but I did not say nearly as much as I wanted to say.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman missed the bus. The answer to Question No. 67 is as follows:
    The figure is 29 compared with 27 for 1945 and 15 for 1939.

    Farm Institutes
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture how many proposals for the establishment of new farm institutes have received his approval during 1946; and what progress has been made towards instituting a farm institute in every county in England.
    Mr. T. Williams: As a report on farm institutes from the Joint Advisory Committee on Agricultural Education making recommendations for future development, is expected by the end of the year, I have restricted my approval of proposals submitted by individual authorities during the year to those, numbering eight in all, in which places may be required to meet short-term ex-Service training needs. There are 18 farm institutes in England and Wales and proposals for an additional 11 have been authorised this year and last on the basis indicated. The extent to which the general long-term objective to which my hon. Friend refers is attainable during the next few years is a question on which I am awaiting the guidance of the Joint Advisory Committee.

    Resettlement Grants Scheme
    Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Minister of Agriculture why it is that, whereas ex-members of the Regular Army, Navy and R.A.F. and of the police war reserve are eligible for grants under the Agricultural Resettlement Grants Scheme, this advantage is denied to ex-members of the regular police force, even when they have been permanently disabled by enemy action.
    Mr. T. Williams: The Agricultural Resettlement Grants Scheme is based on the same principles as the Resettlement
    1610
    Grants Scheme administered by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, which applies only to ex-members of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services persons who have been engaged full-time in the Civil Defence and similar services, and persons released from the Merchant Navy.
    Brigadier Maclean: Is the Minister aware that this scheme represents a grave discrimination against a very fine body of men?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir, it is not intended to be so.

  ROADS

    Island Refuge, Old Palace Yard
    Professor Savoryasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now come to a decision with regard to the erection of an island refuge in Old Palace Yard, in view of the risk incurred by hon. Members in hurrying over from the Secretaries' Room at No. 5 to the House of Commons in order to take part in a Division.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): A temporary island refuge has now been erected and this will be kept under observation for a period of time in order to assess its value.
    Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had a very narrow escape from being run over by a reckless motor cyclist, and is not the mortality of this House at a sufficiently high rate already?

    "Cat's-eye" Studs
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the benefit to all road users of "cat's-eye" studs; and if he will ensure their installation as quickly as possible on all main and secondary roads throughout the country.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I wish to encourage the use of "cat's-eye" studs in suitable circumstances. In urban areas, where street lighting is adequate, these studs are not required. In country areas they can often be used with great advantage to traffic, and I have called the attention of highway authorities to this fact.
    Major Cecil Poole: Is the Minister aware that when the road surface becomes worn these studs cause very great damage to car tyres, and that it would be far better to locate them in the kerbside, where they are also of greater use to motorists?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Barnes: I do not accept the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's comment, but I would certainly agree that putting them in the kerbside might also be a matter for future study.

    Caversfield—Launton Road
    Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to build the substitute road in place of the Caversfield—Launton Road, in order to relieve the inconvenience to people living in the district through the closing of this road.
    Mr. Barnes: It has not yet been decided whether it will be necessary to apply for a permanent closure of this road, and the question of the provision of a substitute road does not, therefore, at present arise. Although the road is legally closed by an Order under Regulation 16 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, traffic is allowed freely to use it and no inconvenience is suffered.
    Sir G. Fox: Have not the Air Ministry decided that they want this road closed?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, but the matter is still being reviewed.

    Night Parking
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, he will reintroduce the rule prohibiting the parking of vehicles at night on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Emergency Powers (Defence) Standing Vehicles Order, 1939, which prohibits the parking of vehicles at night on the "wrong" side of the road, facing oncoming traffic, is still in force.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Transport whether advertisements of a political character are accepted
  1612
  for display on the premises and vehicles of the L.P.T.B.
  Mr. Barnes: It is the practice of the London Passenger Transport Board to refuse advertisements of a controversial political nature but to accept those which, for example, merely announce intention to hold a political meeting.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman regards the advertisement displayed by the Electrical Trades Union advocating nationalisation of the electrical industry as uncontroversial?
  Mr. Barnes: I have not previously been made aware of the point raised by the hon. Member. If he cares to draw my attention to any matter, I will look into it.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that that advertisement is to be withdrawn?
  Mr. Barnes: I shall do what I always do—examine the facts first.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. McKie: I rise, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement, arising out of Division 36, which was on the Scottish Health Service Bill last Tuesday evening. In that Division, in column 1103 of HANSARD, my name is recorded as appearing among the "Ayes." I should like to call your attention to the fact that I was not present in the House that day, or at all last week, as I was in my constituency, carrying out a series of engagements. I would also like to point out that this is the second time in the present Parliament that an accident of this character has occurred. On the last occasion, in the record of Division No. 57, in the first Session in this Parliament, a mistake again arose between my name and that of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Mackay). It is now a much more serious matter, as the Bill, like much other legislation introduced by this Government, is such as to arouse great controversy. Like many other hon. Members I have been engaged in conversations with the medical and hospital interests in my constituency for many months past. Although an Erratum has been published, many people who are concerned in these matters see the HANSARD only for the day on which

1613
the legislation is before the House, and they do not get a further opportunity of seeing the correction. I, therefore, take this step in order to bring the matter to your notice. I would venture to say to hon. Members opposite, many of whom are new to the ways of this House, that they should be very careful in giving their names to Division Clerks, and should take care to give them clearly. If they did so, I feel that occurrences such as these would not happen as often as they have done in the past. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity, and I hope that full publicity will be given to this matter in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has made his position quite clear. As far as his constituents are concerned, they will now know that he was not present in the House. May I suggest to hon. Members who are Englishmen, like myself, that one of the reasons for such occurrences is that Scottish names, although spelt differently, are sometimes pronounced in the same way? It would be as well, when hon. Members approach the Tellers during a Division, for them to see that the tick is made against the right names. I always used to do that myself, because there were quite a lot of Browns in the House.
Mr. Bowles: I would like to call your attention to a matter of a similar character, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) got up and said that his name had not been recorded in the Division although he was in the House, I believe you ruled that no alteration was to be made in HANSARD. When, a week later, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) rose on the same point I believe you said, in reference to his case, that an alteration could be made. I would like to ask whether you could give some direction as to whether the alteration should be made in the following issue of HANSARD, or in the bound volume at the end of the term.
Mr. Speaker: I really did not quite follow the point put to me by the hon. Member. Such mistakes usually occur in relation to the Tellers or Division Clerks, and the correction appears in HANSARD next morning, as an Erratum.
Mr. Bowles: With great respect, I would say again that the point I am putting is that the hon. Member for
1614
Central Bradford was told that you would not have HANSARD altered next day, while the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities was told that he could have the correction made. My question is whether the alteration has to wait until the bound volume.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in error. I remember the case of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb). His name was not put in by his Whips, and therefore I ruled as I did. It is the rule that you cannot add your name after a Division has taken place; otherwise there would be no end to it. The hon. Member made his position perfectly clear by raising the matter in the House. I have no knowledge at all of the incident relating to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), but I am perfectly certain that his name cannot be put into a Division list if he did not vote.

MEMBERS' VOTES (PERSONAL INTEREST)
Sir Ralph Glyn: I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, to ask you to be so good as to give guidance and a Ruling in this House to some hon. Members who are known to their colleagues to have a personal interest in a public Bill. This is a matter of great importance, because it is difficult to know what the rule should be. Therefore I leave it to you to say whether it is possible for you to give a Ruling on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: I must apologise to the House for a somewhat lengthy reply. The matter is of definite importance, as one does not know what might happen, or what Member might, or might not, eventually be affected in this way, during the passage of a Bill. My Ruling is as follows:
The question whether an hon. Member's interest in the matter on which a Division takes place, is of such a kind that he should refrain from voting is a question of which the Member himself is, in the first instance, the judge. It can also be raised on a Motion to disallow the vote of a Member immediately after the figures of a Division in which he voted are declared, and then it is a question for the House to decide. Unless, however, the grounds on which the vote is objected to fall within the recognised principle which governs

1615
this subject, the Chair is entitled to overrule the objection and declare that the Motion for disallowance is out of Order.
The precedents dealing with this question are well understood. They are based on the definition given in a Ruling by Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811:
"This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes are questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of State policy."
I would particularly direct attention to the concluding words of the Ruling, "on a matter of State policy." These are the essential words, and they explain the great difference in the treatment by the House of questions of personal interest in Private Bills and in Public Bills and matters respectively. Whereas there have been many disallowances of votes on Private Bills, there is no case on record of the disallowance of a vote on a Public Bill and only one on a public matter—namely, a Grant in Supply in aid of a survey for the construction of a railway in East Africa The grounds for this distinction are so obvious that it is hardly necessary to argue them. If they were not admitted, it would follow that a Minister could not vote against a Motion for the reduction of his salary in Committee of Supply nor any Member of the House for the establishment or increase of Members' salaries.
The hon. Baronet has taken the proper course in making a full disclosure to the House of the nature and extent of his interests which are affected by the Transport Bill. In reply to his inquiry, I have no hesitation in saying that they are not of a nature which, according to the principles and precedents which I have just mentioned, could lead to any question being raised as to the propriety of his voting on the Bill.
Nothing that I have just said must, of course, be taken as limiting the discretion of the Chairman, if the question of the disallowance of a vote on these grounds should be raised in Committee. So far as a Committee of the Whole House is concerned, the precedents show that this question would have to be decided in Committee immediately after the Division to which it related, and could not be referred to myself or to the House.
Mr. Boothby: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether your Ruling applies to speeches made in this House or only to votes given in this House?
Mr. Speaker: Both.
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you will clarify the position with regard to Committees, because I understand that this Transport Bill is likely to be sent to a Standing Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If it is to be sent to a Standing Committee, I think we should have the position made clear now, while we are on this point. Suppose a question of pecuniary interest arises and an hon. Member votes in the Standing Committee. Ordinarily the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is by a substantive Motion but such a Motion, I understand, cannot be moved in Standing Committee. If that position arises, what would you like us to do in Committee upstairs?
Mr. Speaker: It could not arise on a substantive Motion in Committee. It would be challenged at once, as I stated in my Ruling, and before the next Amendment was called. However, I must say this, that I cannot overrule Committees. They are responsible for themselves.
Sir C. Mac Andrew: It is quite in Order for a substantive Motion to be considered in Committee on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am told that there is no precedent for a case occurring in a Standing Committee. It has, however, occurred in Committee of the Whole House, and the Committee has dealt with it straight away, without a substantive Motion. It is a matter for the Committee, and they deal with it themselves.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not this show the primary importance of this Bill being taken in Committee of the Whole House?
Mr. J. J. Robertson: Can we have your Ruling, Sir, on the desirability of an hon. Member declaring his interest in a matter under discussion?
Mr. Speaker: It is always desirable for an hon. Member who has an interest to declare it. That is our custom, and I think it is desirable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRANSPORT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  3.43 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  We are about to enter upon keen, controversial Debates in connection with the future of British transport, and before these commence, I should like to take this opportunity, as His Majesty's Minister who took over this Department towards the end of the war, of expressing to all sections of British transport my appreciation of the magnificent job they did during the war. I am confident that all sections of the House would wish to be associated with that tribute. The stress and strain of the conflict fell with particular severity upon our transport services, and I have no doubt that during these Debates many of the scars left behind by the war will be disclosed and considered.
  The Bill itself which I am presenting and commending to the House is, I should think, the largest and most extensive socialisation Measure ever presented to a free democratic Parliament. There have, of course, been much wider and more far-reaching economic changes and systems in the world hitherto, but they have usually been carried out with violence, and it speaks a good deal for the stability of our British institutions that we are able to consider a Measure of this magnitude in the circumstances and the atmosphere which prevail in the House at the present moment. Whether this calmness will continue through all the Bill's stages, I am unable to forecast at the moment. I do not think anyone would dispute that the financial transaction involved is a very considerable one. Immediately, a sum of £1,065 million is
  1618
  involved in the taking over of the railway companies and canals and the London Passenger Transport Board. The organisational and administrative task which the Commissioners will have to undertake, and upon which I propose to enlarge a little later, will, indeed, be a very formidable one, but fortunately there will be no break in continuity in this respect. During the war individuals in charge of large organisational efforts have undertaken and conducted much bigger tasks than is envisaged in this Measure. I readily recognise that to perform such duties and obligations is sometimes easier in time of war, than it is under peacetime conditions because in wartime, especially in the circumstances through which we have just passed, there is a general desire to cooperate, whereas under peacetime conditions, that cooperation is not always forthcoming. Nevertheless, the experience that we have gained during the war particularly at the Ministry of Transport, will come in very useful indeed in the task that lies ahead.
  I have observed that in the expression of views of those who are opposed to this Measure, there is a widespread demand from the interests affected, particularly the railway companies and the road haulage organisations, that an inquiry should precede a Measure of this character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that that has some support, as I naturally expected, on the part of hon. Members sitting opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the country."] I have no hesitation in rejecting this request when I consider the inquiries that have already taken place into this problem of the unification of transport between the two wars. There have been some five major Acts of Parliament dealing in some respect or another with this problem, and there have been about 20 important in quiries, many of them of a character which the opposition interests are not demanding. I consider that we are living in a period in which action is very desirable, and inquiries can be very-dangerous in their consequences—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I see no evidence to support that demand. Further, the Labour Party, the Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Congress— [Laughter.] After all, these three bodies represent the majority of the people of these islands and in any case they are en-

  1619
  titled to express their views like any other organisations. The point I was about to make was that these three great major organisations who have been speaking for the organised workers and consumers of this country for many years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Consumers?"]—Yes, consumers—have stated quite clearly in published documents, and in many other ways, their firm conviction that these transport services should come under national ownership. I am satisfied that every candidate of the Labour Party stated this issue at the last General Election. The Conservative Party have never laid their programme so clearly before the electorate as the Labour Party has been in the habit of doing. I do not consider that anybody can dispute that, as far as we are concerned, both the principle of nationalisation, and our clear intention, have been submitted to the electorate, and have received their endorsement.
  Mr. Maclay: Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether at any time there was any mention made of port authorities in "Let Us Face the Future"?
  Mr. Barnes: "Let Us Face the Future" is not the only document we have published, important as it is, and certainly docks and ports have figured in these pronouncements.
  Mr. Maclay: Which?
  Mr. Barnes: I have in my hand a document on the postwar organisation of British transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who wrote it?,''] The National Executive of the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?"] I cannot give the actual date of the publication but I understand it was not too long before the General Election. Here I want to say that I have a very large Bill to submit to the House—for although many Acts of Parliament on transport have been passed, I cannot plead that this is a little one—and in view of the ground which I have to cover, much of which I cannot possibly cover adequately on this occasion, I would request that I should not have any undue interruption. I repeat that in the document to which I have referred ports and docks and harbours are all mentioned, and so I reject this demand for an inquiry.
  1620
  Now I come to the urgency of the problem which, in my view, makes an inquiry unnecessary. I doubt whether the nation appreciates the legacy which the war has left us in regard to our transport. Although the transport services were worked as hard as any of the Armed Forces of the Crown, they did not rank with equal priority for supplies and equipment and in other classifications. Yet they were worked unmercifully under war time conditions, with consequent deterioration of the rolling stock of the railways, and that applies to our goods and passenger services by road as well. The whole of the rolling stock of transport today has not been kept up to scratch and is not in the position of being replaced easily. Many of our ports have been very severely damaged by enemy action. The result is that the nation is facing very large sums of capital expenditure, if our transport services are to be brought up to any standard of efficiency.
  That being the case, I feel that I am here entitled to make a very important point on the use of our national resources, and offer in justification of this Measure the argument that now is the time when we should end the uncertainty of the past century, and make up our minds to complete the process of unification. Faced as the nation is today with the necessity to use its capital resources wisely, with the difficulty of materials and man power, I say that we cannot afford to allow these unequal and varied separate ownerships to compete for the capital resources that are needed. If we did, those resources would not be spread out equitably; they would not be directed where most needed, and in the process we should waste again a good deal of capital, as has been our experience in the past.
  I take the London and North-Eastern Railway as an illustration. It is not to reflect in any way upon that railway that I am mentioning it, but because hon. Members are familiar with the present position and it illustrates the danger which Parliament must avoid. That line serves an area of heavy industries in this country. It was handicapped by the severe depressison which affected the whole coastal traffic after the last war. Its circumstances, therefore, were not so favourable as those of some of the other railways. All railway undertakings in

  1621
  between the war periods suffered in consequence of a new and intensive development of road transport, but the London and North-Eastern Railway suffered probably more than the others, with the result that the necessary capital was not expended, as it should have been, on keeping their capital equipment up to date. Then came the war, and while all railway companies, with other transport undertakings, had to take the strain, the London and North-Eastern—again because of the heavy goods traffic on its line, and the fact that practically the majority of the airfields were strewn along that coast—had to carry a strain almost beyond its capacity to endure. There has been no let-up after the war and again, with the revival of industry, the heavy traffics are most acute on that line. Its locomotives, on an average, are over 32 years old. That applies also to wagons and other elements in the rolling stock, and at a time when it is vital that transport should render an efficient service to British industry, we are having to impose widespread restrictions on all kinds of commercial traffic, in an area of that undertaking.
  If we allowed these separate undertakings to continue after the war in the scramble for capital, that railway would probably be handicapped. We cannot afford a continuance of situations of that kind. Capital must go where it is most needed, and where it will best serve our national resources. That applies to material, and manpower as well. Before I conclude this part of my remarks, in which I reject the demand for an inquiry, I emphasise that transport is not, of itself, a productive service. It is an overhead cost on the whole of British trade and industry. Parliament, in my view, in looking at transport, should look at it as a major overhead cost, and its organisation should be directed entirely from that angle.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: And not of industry's?
  Mr. Barnes: Let me give some idea of the extent of transfer involved in the Bill. Of the 18 million persons employed in British industry, 1¼ million are affected by this Bill. They are not immediately affected, but something like 750,000 persons will immediately pass into the service of the British Transport Commission, when Parliament approves of this Measure. What we are proposing to
  1622
  do, I emphasise, is not out of line with transport experience throughout the world. I do not say that, because of that, we should follow what other people do. Nevertheless I know that the party opposite rather pride themselves on being true Imperialists, and any tendency in the British Commonwealth of Nations ought to be studied at least with sympathy and understanding. I find that, in Canada, 55 per cent. of the railway mileage is already State-owned. In Australia and New Zealand, 95 per cent. is publicly-owned. In the Union of South Africa, 81 per cent. is State-owned. In Great Britain, so far, 100 per cent. is privately-owned. That is what we propose to change. If we take the situation throughout the world we find that 45 per -cent. of the world's rail transport is already publicly-owned or State owned.
  Having dealt with the reasons for rejecting an inquiry, I submit that the real issue before the House is whether the Measure I am presenting is, in fact, a workable scheme. I shall certainly welcome critical examination of its provisions. I have been only too conscious of the fact that we are dealing here with an industry which affects the whole trade, the amenities, convenience and pleasure of all our citizens, and that because of the difficulty of discussion, and the disclosure of major matters of policy before they have been submitted to Parliament, a Minister in my position has not the opportunity of consulting freely and openly those who are responsible for operating this industry. In the various stages of these Debates, and in Committee I shall certainly welcome any constructive criticism or advice that can be given.
  The first 11 Clauses of the Bill deal with the powers and duties of the British Transport Commission. They are very wide, as they are bound to be, and I cannot emphasise too much the importance which I place upon this instrument of the Commission to effect the process of unification. There are two specific limitations on its powers. It will not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles, and it will not be permitted to build ships, except lighters or barges not exceeding 175 tons. It will certainly be my intention not to depart from the general railway practice and that those firms engaged in the building and construction of locomotives and wagons for export should share in the Commission's business. Apart from this,

  1623
  the Commission will have very wide powers to carry through the complete unification of our British transport system. In Clause 3 is defined its general purpose:
  "to provide or promote an efficient, adequate economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain for passengers and goods;"
  The Commissioners have to carry through the task of integrating all forms of transport covered by the Bill and— this I would particularly emphasise—to see that all parts of the country are adequately served. By that I mean the inclusion of rural and sparsely populated areas. These districts have never had the transport facilities they need. It is only by a unified system, in which the cost can be spread over the whole system, that we shall be able to overcome this problem. Further, I expect that for processes of integration and co-ordination, country bus services will be more synchronised with railway services than they have been in the past. By that means, the convenience of the travelling public will be met to an extent which has not prevailed hitherto
  In regard to the capital expenditure on the railways, the Commission will have to face a good many important tasks. Many of our railway stations, and main line termini, occupy the most important sites in London, and great provincial cities. Very often they are depressing places to arrive at on a first visit. The Commission will have to carry out large-scale capital expenditure in rebuilding our railway stations to make them centres of transport. Travel in this country is becoming a disagreeable thing, something to be endured in order to get somewhere, rather than a pleasure, as it should be. I depend on this Commission, with its wide powers, radically to alter that state of affairs. I contend that, taking the distribution of population in this country, the small distances we have to travel compared with many other countries, arid the concentration and magnitude of its industries, there are no physical or financial reasons why we should not have the most efficient, comfortable, speedy and cheap system of transport in the world. The Commission, small, compact, with wide powers, I expect to be sufficiently dynamic in its energies to grapple with problems of that
  1624
  kind. After all, I think that if the structure of this Bill is examined—the Commission as a policy instrument, the Executives to carry out management—it will be seen, quite clearly, that a small body of persons with time to think and plan, and with the vast resources it will have behind it, will work a revolution in the efficiency of the transport system of this country
  It has been alleged, I notice, in some of the criticisms in the Press, and in other directions, that the Executives which I propose to create as the instrument of management will be more powerful than the Commission. I do not consider that there is any ground for this assumption or fear, whichever it may be. The whole of the property will vest in the Commission. The Commission will have complete direction of the national transport finances; it will have complete control over policy, and provision is made, in Clause 5, for the delegation of management functions from the Commission to its respective Executives. By that process, I think I have completely safeguarded the authority and the supremacy of the Commission. In so far that the schemes of delegation are clearly defined, the Executives will not be able to exceed those provisions. The Executives, in fact, will be the agencies of the Commission, and the schemes are subject to modification from time to time.
  I have visualised, to commence with, four main executive organisations—one for the railways, one for the ports and harbours and inland waterways, one for road goods and passenger services; and the London Passenger Transport Board, which is taken over with the four main line railways, will be renamed the London Transport Executive—[Laughter.]—I do not know why that should cause amusement to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). The London Passenger Transport Board is the best example we have had between the two wars of the desirability of unification. It took over 14 local authority undertakings and some 70 private undertakings, and is anyone in this House today bold enough to say that, if we had left those 14 local authority and 70 separate undertakings, we should have had the London transport system of the moment? With all its difficulties and deficiencies the London transport system is the best in the world. Its bright stations, its com-

  1625
  fortable rolling stock, and its services, represent a fine example of unification. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Act establishing it was passed by a Conservative Government in 1934, al though it was prepared by the Labour Government which preceded that Administration.
  Before I leave the Commission, I should like to make a statement with regard to Scotland and Wales. In the part of the Bill dealing with the Commission it is provided, as I have endeavoured to explain that the Commission shall represent the policy instrument and the Executives the management function, I am also proposing in the Bill to establish Consultative Committees to enable the public adequately to represent their views. There will be a National Consultative Committee and Area Consultative Committees In regard to the application of the Consultative Committees to Scotland and Wales, I desire to state that in order to ensure that the Commission shall be fully informed on Scottish and Welsh opinion and requirements, there will be a Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, both for passengers and goods traffic, and also one for Wales. It is also my intention to see that Scottish and Welsh interests are directly represented on the Central Consultative Committee. The existing licensing machinery in Scotland and Wales will be retained.
  Close attention will be given to ensuring that organisations of the different Executives work intimately together at all levels, so that Scottish and Welsh transport services shall be truly integrated and interrelated. Apart from the formal application of the Bill to Scotland, contained in Clause 125, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will nominate persons to the special panel to be created under the Eighth Schedule, from which persons may be selected to hear and determine proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Transport Tribunal. The Arbitration Tribunal under Part VIII of the Bill, will meet under a Scottish president when sitting in Scotland, and when dealing with questions as to the transfer of undertakings, or the assets of a concern whose headquarters are in Scotland will sit there, and Scottish law and practice will apply.
  Mr. Stephen: I would like to ask the Minister whether
  1626
  Scottish interests will not be represented also by a member on the Commission.
  Mr. Barnes: Not in a special sense.
  Mr. Boothby: May we be quite clear that there is to be no separate Executive member for Scotland—that Scotland's own separate rights will be of a consultative character?
  Mr. Barnes: There will be no breaking-up of the Commission into sections, either national or in any way representing interests, and the Executives will be responsible each for its own field of transport in the whole of Great Britain. But in that organisation, of course, there are divisional and area organisations, and machinery that will go on.
  Clauses 12 to 30 deal with the acquisition of the railways, the London Passenger Transport Board and the canals. These represent, of course, the major part of our transport undertakings. In two wars, the strategic value of our railways has been demonstrated clearly to the whole nation, and I do not think we can permit, under any circumstances, any form of competition to undermine the stability and efficiency of the railway system of this country For that reason, and to make provision for that in the future, resources will be pooled for the purpose of seeing that they are safeguarded. The House is very familiar with the problem that arose between the two wars in the development of road and rail competition. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be dealing with this matter when he speaks to the House. Therefore, I do not propose to become involved in the details of the working out of that competition, and its consequences at this stage. As to the main criticisms against the acquisition of the railways, surely no one is surprised at the step we are taking in view of the experience of the past, and I think, to a very large extent, thoughtful and informed transport opinion realised that this Measure was coming along. The main criticism I find is directed not so much to the principle of nationalisation but to the compensation terms. Here again, I should like to state that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after we have heard further views of hon. and right hon. Members, will deal fully and exhaustively with this matter.

  1627
  I should, however, like to state briefly what influenced the Government to come down on this side of the market price for railway passenger traffic, passenger transport, and canal shares. In the first place, it covers adequately the securities that are involved. Sixty-nine of the quoted securities of Part I of the Fourth Schedule represent 98 per cent. of the nominal value of ail the securities involved. Therefore, this method which we have adopted, which is quick and easy in its assessment, covers, to all intents, the whole of the Securities that are affected. The dates from 1st to 8th November, 1946, represent very favourable quotation dates. The alternative of the middle-monthly quotations for the six months prior to the Election. February to July, 1945, gives an advantage in certain cases. Therefore, I feel that we have adopted a simple, easy, and fair method that gets equitable compensation and avoids considerable difficulties which we would have encountered if we had followed the other method.
  The financial characteristics of the several groups of undertakings or assets to be acquired are more diverse in transport than in coal or cables The scheme of compensation which we propose, recognises, on the one hand, the rights of dispossessed owners to reasonable compensation and, on the other hand, the right of the State to benefit from the use of its own credit. I think this scheme meets fairly the compensation for capital invested. Under no circumstances can it be claimed, when the State is taking over a service of this kind, that we have to continue in perpetuity the interest income of the persons involved. A nationalised public service is quite entitled to have the advantage of public credit. Those terms have been created by the strength and capacity of the nation. Under no circumstances could it be argued that we are not entitled to take advantage of them.
  Let me come to the purpose, which I think will prove to be fair. Compensation is to be satisfied in British Transport Stock issued by the Commission, and backed by a Government guarantee. Its terms are to be such as to make it worth, at the time of issue, the amount of the compensation. to be satisfied. I would emphasise this as it disposes of any suggestion that the terms of compensation
  1628
  impose loss of capital. Any such loss must have occurred before nationalisation had been announced, because the prices used are in no case less than those ruling shortly before the Election. In the Bill there are two main bases of compensation (a) market valuation of securities, and (b) the net value of the assets,plus compensation where justified, for losses caused by cessation of the business and severance.
  What does this represent in the case of the railways? Taking the four main line railways, and assuming the total compensation on the basis of market prices to be, say, £900 million, it represents about 25 years' purchase of the average prewar net revenue during the three years, 1935, 1936 and 1937, or 22½ years' purchase of the net revenue enjoyed under the control agreement—£40 million. If the alternative suggested is arbitration, someone would have to guess what railway earnings might have been in circumstances of competition; and in all the uncertainties of the future, and then determine a global sum of compensation, and how to split it up, first, between the individual companies, and, second, between the many classes of stockholders according to their respective and varied rights. I do not believe that, in this case, any arbitrator would have been able to. find a better and more fair measure of compensation, than is provided by the market assessment of the values of the stock.
  Mr. Osborne: When the Minister says "net income," does he mean after taxation has been deducted at the standard rate? It is a very important point.
  Mr. Barnes: No, certainly not. Having stated the compensation to the railways, I should like to say a few words about canals. Canals were the earliest form of transport in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—one of the earliest forms of transport in this country, governed by Act of Parliament. The canals have suffered very severely from time to time in the different forms of competition which have developed They have persisted despite railway and road competition. I think there is a general desire in this country to see our waterways used to their fullest capacity. There has never been the opportunity to do so in the past, but under unification, and under the general directions of the Commission,

  1629
  there is the possibility that all forms of transport—rail, road and waterway—will have an opportunity of serving the community to the fullest extent of their possibilities.
  The next point I want to emphasize is the taking over of the privately-owned wagons in this country. They have been an anachronism on our railways for many years. They are obsolete. Over 20 per cent. of them are obsolete and should be scrapped and 50 per cent. are over 35 years old. Again, in this direction, if we are to have an efficient transport service for goods on the railways, a considerable capital expenditure must be faced by the Commission in the replacement of our wagon rolling stock. In these circumstances, we cannot continue the position of having merchants of any type owning and running their own wagons on the railway system. The Commission will aim at being adequately served in this direction, and no trader need, of necessity, suffer.
  With regard to the road haulage business, this has been the most controversial problem in rail and road matters since before the war, and it has proved to be a difficult, complex and controversial matter in connection with the preparation and the passing of this Measure. Again, I think it is essential that we should grapple with this problem. It represents a type of competition which I think Sir Eric Geddes, when introducing the 1921 Act, had in mind when he stated that there is a type of competition in transport matters that brings no advantage to the community, but represents an illusory type of advantage, and, in fact, represents a waste to both sections of the industry, and to the community generally. The rapid expansion of road transport has raised many problems in this country, and has been the subject of many detailed investigations, but what is not always appreciated is that the road haulier himself enjoys, to some extent, a monopoly right, and, on this problem of transport, one finds that the objection is not to the existence of monopoly rights, provided that a particular person or a particular group or a particular industry enjoys them.
  Under our licensing system of "A" and "B" licences, no new persons, not even ex-Servicemen, can get into the industry unless they prove need, and, if the existing services are sufficient, the citizens
  1630
  of this country are, in fact, denied their right to run lorries on the road for reward.
  Mr. Osborne: That makes it worse.
  Mr. Barnes: No, it does not make it worse. That is the position that arose out of the Salter Committee. The right hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) undertook one of these inquiries, and that was a recommendation that was implemented as a result of that inquiry and that is the position today. That being the case, it is desirable that, if unification is needed to avoid this ruinous competition, this monopoly should be extended and eventually covered by the State. The limit that I propose to place on road hauliers that will bring them within the compulsory Clauses of the Bill is a mileage limit of 40 miles. Any road haulier whose business is predominantly that of the transport of goods over 40 miles is brought within the compulsory terms of the Bill. If I might give the figures to the House, there are "A" licensed vehicles to the number of 86,000, and there are roughly 19,000 holders. "B" licensed vehicles number 53,000 odd, and there are 27,000 holders. Of the "C" licensed vehicles, there are 306,000, and 149,000 holders. Under the compulsory acquisition terms, I anticipate that some 2,000 to 2,500 undertakings will be brought within the compulsory terms of the Bill, and the number of motor vehicles involved will be approximately 20,000. In addition, of course, the road motor vehicles of the railway companies will come over with the railway companies, and will number approximately 11,000, and there are 3,000 other vehicles in which the railways are financially interested. Altogether, between 30,000 and 35,000 road haulage vehicles will come over as a result of the compulsory acquisition.
  Hon. Members will observe that there are special exemptions for bulk liquids in tanks, meat and livestock, furniture removals and similar specialised traffic. I must point out here that, while I provide that road hauliers are free to operate within a 25 miles' radius, beyond that 25 miles radius they will have to secure a permit from the Commission to carry general traffic.—[Interruption.] I am sorry to hear interjections of that kind, as I should have thought that the terms of the Bill here are very wise, very tolerant and very

  1631
  flexible with regard to the transport of goods by road. It covers the whole of the normal type of traffic carried out by the village haulier. The type of traffic brought within the terms of the Bill represents the type of traffic competition which has been ruinous between rail and road in the past. Therefore, the economic problem is dealt with adequately, and there has been no desire to carry it to an extent that will interfere with the general convenience of short-distance traffic in local centres.
  Particularly is that enforced when one considers the measures proposed with regard to "C" licences in connection with this road transport problem. Again, a 40 miles' radius limit is taken for the "C" licences. They represent those traders who find it desirable to service the transport of their own goods in their own undertakings. This 40-mile limit will enable all retail trade, and the vast bulk of manufactured and merchanted commodities to be undertaken by "C" licensed traffic without any disturbance, but, over the 40 miles' limit, there must be no uncertainty as to what we aim to achieve. While there is no desire to interfere with the bona fide trader carrying his own goods, it must be made quite plain that it will not be used as an instrument to sabotage the main purpose of the Bill. As regards the purpose of protecting the main purpose of the Bill, I think every one who has handled this problem is quite clear on the matter to which I am now drawing the attention of the House. For the purpose of protecting the main purpose of the Bill, the trader who wishes to carry his goods over the 40-mile limit, with a "C" licence, will have to prove his case to the licensing authority, and will have to prove that it is a legitimate traffic for his own business. It is all set out in detail, but there are broad general directions, and no trader who is carrying his own goods for a bona fide purpose need have any anxiety. But any trader who seeks to use that opportunity to interfere with, undermine or sabotage the work of the Commission by means of this licence privilege, will be subject to the procedure, which will be used for the purpose of safeguarding that situation.
  With regard to road passenger services, they are not provided for immediately in the Bill. The procedure to be adopted is for the policy Commissioners to promote
  1632
  area schemes, after consultation with the local authorities in their areas. Here again, it is the intention that ultimately they shall be brought completely into an integrated national transport service. The procedure to be followed under the Bill is set out in Clause 67. The Commission will promote schemes after consultation with the local authorities for
  "the coordination of the pas6enger transport services serving the area."
  The assets and liabilities of undertakings in the area may be transferred to the body set up under the scheme, and if the objections are not finally disposed of, these area schemes become subject to the special Parliamentary procedure of this House. That applies also to ports, docks and harbours when they are brought within the provisions of this Bill. That being the case, it occurs to me that adequate safeguards are inserted there to see that local needs are not overlooked.
  The question of docks and harbours not having been mentioned in our publication was raised earlier, and I think I have disposed of that point. Even if it had not been mentioned in any official publication, I should not be standing here to apologise for the docks and harbours being incorporated in the Bill. They represent important terminal points in our vast overseas shipping interests. In many directions new port equipment is needed for the efficient handling of cargo. We are faced with a necessity of de-casualising the dock labour system in our ports and harbours, and that being the case we must ensure that the equipment of our docks does not suffer in any way by competition, because of the variety of ownership, or for the lack of resources in the future. The purpose of bringing the ports and harbours into this scheme is to ensure that whatever capital resources are needed to increase their efficiency, will be at their disposal.
  Mr. Henderson StewartDoes the scheme cover the fishing ports?
  Mr. Barnes: The Commission does not cover fishing ports in the same effective and direct sense that it does our major trading ports. But many of these small fishing ports are important as recruiting centres for the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, and sometimes they serve other purposes. Therefore, the Commission will be expected to keep a watchful eye on the small ports, and to assist them

  1633
  as far as possible. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to that?
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: As long as it does not mean ultimate nationalisation.
  Mr. Barnes: As I say, the Bill at the moment covers the trading ports of the country primarily. I should have thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to help the fishing industry, would have been glad of assistance from whatever quarter is might have come.
  May I now say a word or two about the Transport Tribunal? This is the Railway Rates Tribunal renamed. It will take over the powers of the Railway Rates Tribunal, the remaining jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, and the remaining jurisdiction of the High Court on transport matters. I think the more hon. Members study this Bill, the more they will see it cuts out useless and duplicating machinery, and brings it all into an efficient compact organisation, which will be able to get on with the job, and avoid unnecessary labour.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: The Germans had a word for it.
  Mr. Barnes: As I indicated, this is being carried out through the normal Parliamentary procedure which prevails in this House, in a free democratic Parliament. With regard to the problem of charges, I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasise the importance of this aspect of the Bill. Charges in any system of transport are vital to trade and industry. I am informed that there are something like 40 to 50 million different rates prevailing at the present moment. I have endeavoured to get a clear, simplified machinery running through this Bill for the purpose of dealing with charges. One of the most beneficial results of this Bill will be, if we can simplify the jungle of rate charges, that now prevails in our railway and transport industry.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: They will all go up.
  Mr. Barnes: Perhaps I can best bring this home to the House if I quote from the Royal Commission on Transport, and then the comment of the London Chamber of Commerce. In paragraph 124 of their Final Report, the Royal Commission on Transport said this about railway rates:
  1634
  "The railway companies have informed us"—
  I take it the House will observe that this Commission did not attempt to ascertain whether it was correct or not—
  "that under the principles now guiding the fixing of railway rates, goods are classified on a system based principally on their value or ability to pay, but conditioned, to an extent which varies considerably with different goods, by their convenience of carriage. The present classification and system of rates and charges based thereon may be said to be a combination of value, packing and weight."
  This is what the London Chamber of Commerce had to say:
  "The London Chamber of Commerce ex pressed dissatisfaction with the standard classification, and said that in practice it is hard to discover any guiding principle in the classification itself."
  They went on to say:
  "Whatever the principles may have been upon which the standard rates were fixed, they have been nullified to a great extent by the system of exceptional rates, of which millions are in force at present."
  I have been informed that there are some 40 to 50 million different rates in existence. Whether that is so or not, I do not know.
  Major Cecil PooleYes.
  Mr. Barnes: The London Chamber of Commerce refers to them as "millions." I say it is perfectly farcical in a period such as that in which we are living, that those who have been responsible for our railway systems and transport charges should have been permitted to continue indefinitely this state of affairs. With regard to the machinery I am establishing, I agree I have simplified it, and I would welcome criticism and examination of this in Committee. If it can be strengthened, so much the better. But if the Commission, by the framing and simplification of its charging structure and the tribunal machinery after full inquiry in public, can simplify this matter, it will be of immense advantage to everybody concerned. I am afraid I have unduly occupied the time of the House……
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, which is most important, I would like to ask a question. We have been discussing the charges; he has quoted the Royal Commission, and has told us what the London Chamber of Commerce said about the Royal Commission—that

  1635
  they did not think there was any principle in that. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what principle he has in mind on this question of charges? What is the basis of his charges scheme, which does not seem to appear at all? Does he think it ought to be on the value; and if not will he give us some indication of what he has in 'mind?
  Mr. Barnes: As a matter of fact, the Chamber of Commerce did not comment upon what the Commission said; they commented on what the railways said to the Commission. With regard to the proposals in this Bill, the hon. Member will observe that the Commission will be charged with this responsibility. I am not able to define all these matters in the Bill; the Commission is charged with the responsibility of submitting the whole of its proposals with regard to the simplification of rates to the tribunal machinery which is established to consider, examine and confirm. There is also the machinery of public examination through which interested parties can submit their case, and out of this we ought to get, as I have indicated, a considerable simplification.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how what he has just stated differs from the present position? These rates are statutory. The railway companies are not permitted to make them; they are compelled to make them by the Statute of 1921.
  Mr. Barnes: That has been the difficulty in the past. The Commission is now to be charged, first, with the responsibility of paying its way, and then with the responsibility of submitting its rates structure to the Tribunal, while being responsible for the whole of the transport services of this country, no parts of it being able to compete in a way which makes nonsense of the term "statutory rate." The 1921 Act, which permitted the railways to obtain their standard revenue, left aside altogether the development of road competition, which made nonsense of the whole of the provisions of that Act. We are remedying that situation in the Bill. For the first time in the history of transport, the British Transport Commissioners will be able to tackle the charges problem on a commonsense basis. As I was saying, I am afraid I have already taken advantage of the House for too long in trying to
  1636
  explain this rather difficult and complex Measure.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the Minister make some statement on the totally inadequate compensation to be paid?
  Mr. Barnes: As I have indicated, I am leaving the compensation Clauses to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the road haulage undertakings are not getting totally inadequate compensation; they are getting the cost of replacement of their vehicles.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On an average of 50 per cent.
  Mr. Barnes: Not at all. They ought to have, in their own accounts, a depreciation fund equal to the other 50 per cent., if it represents half the life of the vehicle. Replacement cost is a very fair basis of compensation to road haulage undertakings.
  I am afraid I must now draw my remarks to a close. During the Committee stage, we shall have a greater opportunity of examining the matter in detail. I can only conclude by stating that a process which has been going on in this country for over a century is reaching its conclusion and consummation in this Bill. Transport has been moving steadily towards a monopoly solution. The 1921 Act, again passed by a Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if it was not passed by a Conservative Government, there was an overwhelming majority of Conservative Members in the House at the time, and they cannot divest themselves of responsibility for it. That Act compelled 123 separate companies to amalgamate into four companies. The London Passenger Transport Act is another indication, but hitherto we have always hesitated to grasp this problem in the only way in which it can be grasped. Whenever Parliament deals with any great basic service which represents an overhead charge on the whole of industry. Parliament establishes a monopoly. The fact that it is broken up into hundreds of thousands of monopolies does no' alter the fact that the whole of the legislation of this country has proceeded in the direction of establishing the principle of monopoly in the field of transport, but we have always denied the nation the advantages of co-ordination, unification and integration among all the forms of its transport services.

  1637
  Road, rail and water transport services should not be mutually destructive elements; they should be complementary to each other, each serving the nation in its own way and in its own time. One should not destroy the capital and the livelihood of persons in another. This is essentially an industry in which finance, annual revenue, annual expenses and annual receipts, should be pooled. If there are unprofitable parts of the country which do not pay their way, and if citizens are living there performing some national purpose, they should still have the advantage of a modern nationalised system at their service, and that is impossible until all have been unified into one complete system. Therefore, we have seen the railways, the road haulage and other undertakings, afraid of the purpose of nationalisation, beginning to come to underground and other forms of agreement, in an attempt to overcome this problem. We on our side have never denied, and we have never withheld our view from the people of this country, that as services move in this direction, they must be publicly owned and publicly run,-with the whole of their accounts and the whole of their affairs subjected to Parliamentary and public examination.
  Here we are, after this second great war, faced with enormous capital expenditure. As I have indicated, the railways of this country are out of date. Passengers who travel on our railways nave not today the comfort, either in matters of refreshment or of travel, which they ought to have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because presumably there have not been the resources—I do not know why not. The fact, however, is that the railway companies have not provided these facilities. Take railway hotels. Railway hotels are first-class for first-class passengers, but there are no railway hotels to cater for the vast majority of persons using the railways. The refreshment rooms of railway hotels do not serve refreshment—meals and food—[Interruption.] These are very serious matters— to the majority of the people who travel on our railways. Give us five years. [Interruption.] That is what we have, five years of power. I was going to say, if hon. Members would listen to me: Give this Labour Government five years of power in this field of transport services, and the people of this country will see
  1638
  more progress than would be made in 500 years of Tory rule.
  5 P.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
  The Opposition recognise that the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman have one element—that of size. We believe that the introduction of this Bill is the greatest disservice this Government have, so far, done to the trade and industry of the nation. We have, in this country, one great advantage which our competitors abroad do not possess. In this country, we have a short distance between the ports and the centres of industry, and that has given us, and could continue to give us, an advantage, which our competitors do not possess, in the relative proportion that transport costs bear to general costs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask those who interrupt me to look at the father and mother of the Bill, the T.U.C. document, in which it will be found that these low costs are stressed; but we shall not have them under a monopoly which will be cumbrous and top-heavy, whose structural defects are as manifest as its powers are unlimited.
  The right hon. Gentleman was remarkably restrained and remarkably modest in one section of his speech. He made only the shortest and most tenuous claims for any lessons which had to be learned from integration, Government control, or whatever term he chooses to use, of our transport services during the war, and he was very wise in his modesty and restraint. The right hon. Gentleman has given us one reason for this integration, with regard to railway services, and that was the difficulty of doing capital works on the railways. He knows as everyone knows that the railway companies had their plans ready for renewals, replacements and new works, and to take his own example, he knows it was planned and that everything was prepared to rebuild Euston Station, which is one of the examples he chose in this matter. He has not said one word, however, about the various claims which are made, and he has not supported even the parental and maternal document, in claiming that there would be any standardisation of equip-

  1639
  ment, improvement on handling costs, or anything of that kind. He knows very well the experience of Government control, with regard to the road services, during the war. When the Road Haulage Organisation attempted to exercise control, for the purpose of saving petrol and rubber, what was the result? Three weeks' delay before the return journey, and, that went on until the trade unions themselves complained about their members being kept away so much. Since that has been stopped, there has been an increase of 40 per cent. of usage of capacity of vehicles, and a reduction of 50 per cent. on empty journeys. Since that control and organisation were removed, we get five round trips a fortnight from London to Manchester, instead of one a week, which was all the organisation was able to perform.
  It is interesting that the last word on that effort to have Government control was said, not by anyone in the Conservative Opposition, but by Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Director-General of the Ministry of Transport, who ought to know. He said during the war:
  "Detailed allocation of traffic has not been practicable, nor indeed, has it been easy to find any fixed principles on which to allocate at all…. It must be confessed that wartime allocation of traffic has not been based on principles or methods likely to be applicable to ordinary conditions."
  After that, I was relieved and not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could not quote any precedent on which to buttress the suggestions he is putting forward today. He did not spend five minutes in the one hour and twenty minutes which he took to make his speech—although I do not complain about the length of time of that, because I was glad to hear his views—in explaining how the integration will be reflected in economy of transport, which alone can give to industry the benefits it needs. The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience, and he must realise the complete self-contradiction of his own set-up. The whole basis of his structure, as he made clear during his speech, is a functional division of the Executives, which will perpetuate disintegration—the very thing he is claiming to do away with under this Bill. His structure fits neither the facts of industry, nor the theories of Socialism which he is putting forward.
  1640
  I again found it interesting to note the very short period which the right hon. Gentleman devoted to the question of a public inquiry. He purported to demolish the arguments for a public inquiry. His first argument was that there had been a number of inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there has never been an inquiry into the technical merits of the various proposals for the industry as a whole, and that the form of nationalisation he is suggesting has not been the subject of any inquiry, except in the case of a survey by a committee, which is among the four T.U.C. documents to which I shall later refer. As the right hon. Gentleman said—and I entirely agree with him—inquiries can be dangerous, and it is because we on this side of the House are certain that a public and impartial inquiry would be completely dangerous to the half-baked proposals in this Bill, that we consider it is essential that it should take place, and that these proposals should be exposed to a public and impartial hearing.
  I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own scheme from two points of view. First, there is the standpoint of practical help to industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have all paid lip service to the idea of an expansionist economy. They have all said that everyone should cooperate to secure the greatest production and the corresponding consumption which is necessary for its continuance. Yet the first herald of that expansionist scheme, based on greater production, is to be a scheme for transport about which 99 per cent. of all the comments that have been made have remarked on its restriction and its rigidity, instead of its power to serve the public. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know that these proposals must take a decade to put into operation. He knows that it took eight to 10 years before amalgamations of the railway companies could be brought into being after the Act of 1921. Now, when we are enjoined almost daily, from the Government Front Bench to look at our trade recovery, we are having the wildly irresponsible course of all the attention of every operator engaged in transport deflected from his ordinary work of serving industry into looking at what will be, and must be, his position under these nationalisation proposals.

  1641
  We on this side of the House maintain that there are four irreducible minima if transport is to be the true servant of industry. First, there must be freedom of user choice on the part of the user of transport; second, there must be unrestricted power of the trader to carry his goods in his own vehicles, as he does at present under the "C" licence; third, there must be the right and the opportunity of reward for efficient service and efficient running to be passed on to the user; fourth, in times of high production, such as we are looking to, there could afford to be greater elasticity of entry into the industry. What do the proposals in the Bill do? They take over the railways and long-distance haulage, and restrict all other haulage operators. They contain the power to make the consumer take the type of transport which the Commission or the Minister thinks right; and they take away the safeguard of the trader to carry his own goods in his own vehicles. We have seen that the right hon. Gentleman has got his Bill practically idea for idea —I will not say word for word—out of the T.U.C. document No. 2. We know that he is aiming at the position where it will be the responsibility of the national transport authority to ensure that traffic is carried by the form of transport which is most economical for the community. In other words, this will be achieved most simply and thoroughly by a completely coordinated service, in which the consumer does not specify the form of transport by which his goods are to be moved. The right hon. Gentleman's aim is that consumer choice of transport must disappear at the earliest possible moment. The Parliamentary Secretary need not look so depressed if, when the Minister has taken 90 per cent. of his Bill from this T.U.C. document, we form the opinion that he is likely to take the other 10 per cent. from it, too.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Central Transport Consultative Committees. They are only to be set up as he thinks fit. He can abolish them as he likes, and there is no requirement that their conclusions can be published. They are a useful camouflage of complete Ministerial control. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the aspect of restriction which he desires to impose on "C" licence holders. I appreciate that the Minister and Members opposite do not believe in the study of the customers' con-
  1642
  venience, which results in greater orders for the transport operator who does so, but even if they do not believe in that I do object to their "stacking the pack," by removing the trumps by which alone the trader today can protect himself against bad transport, or conditions or prices which he does not like. The check, the safeguard which has existed, and which has always been in the hands of the trader, is hamstrung by the provisions of this Bill If I correctly appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he deliberately desires that that hamstringing should take place. Apart altogether from the check, the right hon. Gentleman should know that unrestricted power to run under a "C" licence is essential to a great variety of industries if they are to continue efficiently and, indeed, to go on with their work at all. In the 12 years in which I have had the honour to be a Member of this House, I have seen a great many rises of public dissatisfaction, some genuine and some inspired, as everyone who has been in this house as long must have seen. But I do say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am not making any rhetorical point on this—that I cannot find one association of traders, or one responsible body of traders in the country which does not protest sincerely, and with a real sense of fear, about what will happen to their own businesses from the restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to impose on "C" licence holders. I do not pursue the other point which is equally clear, that when the right hon. Gentleman has taken over the "A" and "B" licences the Commission, on his behalf, will be able to compete unfairly with those road hauliers who are left, because I want the House to consider for a few moments, the administrative weaknesses of the set-up in the Bill.
  First, with regard to its excessive size, it has been a matter of common knowledge, and fairly general complaint, that the main-line railway companies have found, since the Act of 1921 was put into effective operation, that they have had rather more than enough on their plates in dealing with the companies at their present size. It is now proposed that the Railway Executive alone should have to deal with an organisation about three times the size of the L.M.S., or the L.N.E.R. The right hon. Gentleman does not lay down in his Bill—and he did not, in his speech, shed any light on it—the way in which the Commission will bring

  1643
  about the co-ordination between the different Executives and, as I say, we are left with that same functional division which he deplored in the more rhetorical parts of his address. I ask him to consider this point. He has been some 18 months in office and he knows that the number of subjects which he can deal with himself are severely limited. If we are to have this set up of Executives, a Commission and a Minister, with wide powers of interference by the Minister, which I shall mention in a moment, there must be tripulation of staffs if this thing is to work at all, even at the slowest possible pace. Ultimate control is in the staff of the Minister, but before we can get any subject passed up from the various disintegrated Executives of the Commission and passed to the Minister, there must, in fact, be these staffs in triplicate to deal with it, and the necessity for enlargement is increased by the functional disintegration which is the basis of the Bill.
  The principal argument for integration, and the only argument which could justify it, would consist of three stages. It would say, first, that we have too much inland transport, too many people, and too much equipment used on inland transport today; second, integration would give economy in the amount of manpower and material which we should use; and, third, we could only get that integration by bringing them under one system of national ownership. If every one of the matters of fact which are assumed in that argument were as true as it is thought, and if the reasoning were as sound as it was thought, it would still be impossible to square that argument with this set-up which the Minister puts forward.
  The Executives, under the terms of the Bill, are to be separated from the commencement; the demarcation of function is to be preserved until further notice, which, in the words of the song, means that "it may be for years and it may be for ever." It is beyond the wit of man and the power of exposition of the right hon. Gentleman to explain how the Commission will produce and help that demarkation and bring the Executives together. The only precedent which I can think of for this set-up was one which the wise men of Gotham suggested, when, in early summer, they built a fence with the avowed purpose of keeping inside that
  1644
  fence the first cuckoo and hearing its voice.
  Let us consider the powers which the Minister takes to himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council used the inspired words, "Let the argument be directed to the merits, and let the test be the public interest." Let us apply the test. It is proposed that the Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members. The members will all be appointed by the Minister; they will hold office at his pleasure and be paid salaries determined by him. It will be subject to the direction of the Minister in the very wide sphere of "matters which appear to him to affect the national interest," on the reorganisation of development programmes, which involve "substantial outlay on capital account." That, one might think, would give the right hon. Gentleman considerable powers of interference, but, of course, his desires do not stop there, because he takes under the Bill power to direct the Commission "to discontinue any of their activities or dispose of any part of their undertaking."
  In other words, there is complete control by the Minister, and that means that, in operation over the enormous field which I just outlined, he is to be subjected to all the political pressure—and one knows how susceptible this aspect of life is to political pressure—which can be brought upon him. The original idea of this form of nationalisation—of an independent statutory body which will have some chance and opportunity to run the industry and to have independence and to put into operation the results of independent thinking—is abandoned and it is inevitable that, if the Minister is to take these wide powers of interference, the Commission on which, according to his own argument, the pith of these proposals depends, can only be the retreat of the "Yes man" and the sycophant.
  It does not stop there. When we come to the Executives, we get another undertaking. The members of the Executives are to be appointed by the Minister, who will approve of their salaries, and they are to receive functions delegated by the Commission, but nothing can be delegated by the Commission unless the Minister approves. The right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and emphasises, almost with tears in his voice, the im-

  1645
  portance of the Commission, and, then, in the very same Bill, deprives it of the power to command, which alone can give any chance of making this scheme work. The acme of these absurdities is when we reach the transport proposals. I have shown that the very set-up of the right hon. Gentleman is the opposite of integration, but one might expect that, at any rate, he would pretend that this set-up would bring about some reduction in charges to the consumer and user of transport. That must be, on any sane approach to this subject, one of the main reasons for the integration of transport.
  But what are the proposals with regard to charges made under this Bill? Within two years, the Commission must submit a charges scheme to the transport tribunal, being either hindered or helped in so doing by the Minister, under Clause 79. There are to be no rules as to the charging scheme. The Commission may adopt such a scheme as seems desirable to them. The scheme may provide for fixed, minimum or standard charges, or maximum charges, which are to run the whole gamut and it may also, under Clause 80 (1, d) allow special terms, which is another name for exceptional rates on which the right hon. Gentleman descanted in his oration. So—and on this I should have thought that there would have been some word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman—the tribunal may leave the charges or charging system to the Commission itself. In other words—as an hon. Friend behind me mentioned a moment or so ago—one of the great questions has always been, "What is to be the basis of charging? Are you continuing charging on what the traffic will bear, or switching over to a charging on operational cost or on value?" All these matters have been transport problems for years, shouting for considerátion, yet the Bill does not contain a word of guidance as to how the charges are to be arrived at, and the right hon. Gentleman spent 80 minutes in which he refused to accept the situation or to answer the question as to what line he will take. I should really have thought that if the Government are coming forward with proposals for the nationalisation of transport, the House is entitled to know the policy of the Government with regard to charges, the vital question which can help or hinder industry in its recovery at the present time.
  1646
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not consider it my function at this stage of the Bill to go into the question of compensation in any detail. The right hon. Gentleman urged the compensation proposals as a reason for assenting to nationalisation. I shall deal with them in even greater brevity, and I hope in a very short time to convince the House that they form an additional and obvious reason for rejecting the proposals. Let us look at the various kinds of compensation. The main objection is obvious, and was recognised as soon as the proposals were published. They amount to a confiscation of income and a confiscation of livelihood. But let us see how that works out. The selection of market values by a Government pledged to nationalisation is similar to a thief acting as counsel for the prosecution, judge, jury, court of appeal and executioner in a sort of crazy people's court. Of course, the Government's proposal is to select market values which their very pledge has knocked down in advance. The only thing on which I congratulate the right hon Gentleman is that in this essay at compensation he has, at any rate, departed from the teaching of the pink book of the T.U.C. because they say with commendable frankness and truth:
  "Most stock exchange quotations are only indirectly connected with the real value of any undertaking to the community."
  The right hon. Gentleman has the double advantage of abandoning the T.U.C. and putting forward an obviously unfair proposal. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) pointed out, the basis for compensation under the road haulage proposals of two to five years' profits for anyone who is put out of business is, of course, inequitable—that goes without saying—and less than any arbitrator could possibly provide; but at any rate it is on an ascertainable basis, even if it is unsound. The passenger transport proposals, of course, reach the height of comedy—good clean fun in this case. In the case of the local authority which is running a transport operation, the better that transport undertaking has been managed, the less benefit will the local authority get out of the compensation proposals. That is just a little spice of high comedy to leaven a rather dingy loaf. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman himself gave the keynote to the question

  1647
  of privately owned railway wagons when he said that a number of them should be scrapped. For that reason, apparently— because he advanced no other—their owners are to be paid scrapheap prices for their wagons, with no question or consideration of their replacement I have promised to deal with these compensation proposals only in outline. If I were to go into them in any detail, I am afraid my language might be a trifle forceful.
  I want, in summing up, to put to the House that all the classic arguments against nationalisation are illustrated ad nauseam in this Bill. There is the loss of enterprise and initiative which is shown by the attack on the road transport industry, whose great work the right hon Gentleman has praised, and whose constitution and the people who have come into it are known to us all, not only because they have had their measure of success, but because of the pluck and courage which they used in building up their businesses in that difficult period after the last war. That is attacked. With regard to the freedom of the worker, we shall see whether this structure can stand on its head for a sufficient length of time to come into any form of operation. We shall see, no doubt, in time the strongest trade union making the same claim as Mr. Will Lawther is now making for the mineworkers, that every one engaged in this industry should belong to that union. So, in time—it will take time, because these proposals have that merit or demerit of taking such a long time to work out—we shall get a closed shop suggested for this field of our life as for others.
  The increased cost to the consumer is obvious. The consumer, under these proposals, is left with transport as his master instead of as his servant. Of course, there is the fourth argument, which again is classic, that this Bill gives an unexampled opportunity for political patronage and jobbery. When one considers these arguments, at least we on this side of the House are free from this charge. It is sometimes said that we are merely negative in our opposition to nationalisation. If we can free trade and industry from the harm and hindrance which these proposals are going to put upon them, we shall do something very far from negative. We shall do the greatest positive service that can be done.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I should have thought that after the mass of paper opposition to which we have been subjected since the nationalisation of transport was first introduced into the Government programme, we would have had an opening speech from the Opposition which would have given us some forceful arguments against the Bill as presented by the Minister of Transport. In actual fact, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) did not produce a single argument which undermined in any way the inspiring and strong speech which the Minister made in moving the Second Reading. The main gist of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attack was that the Minister did not say he was going to bring about that integration of transport which was one of the main objectives of the Bill, but I should have thought that by implication, throughout my right hon. Friend's speech, it was clear that he had introduced this Bill as a Bill which had a complete conception of transport as a unity. It has a transport conception and not a conception of transport as divided into different transport forms.
  Under Clause 3, which is, after all, the kernel of the Bill, it is provided that planning shall be such as to ensure an integration of transport in this country, and in the same Clause, that the transport of the country shall be operated as a single undertaking. That is one very important obligation on the Commission—that transport in the future shall be regarded as a single undertaking and not as railways, roads and so forth. That is where the various transport interests in this country have failed in the past. In the past the railways have not been transport minded in the full sense of that word. The rail-ways have failed to be enterprising, and, therefore, they have failed to be efficient. The railway companies never used the belated powers which they obtained in 1928 to go into road transport in such a way as would co-ordinate it with the operation of the railway services. They merely acquired a financial interest both in road haulage and road passenger transport and they regarded that financial interest as a profitable investment. Possible and adequate co-ordination was not brought into being, and the investment remained simply a financial interest.
  It is quite clear that in the operation of the railways the companies have not

  1649
  regarded road transport on a functional basis; that is to say, the railway companies today still have, more or less, a horse and buggy mentality. The railway companies today still operate on the basis of a large number of small local stations which are so located that the goods are collected within a distance in which a horse and cart would still be able to operate. When the motor vehicle was introduced they did not change from the system of collecting goods in short hauls, putting them on pick up trains, running those trains to the marshalling yards where they are shunted and put on the long distance freight trains. They still operate on that basis and it is the basis on which they have operated for a great many years. Until they depart from that the efficiency of the railways will not be what it could be if there were complete coordination. It is obvious that with the motor vehicle the distances in which goods could be collected could be extended considerably. Then those goods would be brought to the rail heads and put on to the long distance freight train rather than have a large amount of unnecessary shunting and so forth.
  The net result is that the average speed of the goods train in 1938 was just over nine miles an hour, which was an incredibly low speed. The official figure, published by the Ministry of Transport, regarding the net ton haul per engine hour, if we include shunting, amounts to 461, whereas if we exclude shunting it amounts to 968. In other words, if the railways were to enter a period of complete coordination with road transport, they would be able to double the effectiveness of the carriage of goods and that would substantially reduce the cost of transport. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the West Derby suggested that the cost of freight carriage in this country was comparatively low. It may be, although I would dispute it, but the fact remains that it could be substantially lower if there were an efficient and effective system of cooperation between road and rail.
  Let us look for a moment at the passenger side of the railways. There I claim also that the railways have not been efficient in the past in the way they could have been had they been developed along modern and efficient lines. It is true that the long-distance passenger trains in this country are among the best in the world as regards speed and efficiency, but they
  1650
  have been built up at the expense of local traffic which is slow, inadequate and ill fitted out. I would say that it is time that we put an end to this policy of appeasing Scottish travellers at the expense of suburban season ticket holders. If anybody has any doubts as to the state of local traffic I invite them to travel to my constituency at Enfield on the London and North Eastern suburban service from Liverpool Street or King's Cross. They would travel in ill lit wooden boxes which are called railway coaches and they would soon imagine themselves back in the "Fanny by Gaslight" era. In the same way, on a similar journey to Potters Bar, also in my constituency, there is a bottle neck of two tunnels on the line and the local train is pulled into a siding while the express goes by. That bottle neck, which has existed since the L.N.E.R. first started operating, should have been eliminated years ago.
  It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby to say that the railway companies are now ready to modernise and develop. They should have done it over 50 years ago. A result of the inefficiency of the passenger services is that the average train miles per hour is only 15. Surely, in this age of speed something could be done to increase the speed of the local traffic with the introduction of complete co-ordination between road passenger services and the railways. Obviously a lot of the small local train hauls could be eliminated, and the result would be greater speed on longer distance journeys.
  It was only just before the war that the railway companies finally decided that something had to be done in order to eliminate road competition, not by buying it out as they attempted to do in the past, but by entering into agreement with road haulage. They put forward the Square Deal proposals which, I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, actually proposed to eliminate that check which he referred to with approval as a useful check on the competition as between the two forms of transport. He accused the Minister of introducing restrictions through this Bill, whereas the actual restrictions were proposed by the Square Deal proposals.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish that there should be any misunderstanding on the

  1651
  matter. I am sure he will agree with me that in the ultimate agreement between road and railway interests the "C" licence holder was preserved without any restrictions of any kind. I have the agreement in my hand and the hon. Gentleman can look at it if he so desires.
  Mr. Davies: It is perfectly true that the "C" licence holder was unrestricted under those proposals and that he is unrestricted today, but under the present Bill he also has a very large measure of flexibility. He can work within the 40 mile limit and over that may apply for permits. My criticism of the Square Deal proposals, which are practically the same as those which have since been put forward as the road hauliers alternative to nationalisation, applies to the "A" and "B" licences and their coordination with the railways with a restrictive purpose in view. Under those proposals there were to be agreed rates between road and rail. Since I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands me, I would say that these rates would not be the same for each of the forms but were agreed for the two forms, and at the same time there would be a restriction on the number of licences issued through the normal process of the licensing system. The combination of those two things would mean the creation of a situation which would enable the larger road hauliers and the railway companies to control the operations of the small man because they would be in a position to object to his licence; and there would be no further entrants into the industry. This makes it much more difficult for the small man to compete with road and rail interests because once statutory rates are fixed, he cannot undercut the large hauliers. The small man would be put into the position of being subject immediately to absorption or being squeezed out by the larger interests.
  As soon as decontrol took place earlier this year that situation practically arose in the relationship of road and rail. The Road Haulage Association set up regional sub-committees before which all applicants for "A" and "B" licences were invited to attend and they, being for the most part members of the Association and subject to certain relations with it, had to appear. When they did, the result of their application for a licence was pre-
  1652
  judged. The small man coming before such a sub-committee seeking his "A" licence and hearing that the Road Haulage Association intend to oppose his application before the licensing authorities, decides not to proceed with that application. It is no use his then going to a licensing authority and asking for his licence when he knows that the road and rail interests would produce counsel before the licensing authority and put in a series of objections. I know of cases in my own constituency where that happened, and where the applicants have been so discouraged by the objections that have been raised before these sub-committees that they have decided that it was no use going forward with their applications. What did they do? They took away the anti-nationalisation literature which was given out at these sub-committees and read that under nationalisation the small man would be squeezed out. The small man is being pretty successfully squeezed out today under these restrictions.
  I should like to make one or two points on the proposals which the Minister put forward regarding "A" and "B" road hauliers. I think that it will be far better in the case of "C" licences if the factory or the warehouse and not the operating centre were taken as the vehicle base, because it seems to me that by the strategic location of the vehicle base the "C" licence holder will be in a strong position to evade certain Clauses of the Bill. My only criticism of the proposals regarding road haulage is that, far from sharing the views of hon. Members opposite, I think the Minister is a little too lenient not only with "A" and "B" but with "C" licences. Because the average distance of carrying goods in this country is so low —it is 44 miles on the London-North Eastern, and only 60 for the country as a whole—the proposed radius of 40 miles will enable a very large number of operators to contract out of the national system. By contracting out they will take away much of the profitable traffic and this will harm the nationalised undertaking. The Minister, as was shown by his speech, realises that there is such a strong measure of opposition to this Bill that there are a number of traders in this country who will contract out in an endeavour to undermine the nationalised system even though it costs them more to run their own vehicles. I therefore urge that great consideration be given to the details of these Clauses to

  1653
  ensure that there is not too much flexibility for the contracting-out of the private trader.
  On the question of road passenger transport, I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that if necessary Clause 67 will be strengthened to make absolutely certain that road passenger transport in this country will be publicly owned. As the Clause reads, the Commission may make schemes, and it might appear from the Minister's speech that he fully intends that those schemes shall be formulated and implemented on the basis of public ownership. We should, however, like to see those provisions incorporated in the Bill so that there can be no doubt, and so that the Commission is definitely instructed to formulate the schemes and base them on public ownership. We remember the Blue Report for the handing over of the L.C C. trams to a private monopoly, and we do not want that kind of thing to occur in any of the regions of this country. If the Minister can strengthen Clause 67, and can insert in the Sixth Schedule the Regulations concerning the drawing up of these schemes, I think the Bill will be considerably strengthened.
  I should like to deal at some length with the question of compensation, which has been referred to this afternoon, but I have already spoken rather longer than I should. However, I would just say that although in theory it may be that market value for purchasing the stock of the railway companies can be attacked, in practice, in the present case, it works out satisfactorily, and there is no alternative which can be put forward. We cannot possibly take the standard revenues of the railways as a basis because they have no relationship whatever to the earnings of the railways today. They were based on over-capitalisation and have never been earned. We cannot submit the assessment of compensation to an arbitration tribunal unless we have some basis of revenue on which to capitalise the total capital sum. How can we capitalise the unknown earnings of the railways at the present time?
  It is absolutely impossible to hazard what would be the earnings of the railway companies if they remained under private enterprise, and that is the only basis on which we could arrive at a net maintainable revenue. We have to look at this question of compensation realistically. After all, the State is buying out the rail-
  1654
  way companies and is paying them a price which ensures that every person who is bought out will receive Government stock which he can turn into cash immediately. That Government stock is equal in value to the market price at a certain date. People who receive that stock will suffer a diminution in income, admitted, but as long as the capital price is there, it is no concern of the State whether the people who receive the equivalent of cash cannot get the cash they receive to produce as much income as they received in the past.
  Mr. Osborne: Are they to go to the workhouse?
  Mr. Davies: We have a Minister of Health who looks after the widows and orphans who, hon. Members on the other side have suddenly discovered, are in need. If the State is paying a fair price, it is no concern of the State what the people receiving the cash do with their money. Added to that—I consider this to be a very strong argument—the railway companies cannot afford to pay the interest under the Railway Control Agreement. The forty-odd million pounds which the railway stockholders are today receiving as interest the railway companies cannot continue to pay, because they cannot afford it. We cannot burden the nationalised undertaking with this very large amount of interest and handicap it from the outset. It would not be in the national interest if the Transport Commission started With this huge burden of capital debt, this huge interest burden, on its shoulders. That happened in the case of London Transport. Before the war, London Transport was virtually bankrupt. If the war had not come, an appeal would have been made for a receivership for London Transport.
  Although, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Act, there is a provision for the payment of a high rate of interest, that high rate of interest was not paid. It is no good saying to stockholders today, "We will give you British Transport Stock equivalent to bring in the same income as you have been receiving in the past." The State would have to subsidise the railways in order to pay that amount of interest, because the nationalised transport industry would not be able to earn that amount. It is important that we do not handicap the State

  1655
  with an insupportable burden of interest charges.
  I want to congratulate the Minister on the Bill that he has introduced. It is long overdue. All our political life, Members on this side of the House have advocated nationalisation of transport. It has been a basis of our programme ever since I started working within the Labour movement. Today we see our aim being fulfilled, as the Bill comes for ward for Second reading. I wish the Bill a safe journey through Committee. I am sure that it will come through the test, and will provide that unified, coordinated and integrated system which we on this side of the House are determined to establish.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: The Minister was quite right in stating that this Bill is the biggest venture of this Government, or indeed of any Government, in the field of nationalisation. The figures are stupendous All told, they come to about seven times the amount of the cost of taking over the coalmines. It is proposed to create one all-embracing industry of transport, which is a matter affecting the lives of every one of us. One naturally turns back to the test which was laid down, I think rightly so, by the Lord President of the Council, speaking in this House on 6th December, 1945. He rejected on behalf of the Government any dogmatic or doctrinaire approach, for or against nationalisation. I would like to remind the House of his actual words. Here they are:
  "But we are going to nationalise certain industries, and if we take the series of industries with which this Government are dealing, either the case must be proved for them, or the case must be proved against them. I agree that, in the argument about nationalisation, there is the onus upon the party that is proceeding to nationalise, to prove that the nationalisation is in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1945; Vol. 416. c. 2637.]
  That obviously is the test. The Minister, again very rightly, said that the transport industry enters into the major overhead costs of everything. It adds to the cost of raw material, of production, of consumer goods of every kind. Any increase in the cost of transport affects the price of all consumer goods. Upon transport depends the prosperity of every trade and business in the country.
  1656
  The question we have to put to ourselves, therefore, is, "Will this service—after all, transport is a service between producer and consumer—be cheaper under the Bill?" I do not necessarily mean cheaper in actual money. Shall I use another term, and say, "more efficient and more economical for the nation as a whole?" Will the cost be greater? The burden of proof rests, according to the Lord President, upon the Government who are proposing this tremendous change. I was surprised to hear the Minister say early in his speech that there had been a public inquiry—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: There has been many a one—
  Mr. Davies: —Into the taking over of the whole of transport, its coordination and nationalisation. I agree that there have been inquiries into the railways. One was conducted by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). Even that finished, if I remember rightly, in 1932. Many things have happened since then. Tremendous improvements and changes have been continuously taking place in the internal combustion engine, and there have been other developments—
  Sir Arthur Salter: In the report to which the hon. and learned Member has referred there was a recommendation, towards the end, that there should be a special inquiry as to the point up to which, for different classes of goods, road traffic was more economical, and beyond which rail transport was more economical. That kind of inquiry has not been made, certainly not in public, either before or since that time.
  Mr. C. Davies: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I was coming to that. I was pointing out that not only have there been great changes since 1933 but that an inquiry into the actual matter of coordination and rationalisation—whether it could best be done by one, or by the other, or by both working together—has never, in fact, been made. I should therefore have thought that all the factors and all the figures upon which we could arrive at a proper judgment are not known to us. If the Government have made an inquiry of their own, surely the burden of proof lies on the Government and they should take this House into their

  1657
  confidence and tell us the result of their inquiry. According to the Lord President, this is the grand inquest of the nation at which the Government produce their evidence and prove their case that this is the right way to deal with the matter, and that it will lead to efficiency and economies and to the general benefit of the public at large. The question we have continually to put to ourselves is, "Will the consumer get a better service under this Bill than he would even in present circumstances, or under some different system from that which the Minister is proposing?"
  I now come to the railways. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) with regard to railways. They began in an extraordinary way 100 years ago. It was a complete financial ramp—nearly as bad as the South Sea Bubble—and all kinds of schemes were put forward. Many of the better schemes never saw the light of day—in the sense that an Act of Parliament was never passed and the railway was never built. Some of the schemes which were less good were those which actually passed this House and were carried into effect. Considering the handicaps that existed, the wonder is that any progress was made at all. The railways were handicapped by watered capital and over-capitalisation; the tremendous amounts they had to pay to the landowners of that day although they were improving the values of the land through which they passed; all kinds of restraints and restrictions put on them by statute; and the fact that their business was done, not by the most businesslike boards of directors but by those who were put on the boards largely because—in the old days—of their landed interests. It is therefore amazing that the railways have done as well as they have done. There were very many small railway undertakings. Something like 275 Acts of Parliament were passed in order to create them. There were something like 113 companies still operating at the beginning of this century, and it was perfectly obvious that it was necessary to unify them.
  It is rather interesting that Mr. Lloyd George—one cannot help referring to him all the time by the title under which he was best known—when President of the Board of Trade between 1906 and 1908 came to the same conclusion as the Committee which met in 1918 and reported
  1658
  upon the need for unification of the railways. It might be interesting for the Minister to look it up. I was told by Mr. Lloyd. George on many occasions that when he left the Board of Trade to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was, in fact, in the Board of Trade a complete Bill for the nationalisation of the railways, and that there was in his documents with that Bill a letter from every one, I suppose, of the 113 managers of those companies saying that it was the only thing to do. Nothing happened about that. There was a change in the Board of Trade. So we went on until the war of 1914–18, when, again, the railways were taken under one control. Towards the end of that war, a Select Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the railways, and it recommended unification of the systems. The railways were not however unified—I will not inquire into the reasons why, but I think they are obvious when one considers the set-up of the 1918 Government—but, at any rate, the 113 companies were then reduced to the four big companies which operate now.
  What happened after that? At once they began to pool everything, so that one can say that from that time—and even from 1914—there has been, so far as railway transport is concerned, a real monopoly. There can be no doubt about that. It was a monopoly not responsible to this House but exercised under restrictions placed upon it by this House in the past. I agree with the figures given by the hon. Member for Enfield. They are very familiar. Undoubtedly, the railway companies were not anxious to take up new ideas or put new ideas into effect. I have always thought that if they had been really alive to the fact that they were, in the main, the transport people of this country, the moment the internal combustion engine was invented, they would have said, "That is transport; that is ours, and we will put the whole of our weight behind it in order to develop it." They did not do so, however, and the internal combustion engine was allowed to be developed as best it could by small people, who did what they could to raise the money to produce the motor car and put it on the market. The full weight of the country was not put behind the development of the internal combustion engine until the 1914–18 war with the result that during the war there was

  1659
  tremendous development. Not until the lorry came on the roads after the war, did the railway companies wake up and realise that that was transport. In 1921 they put forward the proposal that they should also have their lorries on the road. The refusal to give the railway companies the right to come on the roads was one of the greatest mistakes made by any Government. The report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University followed.
  Not until 1933 did the railways really begin to use lorries on the roads and that was the beginning of proper co-ordination. I have always felt that the right thing would have been to use the lorry to feed and empty the railways, and not to run parallel with and alongside them. But they did not do it. They just remained subject to their handicap, with the goods that they were carrying divided into 21 classes, and the charge they were allowed to make did not depend upon the cost of carriage but upon "what the goods could bear," as it was known, having a relationship not to the transport cost but to the value of the goods. Then, instead of coming to this House and asking that those restrictions should be removed, they came to this House and to the Government and said, "Put further restrictions upon this new invention which is doing us damage, and put restrictions on the roads so that the traffic will come back to us." What, therefore, is the position in regard to railways? They are a monopoly and they have been so for a considerable time. That being so, Liberals have, right up to the Election, said that so far as the railways are concerned, we are of opinion that the right thing to do is to bring them under public control.
  Now I pass to the tragedy of the canal system of this country. There you have a wonderful system started very much better than the railway system was started. But just as soon as they really got going, there came the railways, which, more or less, took the traffic away from them. However, there is this always to be said, that, other things being equal, and if time and speed are not of vital importance, carriage by water is cheaper than any other form of carriage. But what has happened? There are roughly about 2,200 miles of canals and I think the railways own something like 35 per cent.
  1660
  The canals have really been allowed to fall into disuse. There was a time, at then-peak, when they carried as much as 40 million tons of goods. In 1938, if I remember rightly, that figure had dropped to about 13 million tons. Some of them are uneconomic and are too narrow—they will only take a seven-foot beam boat, which is today quite an uneconomic proposition. Something like £20 million is required to put those which have fallen into disuse into a proper state and widen those which need widening. I cannot imagine any private concern undertaking that great work; it can be done only by the Government. That being so, so far as the canals are concerned, again, I give the Bill my support.
  A few words in regard to ports. Many of the ports are, of course, under public ownership already, a number are under the railways and, in taking over the railways, naturally one would be taking over the ports. In the old days, when I practised in the commercial court and at the Admiralty Bar, one often found difficulties caused by the fact that the facilities in the ports, and the charges, differed so very considerably. That used to lead to a considerable difficulty until they altered the charters and bills of lading because, when you gave to the charterer the alternative of one of three ports, the shipowner then had to calculate which was the most expensive port and charge accordingly, lest that should be the port chosen. So it is absolutely essential that there should be an overall supervision of the ports. Also charges should be put upon an equal basis, and proper facilities for loading and discharging should be supplied.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Member remarked that a large number of the ports were publicly owned. Would he agree that the number referred to are public trusts—a very different matter indeed from the proposals of the Government?
  Mr. Davies: Certainly I will grant that, but that only strengthens the need for coordination. With regard to those matters, therefore, I agree, but now I come to the much more serious one of road transport. The hon. Member for Enfield very rightly pointed out what has been happening-restrictions put upon road transport What the Minister is proposing now, however, is to put on further restrictions

  1661
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Let us see what has been happening. The first restriction came in 1930 upon the carriage of passengers by road. What happened then? A "closed shop" for the carriage of passengers was created so that their offer was confined to the railways and to a few purely monopolistic companies working within certain prescribed areas, and nobody else was allowed to come in at all. Then came the Report to which I have already referred and the Act of Parliament of 1933, with the invention of the "A," "B" and "C" licences. The common carrier licence—the "A" licence, was almost a complete restriction as soon as the tribunals began to work. What happened? The small man went along and said, "I have two or three lorries," and tried to present his case to the Commission. He had never presented a case before, he did not know the kind of evidence that would impress the Commission but, in every instance, the railway companies opposed him, and they knew the kind of evidence that would impress the Commission. No wonder the number of "A" licences was strictly limited.
  There was the same restriction with regard to "B" licences, and the only free one was the "C" licence. Now what does the Minister propose? To take over the "A" licence; to take over the "B" licence, except within a very small area; and to stop the "C" licence, again except within a very small area. What is that but restriction? The effect of it will be, first that you take away from the customer, the user, the producer, the choice of the vehicle which suits him best. It may be that one system is cheaper but that, for this particular business or that particular journey, speed is essential. It may be that he wants direct delivery because of the nature of the goods. Take, for example, the agricultural producer who is bringing fresh vegetables straight from his fields to the market. It is absolutely essential that he should use his own vehicles.
  Mr. Barnes Mr. Barnes indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister nods his head—
  Mr. Barnes: He can.
  Mr. Davies: Can he? The Minister proposes to restrict him to 40 miles. Forty miles in London would be all right. because, if he was centered in London with
  1662
  his garage here in Westminster, he could supply one-fourth of the population and 11,000,000 would be within his ambit. But what is 40 miles in Montgomery or in North Wales? How many customers could he then reach? How far is he away from his best market? The idea is that he should be restricted within this narrow area but much more important than that is the right of the producer and the consumer to choose the one mode of transport that he, knowing his business, thinks is best for the purpose. That is to be taken away. In the name of what? In the name of public interest. How much loss may he incur by being restricted in this way? What has been the inquiry into ' that? What evidence is there with regard to it? It seems to me that, on this matter, the Minister is departing entirely from the rule laid down by the Lord President, and is following dogma and doctrine, rather than the facts.
  I would like to put this position to him. I have suggested that there should be coordination between road and rail transport. If the national organisation works well, and provides road transport to feed the railways, it will have its return load, and ought therefore to work much more cheaply than private user. But, if that is so, why is the Minister afraid of allowing the private user to compete with him? Is he so afraid that his system may be shown up by the private user with his "A" licence, or "C" licence, running his own lorry? It looks to me as if the Minister were not so sure that the yardstick would not show up the uneconomical running of a road or railway undertaking in a particular instance.
  The structure of this scheme provides the Commission at the top. The Minister says that they will be the policy makers, and that the management will be the Executives. But it is the Minister who will appoint the Executive, and it is that Executive which will be the management. They will bring all the facts, from their angle, up to this body, far removed from the public and its problems, and try to persuade the Commission that their view is the right one. If they fail, they say "We do not mind, we can go to the Minister." It may mean then that political considerations will come in, instead of the consideration of public interest which should come first in every case. I should have thought what was really needed was a system which would lead

  1663
  to co-ordination, and the working of road and rail together, which I think is essential, and, above everything—what I find no word about in the Bill—rationalisation. What I fear is that without proper co-ordination and rationalisation, instead of transport costing the people of this country less than it does today, it will cost more. That is why I think the whole structure of the scheme is wrong. I should have preferred a structure of regionalisation which would be nearer to the public, so that we could tell what they needed and someone would be near enough to hear complaints. The fact of the matter is that now the railway companies are too much centralised, and too far removed from the public.
  I come to the question of compensation. Why is it that, here, for the first time, except in the case of the Bank of England—where I think the Government were certainly on the very generous side—the Government have fixed their own compensation? Why cannot they do the right thing by submitting the question of what is the right amount to be paid, to a proper tribunal? It is difficult to know what the proper figure is, because the railway companies are statutory companies. Rules in regard to their stock are laid down by Act of Parliament. What is more, they were told by this House that they could earn up to £51 million. They never earned it because this House maintained the restrictions upon them that for a number of years allowed the roads to compete freely. In the meantime, since 1939, they have been completely under Government control. I should imagine one of the most difficult questions that could be put before a tribunal is what is the proper amount to pay? Might I suggest to the Minister that though I am sure he does not want to confiscate, it looks very much like confiscation in this case? It was all very well for some hon. Members to sneer just now in regard to widows and orphans. May I point out to them that these railway stocks have been trustee securities, and that there has been a deep obligation on trustees? What are they to do now when the threat of this Bill comes forward? It would have been very much better if the Minister had—and I hope he will yet do so—reconsidered this Clause and said that he would not lay down an absolute rule, but would sub-
  1664
  mit the matter to a tribunal, to go into the facts and figures, and find out what is just and proper.
  We are creating one vast all-embracing monopoly with regard to a matter which, as the Minister himself realises, touches every industry in this country, which may affect the price of goods, the cost of raw materials and every household. But there is no guarantee that the cost to the nation will not be increased, rather than decreased. That being so, I have to put to myself this question. I would nationalise the railways and canals and have proper supervision, but I must ask: Is this a Bill that will really benefit the country as a whole, reduce the costs for the country as a whole, and help the trade that badly needs help at the present time? Having given it the most careful consideration, my hon. Friends and I have come to the conclusion that the structure is bad. We have come to the conclusion that there is now no yardstick by which we can measure efficiency; we think that this is really a bad effort on the part of the Minister, that this is a bad Bill which he ought to reconsider.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the early opportunity you have given me of making my maiden speech. It is rather like a visit to the dentist, in that the waiting period is its worst feature. I feel I am qualified to speak on this Bill by virtue of the fact that I have had nearly 20 years' experience of transport, and by virtue of the fact that I have a recent mandate to indicate the measure of my support for this Bill. I have been advised of the traditions of this House. One tradition is that one does not speak for too long in a maiden speech and another that one does not say anything which is controversial. But, I must indicate to the whole House that this Bill is indeed controversial, at least from the point of view of hon. Members of the Opposition, and anything I may say must, therefore, be regarded as controversial. It will be necessary for me to say many things in my controversial speech which, on an ordinary occasion, one could avoid saying.
  I said that I have a mandate to support the Bill, and I wish to make this very clear to the Minister and to hon. Members opposite. I recently fought a

  1665
  by-election in a constituency in which 60 per cent. of the male population are engaged in transport. It is a rather noticeable feature that very seldom do we talk of the people who work in the industry. Usually we are only concerned with stockholders, or people who own various interests, but never of the people who work in the industry. They are a very important factor. In the Division I represent, more than 60 per cent. are actually employed in transport, in some form or another. I made it very clear to them in my election address, and in speeches on the platform, that I was in favour of the Government's proposals to nationalise transport, to nationalise their industry.
  I was opposed in this by-election by a Conservative, a charming man who fought a clean fight. But he was batting on a sticky wicket. He made it equally clear that he was opposed to the nationalisation of transport in any way at all. To use his own words, he wanted the industry to be unfettered and free. The result we know. I was elected a Member of Parliament, and he lost his deposit, and was at the bottom of the poll. So that I have a right to say that I come here as a supporter of this Bill in its entirety, and with a mandate that gives me the right to go into the Lobby and indicate my support.
  I said I had other reasons for indicating my approval of the Bill. One is the fact that I am now expressing the viewpoint of the people engaged in the road passenger transport services. They know that the old argument put up, that this Bill is just another issue of private enterprise on the one hand, and State control on the other, is a myth. The road transport passenger industry is definitely a monopoly in England and Wales. There is no question that the British Electric Traction Company and Thomas Tilling own almost 80 per cent. of the passenger vehicles in England and Wales, apart from the municipally owned undertakings. The people who work in the industry know the methods adopted by these monoplies in order to gain this measure of control. We know the instances that have occurred again and again in order to stamp out the "small man" about whom we hear so much. They knocked him out years ago, and they gave him very poor compensation in doing so. They called that "acquiring the business". But when
  1666
  the State offers fair compensation in following the same principle, that is, takes over the industry, it is called confiscation, which is quite unfair.
  The people who work in this industry are aware that this is not a matter of the removal of private individuals, the "small men"; it is a question of a private monopoly as against State control. The issue before us is whether private monopoly is better qualified to run transport than is State control. I say there is no question that the State is far more qualified to run it than private monopoly, which is not concerned with the individual in the industry, but with the profit motive. We know something of the trials and tribulations of the workpeople in this industry.
  I now turn to the commercial road transport industry. Here is an indication by means of figures of the sort of thing that people in this industry have had to tolerate. In 1039, just before the war, 146,000 people were engaged in the commercial road transport industry. The total unemployed was 18,000. In other words, one-eighth of the people were unemployed. A Royal Commission was set up on road transport, and its decisions were:
  "That read transport haulage is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals who, whilst 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."
  We who work in the industry know the consequences of that uneconomic strife. I have just quoted the unemployment figures for the commercial road transport industry.
  There is no question that the vast majority of the people engaged in that industry are anxious to see the State take control because they know that only through State control will they be guaranteed some measure of security, some measure of consideration by which they will have a job that is worth having, a job with a future to it. Private enterprise has never offered them that. It never concerns itself with the people who are employed by it. I feel most sincerely on that point. For me, it is not a question of kicking around the old argument of the small man against the big, vast horrible State, but a question of the people in the industry being secure in their jobs. Private enterprise cannot be blamed for

  1667
  its attitude. It is not in a position to offer security, because it is based on losses and profits.
  There are a number of points which we in the industry do not favour and would like to see altered because as the Bill stands we feel there is danger in the wording. I would refer the Minister to Paragraph 12, of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
  "The body established to provide passenger transport or port facilities under such a scheme may be the Commission or any other body."
  The words to which we object are "any other body." We feel there is a danger in those words being left in the Bill. We feel that it is the responsibility of the Commission, and the Commission alone, to establish schemes, and not that of any other body. I would like some explanation from the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary why those words arc included. Another point I would like to bring to their notice is in Clause 67 dealing with passenger road transport. It states:
  "The Commission may, for any area approved by the Minister, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme as to the passenger road transport services serving the area …"
  The word to which we object is that the Commission "may." We say that the word should be "shall." I am aware of the Minister's endeavour not to be tied down by too much statutory legislation and to be allowed some freedom of action. But we, the people in the industry, the people who really count, want the Commission to be the only people responsible for preparing these schemes, and we would like that word altered.
  I wish again to refer to the Royal Commission on transport. Their findings were:
  "That there could not be a complete coordination of transport without unification of ownership and control."
  They continued:
  "It appears to as that without unification, however it may be accomplished, no attempt to bring about complete co-ordination would be successful"
  The Royal Commission could not reach agreement because they considered
  "the changes necessary would be of such a magnitude that we do not think that they could be carried out immediately."
  In other words, they knew the solution of the problem, but were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. Here we have a Minister and a Government who
  1668
  have faced up to this problem with vision and courage. They know the solution of the problem. The introduction of this Bill is proof of this fact. I, like my former colleague, say on behalf of the people who work in the industry, the people who really count in this matter, that they are behind the Minister 100 per cent. in the introduction of this Bill. Provided that the Minister remembers those people upon whom he will depend for the success of this scheme, and indicates at an early stage that he is interested in their welfare—the man who drives the vehicle, the lorry man's mate—and intends to ensure that they shall have all the consideration they are entitled to expect, I am confident that they are prepared and willing to give that co-operation which will make transport something of which we can be really proud I would conclude by expressing my appreciation to the House for their kindness and courtesy.
  6.50 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) on his maiden speech. I do not think he need have been in the least nervous about it. I have seldom heard a more easy flow of language from an hon. Member speaking for the first time in this House. I feel that he will contribute in the future to our Debates and that perhaps we shall be inclined to be a little more controversial than we were on this occasion.
  I listened with great interest to the Minister when he was making his speech. I was extremely disappointed that he gave what I thought were no adequate reasons in defence of his Bill. He explained to us that he had a mandate for it—and so did the hon. Member for Rotherhithe who, I gather, fought the election largely upon this issue—but how many of those who voted at the last General Election or at Rotherhithe were thinking of the nationalisation of the transport of the country? I know one hon. Member on the opposite side of the House who certainly was not one who advocated that transport should be transferred to Government control—at least, not road transport. I heard him address a meeting composed largely of hauliers, and he assured them that there was no such intention on the part of the Government and he gave very good reasons why that was the case. I wonder what he will say now about this Bill?

  1669
  The truth of the matter is that hon. Members opposite are obsessed with this fetish of public ownership. They have the anti-private profit complex developed to an extent which is almost ludicrous. How could we possibly conduct any kind of business without profit? I am one of those who have no hesitation in saying I am a believer in the profit motive. I believe it is one of the great motives which influence humanity and that without it there would be precious little enterprise or individual endeavour throughout the world. Hon. Members opposite tell us, too, that in economic planning lies our salvation. Economic planning, apparently, has a further interpretation which is rather different from the usual one—at least, if I understand correctly a remark made in a speech by the Minister of Fuel and Power, in what I should imagine was one of his less truculent moods, when he was ruminating a little upon the consequences of what he was doing. He said:
  "Now we have gained power we recognise our limitations and shortcomings in the field of actual preparation. We had very little guidance in detail, so that when we come to legislation and detail we had to improvise."
  Improvisation is the word now; improvisation, apparently, is another term for economic planning. We could not have a better example of it than is afforded by this Bill. The Minister of Transport seems to be a complete believer in improvisation. He rejected with contempt any idea of an inquiry before he brought forward this Measure. I cannot understand why he should take that view. What the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said just now, is perfectly true. There has been no inquiry into the "integration" of transport. So far as I know, we have never really had any public inquiry since the Salter Report and, as the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) who was chairman of the Commission which made the inquiry himself explained in the House, they had not had time or the authority to deal with that subject, but had recommended that there should be such an inquiry.
  It is obvious now when practically the whole of the transport of the country is to be coordinated, reviewed and reconstructed, that so great a change should not have been attempted unless there had been some definite inquiry as to the best
  1670
  method of doing it. It is perfectly absurd to suppose that this Bill has been properly thought out or is anything but a move in the dark. It does not promise the country the slightest evidence that what we want and need—cheaper and more efficient transport—will be the result. At this moment when trade and industry must be revived at all costs, it is a great mistake suddenly to change the whole of the administration of the transport services of the country.
  What is the advantage of this type of public ownership? Really, so far as I can see, it makes the Minister of Transport a dictator. I should say that it makes him more powerful than any Minister has ever been in the history of this country. I intend to confine my remarks and criticisms of the Bill to this side of the question. It was dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in his speech, but I do not think it can be made too evident to the public at large what the powers of the Minister are to be under this Bill. I consider this is the gravest charge against the Measure as a whole. I will enumerate some of these powers. The Minister is to appoint the Commission, the Executives, the Central Transort Consultative Committees, and he may, if he so chooses, abolish any of these committees. He also appoints the Transport Tribunal. He may give directions to the Commission on matters affecting the "national interest" whatever that may mean. I cannot find any definition in the Bill which really explains what is meant by those words. Not only can the Minister do this, but the Commission must act on the lines laid down by him in framing programmes of reorganisation or development which involve substantial capital outlay, and must also obtain his consent to lend money, to give guarantees, or to acquire certain transport undertakings by agreement.
  Major Poole: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that if the Minister has such wide powers this House, by virtue of its control over the Minister, retains unto itself a wider degree of control over this Measure of nationalisation than under any other previous one which has been before us?
  Sir C. Headlam: I do not deny that the Minister is responsible to the House, but I have sufficient experience of public affairs

  1671
  to know that that does not necessarily prevent a Minister from using his powers to the full. Of course, he is responsible to Parliament, but if we give him in an Act of Parliament all these powers, I do not quite see—
  Major Poole: To take it one stage further, we might make a comparison between the provisions in this Bill and those contained in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. This House has no power to challenge the Minister on any appointments which the National Coal Board may make. Therefore, I think the House is in a very weak position in that respect. Under this Bill, however, this House retains full powers to inquire why any man is appointed to any position.
  Sir C. Headlam: I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman voted for the Act of which he disapproves. I disapprove of that Act entirely. I do not see that the point which he makes is an important one. Whether or not the National Coal Board is directly responsible to Parliament, it is obvious that if this House took exception to anything it did, the matter would be brought to the notice of the Minister of Fuel and Power. In this Bill, the ultimate position is the same, but we are definitely giving all these powers to the Minister and that is what I object to.
  Let me give some more examples. The Minister may require the Commission to discontinue any of their activities or dispose of any part of their undertakings. The Minister has to approve all coordination schemes for passenger transport or for port facilities under Part IV of the Bill. The Minister may also direct the Commission to prepare charges for submission to the Transport Tribunal, and he can require the Tribunal to review such charges. Further, the Tribunal may not do anything inconsistent with the directions given by the Minister to the Commission. The Minister may also exempt the Commission from statutory provisions as respects undue preference. I do not know what that means, but it seems to me that there may be a rather sinister interpretation of that provision, which the Minister may like to explain later on. The Minister's consent is necessary, as well as that of the Treasury, for the exercise by the Commission of their borrowing powers, and the Minister
  1672
  may give the Commission specific directions regarding the form of their accounts. Indeed, there is hardly anything in which the Minister is not to have his say. We are to be entirely under the dead hand of Whitehall—or rather of Berkeley Square—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? I was wondering whether he will explain to the House, on the assumption that the railways are to be nationalised, which of the Minister's powers he would dispense with? Would he prefer the Commission not to be responsible to anyone?
  Sir C. Headlam: I do not quite understand the question. Would the hon. Member like me to go through all these powers again and say which of them I think it is desirable should be reserved for the Minister?
  Mr. Silverman: Surely, I am putting a perfectly plain question, and, I hope, a fair one. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is reciting a list of the powers which the Minister is given under the Bill. I am asking him to say that, assuming that this House has decided in favour of nationalised transport, which of these powers would he think the Minister should not have?
  Sir C. Headlam: I should have thought that, if the Commission is to run the transport of this country, it should not be entirely under the control of the Minister.
  Mr. Silverman: Answerable to nobody?
  Sir C. Headlam: The Commission should be a body able to judge its own business.
  Mr. Silverman: Answerable to whom?
  Sir C. Headlam: Answerable to public opinion and to Parliament.
  I notice that, in the Press yesterday, we were told that the Government were getting particularly anxious about the number of officials and the growing bulk of the Civil Service, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was examining this increase with a view to reduction and that the Treasury was requiring the Departments to examine the number of their personnel with a view to cutting them

  1673
  down. Why this Government which, every day in the week, increases the number of the Civil Service, has suddenly decided that some of its personnel should come out, though perhaps to reappear in another place later, I do not know; but it is clear to me that, if this Bill passes into law, the present personnel of the Ministry of Transport will not be sufficient. There must be an increase in the administrative and technical personnel in that Department. When I had the honour of serving in that Department some years ago, I thought that we were under-staffed for the work we had to do. What the condition of things now must be I do not know, but, if this Bill passes into law, it is certain that the Department must be increased enormously, and there will, undoubtedly, be a great increase in personnel throughout the whole of the transport services.
  I do not intend to detain the House any longer, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. I think each hon. Member would be well advised to direct his remarks to particular aspects of the Bill, and not to attempt to go through all its many failings; otherwise, there would be few, but very long, speeches. I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill because it is unjust and unfair, and because it is not calculated in any way to increase the trade, commerce and general well-being of this country. I am certain that it is grossly unfair to the haulage industry, and I am not at all convinced that it is right or proper to take the powers that the Minister is taking over the ports of this country. I shall vote against it with an intense desire that it may never pass into law.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Wilkins: I am rather encouraged in my few observations of mild criticism of one or two Clauses of this Bill by the invitation which the Minister himself gave when presenting the Measure to the House. The right hon. Gentleman invited us to make any criticisms—if possible, constructive criticisms—and said he would be pleased to accept them. So, while welcoming in all its general principles and proposals, this comprehensive and somewhat intricate Transport Bill, I nevertheless desire to call the Minister's attention to the serious situation which may arise—I say "may"—under the provisions of Clauses 27 and 70 of the Bill as it now stands, in relation
  1674
  to the municipally-owned dock undertakings, especially where their position is brought into comparison with their hitherto formidable competitors—the railway-owned docks, which will, most certainly, come under public ownership under the terms of this Measure.
  I am advised that there are only two major municipally-owned docks in the country—at Preston and Bristol. That is, of course, not bringing into review the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and other similar trusts. I need hardly remind the House, and certainly not the Minister, who has visited our undertaking at Bristol, of the great part played in the war by our docks, and, even more important, by our dockworkers at Avonmouth and Portishead, who set up many records during the war for the rapid turn round of both inward and outward-bound troops and food convoys. Their importance, at the time, was due largely to the fact that they were situated on the Western seaboard, at a time when enemy bombing activities were seriously menacing the docks on the East coast, and, particularly the Port of London. Because of this, and even for reasons of strategy alone, the Transport Commission, through its Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, will most certainly be bringing the future of these docks under review, and I hope that, if the Minister is himself able to reveal what is likely to happen in this connection, he will do so during the course of the Debate or through my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies.
  If we look at Clause 70 (4, d), we may readily discover the cause for the anxiety and apprehension in the minds of those responsible for the operation of municipal docks like Bristol, Preston and many other smaller local authority undertakings Subsection (3) of the Clause says:
  "(3) The Commission may, in respect of any trade harbour or group of trade harbours, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, the co-ordination of the provision of port facilities in or in connection with the harbour or group of harbours."
  Then Subsection (4, d)—and this is the important point which I want to make here—says:
  "Any such scheme may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—(d) for specifying the port facilities which are

  1675
  to be provided in or in connection with the harbour or group of harbours, and for prohibiting or restricting the provision of port facilities in or in connection with the harbour or group of harbours. …"
  I listened attentively to the speech of the Minister, in the hope that some elucidation of this vague, and I think to some extent intriguing, proposal contained in Subsection (4, d) would be forthcoming. But we had no guidance or explanation of any sort. I know the Minister did explain to the House—and I accept the explanation —that the Bill was so long and complicated that he could not deal in detail with all such items as this. But I do ask him, or whoever is to reply, to say what these prohibitions and restrictions are to be.
  On the Welsh side of the Severn estuary there is a formidable array of railway-owned docks—Cardiff, Barry, Newport, and Swansea; and farther up the river there are the Sharpness and Gloucester docks. It is clearly indicated in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the Bill that all those are to be taken over, and their securities are to be replaced by British Transport Stock. Now, in all probability these docks will form one of the groups of harbours envisaged in Clause 70 (4, a).
  Any fears which I, or the Port of Bristol Authority, may have in this connection may be entirely unfounded. I sincerely hope they are unfounded, and perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say that that is so. But I hope he will indicate what will happen to us in Bristol—and probably in Preston. Are we to be brought completely into public ownership, or are the docks—and this is a rather important point—to operate as an independent undertaking in competition with, say, the harbour group which I have previously mentioned, but under the direction of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, with its powers for prohibiting or restricting the provision of port facilities?
  This brings me to the question of the financial provisions of the Bill. Speaking in general terms, securities are to be replaced by British Transport Stock. Clause 27, however, sets out the provisions which arc to apply to local authorities. Now, I have tried to make it clear in my earlier remarks that, so far as I am aware, there are only two major municipally-owned docks in the country.
  1676
  There are, I think, about 70 very small municipal docks which merely amount to a small harbour or quay, or something of that sort. Therefore, these provisions will apply essentially to the two major undertakings which I have already mentioned. If the House will bear with me, I can quote only what will happen in the case of the Port of Bristol Authority, because I am very closely associated with that undertaking. The, compensation which is provided under Clause 27 is not a lump sum represented by British Transport Stock, but an annual consideration in lieu thereof equal to the present commitments under the sinking fund contribution, plus interest on outstanding loans, until such time as the sinking funds are sufficient to redeem the securities issued in respect of the stock of the dock undertaking.
  This means, in effect, taking the period ending 31st March, 1946, that for assets which are worth £11,050,000 the compensation payable will be roughly £5,175,000. The Commission is, therefore, acquiring assets costing £5,875,000, in round figures, without recompense to the city for then-original outlay. I would remind my right hon. Friend that a large part of the land upon which the dock works are built is included in the debt already redeemed. If an Order were made under Clause 70 the Commission would, therefore, acquire valuable industrial land, some of which is not yet built upon, without any payment whatever. I would like to make this point, that in rates-in-aid which the city has contributed towards the docks there is a sum of something like £3,500,000, most of which has been a set-off against sinking fund obligations imposed under various Acts and Orders. The Transport Bill does not provide a means for compensating the city for their outlay in providing capital assets.
  There is one other point on the financial aspect of the matter so far as a city owning its dock is concerned. The financial terms which are proposed in respect of undertakings taken over from local authorities are based on outstanding debt. It appears, therefore, that the Bristol Docks could be acquired much more cheaply than any of the others. I think the same position would actually apply to Preston, according to the figures which I have had given to me. But in Bristol there are assets to the value of £11,050,000, and the outstanding debt is

  1677
  £5,175,000, which means that the percentage of compensation to the value of the assets is only 46.8. In the case of the Port of London Authority, where there are capital assets of something like £42,471,000, with an outstanding debt of £36,673,000, the percentage of compensation to the value of the assets would be roughly 86.4. The same applies very largely to the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. The adverse effect on Bristol is due to the more onerous sinking fund obligations imposed on local authorities for the redemption of debt. I appeal to the Minister to look again at Clause 27 before the Bill goes to a Standing Committee, with a view to its amendment to make some slightly more generous provision for local authorities. I do not think local authorities have it in their minds that they should be recompensed to the full amount of the expenditure that they have made upon their dock undertakings through their rates. But they definitely have it in their minds that the Minister could partially meet obligations which they have entered into in the past, or which the ratepayers have been called upon to finance in the past.
  There is only one other point, which I will deal with very briefly. I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider amending the second paragraph in Clause 40 (2)—which relates to goods which are to be exempt and the distance that they may be carried—to make provision for the carriage of perishable farm produce. It may be that under the provisions of the Bill it will be easily possible for produce-brokers who have been accustomed to collecting their farm produce from certain farms outside a 40-mile radius to obtain a special licence, but I would like to quote this one example. Practically all the produce brokers in Bristol go to the surrounding countryside, Evesham and Bedfordshire, to collect farm produce. I am informed, reliably I think, that Bedfordshire is rather difficult from the point of view of rail transport into Bristol. What it means is, that the broker can normally go out overnight, leaving in the afternoon, collect produce which has been cut on the farms the same afternoon, and bring it into the city so that it is actually on the housewives' tables, fresh, within 24 hours of being cut on the farm. As I say, it may be that provision is already in the Bill for an extension in the licences which may
  1678
  be granted for the radius of operation, but I would like the Minister to be rather more explicit on this point—a request which I have been asked by other hon. Members to make. Could we therefore have a more explicit statement when the reply to the Debate is made?
  7.22 p.m.
  Viscountess Davidson: I have no desire to detain the House long but I feel it essential to express very strongly my disapproval of the Government's action in bringing in a Bill to nationalise transport, particularly at this moment when we are passing through a very anxious transitional stage in which the extension of our trade must not be hampered, and industry must not be asked to carry unnecessary burdens. It is impossible to touch on all the aspects of this Bill, and I must content myself by saying that I look on this Bill as a thoroughly bad Bill, which will create chaos in industry and retard our recovery.
  We all realise that the Socialist Party believes implicitly in nationalisation. But the test of any such scheme is first, will it work, and secondly, will the public receive the best service under it? Thirdly, will it create efficiency or inefficiency? That is what really matters at the present moment. Those of us who had the opportunity of examining transport questions during the war, know that much chaos resulted from the central direction of our war transport. Had it not been for the war, I think many scandals would have been apparent. There were cases of lorries sent empty from the North of England to the South, of men kept hanging about for hours—a waste of time and of manpower—and I can see in the future many ships being kept waiting for goods which should have gone in them, because transport will not be available for the firms who wish to send those goods abroad.
  The efficient running of an industry means prosperity for that industry, therefore individual firms cannot afford to be inefficient, particularly when they know they are up against sharp competition and that, if they do not do the job they are asked to do, some other firm will be asked to do it instead. Waste of money cannot be allowed by an individual firm or by an individual owner, but what is the position under central control? The expenditure of public funds (out of the pockets of the individual taxpayers) is very often far

  1679
  distant from the minds of those who are running the organisation at the centre, and though those men may have the very best intentions, it is not the same as if they were dealing with their own money, or the money of their own shareholders. One has only to listen to the Debates in this House to realise how apparently easily and lightly the present Government spends other people's money. How is our export trade to succeed, if manufacturers have to obtain licences for transport and have to wait in queues for those licences for a very long period? I cannot see how we are going to compete against foreign countries and get back our export trade. Yet at this moment we are being pressed by different Departments to expand our production and our export trade with as little delay as possible, and on our being successful in so doing depends the livelihood of the bulk of the people of our country.
  With regard to the question of compensation, it is tragic to have to admit that we have reached the position where the Government bring in legislation which will cause unnecessary suffering to thousands of people. Many of these people have been themselves employees of the railway companies, they are living on small pensions, and have invested their money in the companies because of the high standard of the security. They are people who are suffering very greatly already because their pensions or their small incomes have not increased, while the expenses of living have greatly increased. Under this Bill their position will be far more serious than it was before. I very much hope that the Minister may be able to reconsider the question of compensation. Otherwise it will certainly appear that neither the Minister nor the Government is interested in a very un-vocal but large section of the population who, through no fault of their own, live on small incomes from investments.
  I am very glad that the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins) brought up the matter of the carriage of farm produce because I want to say a few words about the men who hold "C" licences. These men carry goods, very often perishable goods, from farms and other outlying productive centres to the towns where the goods are sold I cannot understand who, in the Ministry of Transport, decided on
  1680
  the 40-mile radius; whoever made that decision cannot have had any personal experience of how these goods are handled. The 40-mile limit will make it impossible for these perishable goods to be carried. Hardly any of these men who hold "C" licences have any idea of when they will be called upon to collect the goods, or how far they will have to take them. I do not suppose there are many hon. Members who have not received a very large number of letters from individual drivers who hold "C" licences. I wonder if I may be allowed to quote one extract, which could be multiplied a hundred times? This writer—it is a letter I received only this morning—expresses the view that the 40-mile limit will seriously hamper him in carrying on his business, and cause immense inconvenience to the public. I speak as one representing an agricultural constituency, where the bulk of these people live, but may I say that hon. Members who represent the towns will feel this a great deal more seriously in the near future, because it is they who will get the repercussions from the public when these goods are not as easily available as they have been in the past? The writer of the letter states:
  "You will realise that the perishable nature of the goods I handle makes it imperative that they be transported from the farms on which they are grown to my premises with the least delay possible. If this is not done it means that the vegetables reaching the shops in the area are in a stale and unattractive state. As this district is not a market garden centre, I am forced to draw a very large percentage of my produce from Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. If my limit is reduced to 40 miles, it will mean that I shall be barred from making journeys to the latter two counties. As things are at present, I can always ring up my supplier when I find myself running short of anything and can arrange to fetch further supplies almost immediately. If, however, I am compelled to rely on other transport, it is obvious that I must make my arrangements several days in advance, and as it is quite impossible to tell my exact requirements for any given period, I cannot but be continually either short of these goods or over-stocked. As every wholesaler in this constituency will be similarly placed, I urge you to do all in your power to see that this trade is added to the present list of exemptions from the 40-mile limit."
  I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider this question, because it will affect vitally not only these men who hold "C" licences, but a very large section of the population. I believe that before very long, the public will

  1681
  look back on this day as the day on which the Government made one of their greatest mistakes. We cannot, alas, prevent that mistake; we cannot defeat the Government; we cannot prevent the damage being done, but we shall be able to comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we have warned the country, that we have worked against this Bill, and spoken against it, and I am glad to say that I shall also be voting against it.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr.. Monslow: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this Debate, as I have been closely associated with the railway industry for a number of years, and I am vitally interested in this problem of transport. I listened to the arguments which have been adduced by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and I have heard so far no constructive or concrete proposals as an alternative to the Measure which has been submitted to the House by the Government. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members opposite might take the opportunity of mixing with the staffs of rail and road transport undertakings and discussing the problem with them. They would then find that the average employee, whatever his position, sincerely believes that the time has come when the nationalisation of railways and road transport should become an accomplished fact, within a State-transport organisation. Some may ask why consideration should be given only to employees. They are vitally interested in this fundamental change, and I would beg the Minister to take into account, when dealing with this Measure in its later stages, the views of those engaged in these vital industries. But what of the public point of view? By the will of the people, a Government, pledged to a policy of nationalisation, are in power with a great majority, and what is more important, are giving effect to their policy. I want to say a word on another aspect of the matter.
  "Countries, which at a given moment are not masters of their transport, will be condemned to ruin in the economic struggles of the future."
  So said John Stuart Mill, and I endorse the sentiments he expressed. Those who have been in close contact with the railway industry, have become weary of the lip service paid by capitalist politicians. In times past, railway nationalisation has been recognised as essential. May I refer
  1682
  to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—which I do not need to reiterate—and to the reply of the Lord President of the Council in the Debate on the Address? It was then shown that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford had given nationalisation his 'blessing. May I also remind hon. Members that that illustrious Welshman, Mr. David Lloyd George, as he then was, also gave his blessing to nationalisation in days gone by, as did Sir Eric Geddes? All of them have betrayed the nation's trust in this and other matters of extreme gravity. In 1918, Mr. Lloyd George, then Prime Minister, told a deputation of the British Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee that he was in complete sympathy with the projects for railway and canal nationalisation. He said that the State's superior credit would create economies, permitting the payment of better wages to the workers, and the provision of better facilities for the trading and travelling public. He complained of the waste which took place under private enterprise. May I recall another memorable speech, delivered in this House, on 17th March, 1919, by a former very distinguished Member, Sir Eric Geddes? On the Second Reading of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill, he said:
  "Except in the one bright instance of the municipal tramways, the transportation systems of this country today are not prosperous. But the system of transportation is the creation of the community."
  It has been developed, he said, under legislation which was "illogical" and "almost incomprehensible." Private enterprise, he said, "makes for colossal waste" and he continued:
  "The transportation agencies will be comparatively barren and sterile in economy and development until this unified control is brought in. … This will come as a shock to some who believe in individualist effort. … The railway interest is a community interest. Agriculture has got to be developed. … The State must come in and make economies possible … If you cannot get efficiency by means of private management, then nationalise. … We must not commit the folly of our predecessors and allow the development of every system on its own principles, and of every system according to the whims and notions of those who introduce it. … Transportation is the greatest power that we have for bringing prosperity to the community. … We must eliminate wasteful haulage; we must standardise. … One of the first acts which the Government will take, will be to acquire on lair terms the private

  1683
  wagons of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1919; Vol. 113, c. 1761–84.]
  Surely, strong language from a non-Socialist. Lord Leathers, who was Minister of War Transport, has said that what is needed is a transport system so co-ordinated and run that -it can provide the best possible service for the least real cost to the community as a whole.
  The present railway position is governed by the Railways Act, 1921, which has simplified the problem of nationalisation. Hitherto there were 125 companies, with all their managers, and 700 directors. Now there are only four companies, with their general managers, and 102 directors. I presume that that was done in the interest of efficiency, and I suggest that if it was done in the interest of efficiency, the argument for further amalgamation, unification and nationalisation, into one system, is complete. The inevitability of complete unification and nationalisation was admitted as early as 1844, when an Act was passed enabling the State to purchase all railways constructed after that date, at 25 years purchase upon three months notice. Under the Regulations of the Forces Act, 1871, the Government took control of the railways at the outbreak of war in 1914. The Defence of the Realm Act and Regulations of 1914, and similar previous Acts, have enunciated the principle that in times of public necessity, the Crown was always entitled to take over private undertakings. We on this side of the House maintain that in the interests of efficiency, and in view of the universally recognised principle of the supremacy of public need over all other considerations in wartime, that same philosophy shall apply also in peacetime.
  May I briefly refer to main line railways and road haulage associations? Adversity makes strange bedfellows. I remember vividly that, a short time ago, the main line railway companies were appealing for a "square deal" against their road competitors. The Road Haulage Association were fighting to hold a privileged position whereby they could accept or refuse traffic. Each was endeavouring to secure and maintain their undertakings on the highest profit-earning basis. Now that the Government have decided to give effect to the will of the people these former competitors in the industry have decided to forgo their
  1684
  differences—or at least to marry then-interests—in the hope that they might work together to defeat the Government, and perhaps delay the inevitable nationalisation of the industry. That is most audacious effrontery. But the days of capitalist exploitation are drawing to a close.
  I want to say a word or two about the problem of compensation, on which I shall probably have something more to say during the Committee stage. The suggestion has been made, through the medium of the yellow Press, that those associated with the trade unions will lose income as a result of the payment of compensation under this Bill. May I say, on behalf of the great bulk of railway workers, that we are not prepared to examine the Bill solely from the point of view of monetary considerations. We are primarily concerned that this Bill will, for the first time, make for improved conditions, and the economic security of the railway workers, which are more important considerations. But I warn the Minister that we shall not stand for procrastination and delay. There has been too much procrastination and delay under private enterprise. There will be no such delay, I hope, in the creation of the necessary machinery to effect a definite improvement in the economic life of the workers engaged in this vital industry.
  Unless there is a fundamental change, nationalisation will have no meaning for those in the industry. We expect a Socialist Government to be model employers, and I warn even this Government that if they fail in that direction, the results will be catastrophic, and nationalisation will not be the factor it should be in promoting the wellbeing of our people. I congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill. The great bulk of those associated with the railway industry have longed for such a Measure for many years past, and they will wish to see it placed on the Statute Book.
  743 p.m.
  Mr. Glossop: I should have liked to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) in what she said about "C" licences, because I can assure her that while her postbag is large, mine is much larger on the same subject. I appreciate and support what my hon. Friend said, but as there are so many

  1685
  Members who wish to take part in this Debate I want to confine myself to one aspect of this Bill. I should like to say something about the road passenger transport industry which, after all, affects not only the towns, but also the countryside. Along our country lanes, for many years past, private passenger services have been provided to enable our people to go to market. I have some small knowledge of this industry, because I happen to be a director of a bus company in Yorkshire [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear, from the other side of the House, some ironical applause, which would seem to suggest that I am talking from the point of view of a vested interest.
  In 1919, where I lived, a man was left £200 by a local doctor, who had employed him as his coachman. That man came to my father and said that he wanted to start a bus service with a charabanc, which, would be open in the summer time and would have a glass roof in the winter. My father said, "I have known you for 40 years. You are a hard working and thrifty man, but I will not lend you the £200 to put into a charabanc because you will lose your money. If you wish to put it into an ironmonger's business, or a farm, or a smallholding, you can have it." My father may not have realised what passenger transport might become. The man got his money, and started with his charabanc. Then he got two or three buses, and provided a service where nobody else did so. Eventually, his undertaking was taken over and became the East Yorkshire Motor Bus Company. That is private enterprise for you. It is all very well for Members opposite to slang people for their private enterprise, but had it not been for private enterprise and the wealth which it creates, none of these wildcat theories of nationalisation could have been put into effect by the Socialist Party.
  I want to assure the House that under the present system of management of privately owned bus companies it is the policy that the local manager shall be given the maximum amount of authority and power. When you are dealing with a bus undertaking 200 miles from London circumstances change from day to day. The requirements of a particular route vary at frequent intervals and, therefore, it is essential that the general manager shall be given the right to decide upon, and provide for, the services that are required. We have heard from people who
  1686
  support the Government that transport should not be a private monopoly. Is that really true of the industry? I hope, in a moment or two, to show that that monopoly does not, in fact, exist. Our present passenger transport system is indeed unique. It is efficient; it is cheap; it is coordinated; it is effectively controlled; the interests of the travelling public are protected from exploitation. Its sufficiency has on many occasions been praised by those who support the Government, and by many Members of this House who now hold high office in the Government. Even such an august body as the National Executive of the Socialist Party has paid tribute to the efficiency of the country's passenger transport services.
  It is an undisputed fact that there is no form of mechanical transport which is cheaper than an omnibus. If Members think that that is a sweeping statement I would reply that there are several passenger transport undertakings which offer travel at a cost of less than a halfpenny per passenger mile. If anybody doubts that he should inquire of the fares of the Merseyside services of the Ribble Motor Company. It is true to say that the fares throughout the country as a whole are about one penny per passenger per mile. There has been already, without a Socialist Government in office, widespread co-ordination of services between both companies and municipalities. For example, in my own constituency, which bounds on the ancient and important city of Hull, there has been for many years a joint committee of the bus company and the corporation with regard to the inter-running of their two services I can say, without hesitation, that where it is necessary in the interests of the travelling public—and, after all, this Bill, or any other Measure, should be in the interests of the public—that there should be coordination, then co-ordination has been achieved.
  The Minister, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill—and I should like to make it clear that I have only my notes of what he said, and I do not wish to put into his mouth anything which he did not say—said that if the buses of the country were brought under national control, the country bus services would synchronise with the railway services at the rail head. Where geographically possible, that is already being done. There has been great

  1687
  road and rail coordination. It may interest hon. Members opposite to know the extent of the coordination between road and rail at the present time. The main line railway companies have been for many years large shareholders in the large bus companies, and there is a very close working between them. If I may give an example, it is an extremely difficult railway journey between Doncaster and Barnsley. It is necessary to change on the way, and there are only about two passenger trains a day. There is, however, a bus service every half-hour. That is coordination without the compulsion of nationalisation. There is most effective control at the present time with regard to fares, routes and frequencies.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he, therefore, disagrees with the statement of the Chairman of Tilling who, at the last annual general meeting of Tilling's, stated that there was no coordination on the scale that there should be between road and rail passenger transport?
  Mr. Glossop: I am much more interested in the views of the travelling public than I am of any individual man, and if the hon. Gentleman will come with me during the Christmas Recess to Doncaster, and ask, outside the station, what transport facilities there are between Doncaster and Barnsley, everyone will tell him that since there has been coordination between the bus company and the railway company it is much easier to travel between those two important coalmining towns. There is at the present time most effective control with regard to fares, routes, frequencies of services, conditions of vehicles and even labour conditions. This is exercised by the Traffic Commission under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
  There has been plenty of control, and the Road Traffic Commissioners can exercise that control over the whole omnibus system of the country. Under the Road Traffic Act. every road operator has to obtain a licence to operate on a given route. There may be some hon. Members who think that when once a licence has been granted its renewal is automatic. That is not so. Every licence comes up for renewal within a period of one year and three years, and even during the continuance of a licence it may be reviewed by the Commissioners, who may direct other operators to run on that particular route.
  Mr. David Jones: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to have local managers on the spot, because the services changed from day to day, and they could meet the changed situation. How does that come about if a bus cannot be put on the road without a licence from the Traffic Commissioner who has to post a notice of proceedings for at least 14 days before he can hear an application?
  Mr. Glossop: The answer is that we have very good Traffic Commissioners in this country, and some very sensible managers of bus companies. When we get two sensible men in a particular area discussing problems we get satisfaction for the travelling public, which we will never get if the Commissioners are sitting in London and have civil servants controlling the bus services in Yorkshire or Lancashire. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, there is in fact no real monopoly in the way that hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to suggest. When an application is made for a licence to operate a service there is an inquiry by the Traffic Commissioners, which is held in public, and any member of the general public has a right to make his voice heard when the licences are granted. The hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested that I am trying to suggest that this system does not work at the present time, but the fact remains that the Traffic Commissioners have no difficulty in securing all the services which they think are necessary to be provided by the existing operators.
  The Minister suggested that under the present system there were many people in the countryside who had no bus facilities, because it did not pay to run a bus service, but once we nationalise the thing—the word "nationalise" to some hon. Gentlemen is almost like holding out a piece of candy to a child—once we nationalise the bus industry of the country, then the country districts would automatically get a service. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that at the present time a large number of operators run a substantial proportion of their services at a loss. They continue to do so, because if they did not provide a service on an unremunerative route, the Traffic Commissioners would say, "If you. will not operate from A to B—we

  1689
  know it is not an economic route—we shall take away from your existing licence a section of your economic route."
  Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. Gentleman say how long it would be possible for a person to operate a bus service at a loss?
  Mr. Glossop: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman opposite suggests that the bus companies are not making money. I thought that one object of nationalisation was to take over something that was profitable. I will give him two instances. Forty-eight per cent. of the services operated by the Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Company, and 64 per cent. of the services run by the Southern National Omnibus Company are actually run at a loss.
  Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company is indirectly a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company, and that that company has by no means done badly in this industry, since its ordinary shares are standing at 10 or 12 times their nominal value?
  Mr. Glossop: I am prepared to admit that the company to which the hon. and learned Member refers is a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company. The only bus company of which I am a director is also a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company, but the accounts are kept separately. I am not suggesting, because a company runs on certain routes which are uneconomic, that, taking all the routes and fares, it will lose money. What I suggest is that with the power of the Traffic Commissioners in the background, private enterprise has been prepared to run uneconomic services, but that if the Traffic Commissioners had not been there, people being what they are might merely have operated the more profitable routes.
  I want now to deal with the proposals in the Bill regarding the omnibus services. Power is taken in Part IV for the Commission to put forward schemes for the Minister to operate services in any particular area and to provide for the passenger road transport needs of that area. It may well be that a scheme will appear out of the hat without the existing operators even being consulted The autocracy of a future Minister of Transport—not, I
  1690
  admit, the present Minister, but Ministers of Transport come and go—might be such that he could make a scheme effective by Order. Furthermore, the Minister may initiate a scheme by directing the Commissioners to proffer one. The Minister is to be both prosecuted and judge, and even a little more. Under these schemes there is to be no provision whatever for an independent inquiry into the merits of the schemes. Under the present Road Traffic Act, public inquiries, have to be held by the Commission, but under this Bill no requirement is placed on the Minister to hold such an inquiry. I suggest that a greater departure from the traditional standards of fairness and justice of this country could hardly be imagined than that which is made by this Bill. An equally unfair effect of Part IV, which deals with the passenger transport industry, is that the mighty British Transport Commission, and any bodies which they may set up under the scheme to provide a bus service, will presumably be exempt from the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the licensing of services. The fares and the frequency of services will be removed from the local knowledge which the very excellent and knowledgeable Traffic Commissioners have at the present time. It may be possible, under the piecemeal arrangements of Part IV, that there will be an operator running under the direction of the Traffic Commissioners and a State-owned bus running under the direction of the Commission. Omnibus fares, which a large majority of the people of this country pay daily, will be removed from the august atmosphere of the Transport Tribunal.
  With regard to compensation, we have often heard that, under the nationalisation proposals, the Government intend to deal fairly with the people who have their money invested in industries which are to nationalized. Under Part II of the Bill, which deals with how railway shareholdings are to be nationalized, the Minister has power to compensate. If he does not like that part of the Bill, he has an alternative under Part III, which deals with the road haulage industry. If he does not like either of those two methods, under Paragraph (I, c) of the Sixth Schedule he can do exactly what he likes. In other words, compensation is to be at the entire discretion of the Minister. He may award it under Part II or Part III, or on any other basis that he thinks fit.

  1691
  This matter might even be so handled as to give only token compensation for nationalisation.
  What really is the case for the nationalisation of the road passenger transport industry? I say, in all humility, that the result of this Bill if it becomes law, will be bureaucracy run riot. Criticism of the Commissioners who are to provide us with transport will be very difficult, because there will be such a veil of secrecy with regard to their accounts that it will be almost impossible to extract any information from the Minister of Transport. There is one thing that I think may have more influence on hon. Members opposite than anything else I have said. Like hon. Members on this side of the House, they will have received a letter from the Public Transport Association, Inc. That body represents no fewer than 42,000 passenger vehicles of all kinds—not taxis and private hire cars, but buses, trams and the like. The organisation is not a company organisation, but is a body that is equally supported by the municipalities. At a recent meeting, as the letter tells us, the council of that body unanimously decided that the proposals contained in the Bill are ill considered and unfair, and they urged hon. Members that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
  It is the opinion, not of politically biased people, but of people who have spent their lives in running the road passenger transport industry, that under nationalisation bus fares will increase. We have already had the illustration of London Transport which, after all, is almost a nationalised system of transport. Under any system of nationalised transport there must be increasing fares, because the more profitable and cheaper routes have to subsidise the less profitable ones. I have already pointed out that there is no cheaper means of transport than the ordinary passenger motor bus. If this Bill becomes law we shall be saddled in this country with an impersonal and soulless body which is inevitable when the State is the director of the activities of industry. I would say to the Minister of Transport and to his successors, whoever they may be, that never perhaps in the history of Parliament has it been proposed to place so much patronage in the hands of any one man as will rest on the Minister
  1692
  of Transport if this House is so stupid as to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for the very lucid and comprehensive statement which he made at the beginning of this Debate. I was interested in the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who referred to the misgivings he had in connection with the structure of this Bill. Looking at the general structure, one feels that a very sound basis has been laid by the Minister, which will provide an efficient national transport service. The provision in the Bill for the appointment of a small Transport Commission to decide questions of general policy will, i believe, be welcomed as a wise decision on the part of the Minister. If the Minister selects the right type of person with the qualifications laid down in the Bill I am satisfied in my own mind that he will have a Commission capable of producing the type of organisation which is necessary if this industry is to be brought within a system of unification.
  The question of the appointment of the Executives representing the various sections of the industry appears to me to be an important step in the right direction. I am also interested in the proposal to appoint a Central Transport Consultative Committee, and also a Transport Users Consultative Committee for passenger and goods traffic. I believe that the Central Transport Consultative Committee will be a very useful body for examining the important points raised by the various Transport Users Consultative Committee and for keeping under constant review the many problems which will arise in connection with this vital industry. What I particularly welcome is the fact that the users, whether they be ordinary passengers or industrial concerns interested in goods traffic, will, through the appropriate Users Consultative Committee, have an effective channel through which they can make their representations. It is worthy of note that for the first time in the history of British transport, users are to be given special recognition.
  May I make a suggestion to the Minister in respect of the setting up of these Committees? It is that as far as possible

  1693
  they should be of a local character, so that the local problems can find effective expression. To my mind it would be an advantage if one of the district officers were attached to each of these local advisory committees for the purpose of keeping correct the view of the committee and advising the committee upon the position of the undertaking in the particular area affected.
  The history of British transport has not been very happy. The motive of profit played the greater part in its development. Public needs were subservient to profit. We have had a large number of Acts of Parliament dealing with one aspect or another of the transport problem arising from the growth of road transport. Railway companies have complained of unfair competition in the past. Taxation was increased upon road transport. The Road Traffic Act, 1934, was passed to ensure greater safety on the roads and to effect improvements in the law for the benefit of the general public. If we look at the state of our railway undertakings today, no one can dispute that they still leave much to be desired even if we make allowances for the intervening war years. It cannot be claimed that they have made progress in keeping with other industries. The House will be aware that the failure to modernise our railway system has caused great concern in many large and small local authorities throughout the country. Many local authorities, often yielding to the pressure of local industries, have passed unanimous resolutions supported by Labour, Conservative and Liberal members, protesting in the strongest terms against inadequate railway facilities.
  Let me cite for a moment my own constituency, the great industrial city of Bradford—Bradford with its large industrial population, its world-wide trade, its municipal and cultural reputation, a city with a proud past and a very great future. The city council and the industrial concerns there are strongly critical of the lack of main line railway facilities and are pressing their claim with force and vigour. They have been repeatedly turned down by the railway companies, yet they feel that the importance of the city warrants main line facilities. I suggest that the case of Bradford is a clear case in which private profit has been placed before public need. As a nation we cannot afford to allow this state
  1694
  of affairs to continue. Our transport system must be a live and vigorous partner in the industrial life of the nation.
  Mr. Osborne: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Bradford may I ask him, Is there not the danger of political logrolling in the instance he gives of pressure being brought to bear on the Minister of Transport to give these facilities to Bradford, irrespective of its needs?
  Mr. McLeavy: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather misunderstood the point I was making. The point I made very clearly was that owing to the fact that the railway companies were more concerned about profit than about services, Bradford and many other industrial cities in the country had been woefully neglected, and had not been provided with the type of service that industry thought was suitable for that particular area.
  I should like to refer to the leaflet which has been issued jointly by the railways and the Road Haulage Association and which is entitled, "Why nationalize transport?" I found the following opening phrases extremely interesting. The leaflet says:
  "Transport is of the greatest importance to every man, woman, and child in the country.
  "Even if you do not travel regularly by rail or road you still depend on transport for your food, fuel, clothing and all the amenities of life.
  "Transport is a vital factor in the nation's industrial prosperity."
  May I suggest that it is for these very reasons that the Government feel it necessary to place this vital industry in the safe keeping of the State? During the two wars we found that it was necessary to subordinate profit to national need. The Government took over control of railways, docks, canals and shipping companies, and extended their powers over road transport. I suggest that without such control, it would not have been possible to have won either the first or the last war. It was essential, therefore, as a necessity of war that our transport system throughout the country should be mobilised in the interests of the war effort. Today, the nation is confronted with great problems of social and industrial reconstruction. It is a war on the home front to recover our prewar prosperity, to prevent vast unemployment arising from industrial depression, to rebuild our shat-

  1695
  tered homes, to clear our slums, to improve our general social services, to spread our industries over a wider field, to build new towns, to house people on the outskirts of the large industrial cities and towns, to give transport services to the countryside, and to provide the best possible services at the least cost to the travelling public.
  Having regard to all these national needs it is really unreasonable to suggest that the transport industry should return to the position of 1939—a period of foolish and unrestrained competition—particularly at a time when the manpower problem will be so difficult and when so much will depend upon the existence of reasonable rates. Transport charges enter into the price of every commodity and they affect the standard of life of the people. Even if we co-ordinated transport under private ownership, it would not be effective without unification of ownership, and in our opinion unification under private ownership is socially undesirable. It is sound public policy that State ownership should be applied.
  I should like to say a few words now about the road passenger transport position. Before coming to this House, I spent some 25 years in this section of transport, so that I can at least claim to have some knowledge on the subject. Road transport has become probably the most vital service so far as the communal life of the nation is concerned. We have had two types of ownership—municipal and private So far as the latter is concerned, the travelling public has had little or no influence upon the policy which has been applied Those engaged in the industry—and this is a very important point—have not had the wages and conditions of employment which have been provided by the municipal services It is of course, true to say that the Traffic Commissioners, taking over the licensing powers of the local authorities, have exercised some influence and that there did exist some channel through which complaints could be made. It was a step in the right direction, but it left, and indeed strengthened, the monopoly of the private companies. It gave the private companies valuable running rights—what hon. Members opposite would call a "closed shop"—and local authorities wishing to embark upon their own passenger transport under-
  1696
  takings found that they could do so only if they bought up one of the existing private companies. The spirit of free enterprise and competition, about which we hear so much, has given place to private monopoly. No company is permitted to trespass upon the preserves of another unless the Commission is satisfied that the existing company is unable to. cater for the traffic.
  I could cite to the House cases within my own knowledge where adequate transport facilities were denied. I could tell the House of the reluctance of the Traffic Commissioners to grant running powers to transport undertakings in order to provide urgent services to hospitals, of nurses having to walk home to the hospitals at night along dark country roads, and even being stopped by undesirable individuals, and of the strong protests of local authorities and hospital authorities in consequence. I could also tell of the delay of years in getting the Commissioners to agree—for no other reason than that it would be an encroachment upon the preserves of a private bus company. Another public scandal which applies to all parts of the country in connection with road passenger transport is the private agreement between two or more companies not to pick up passengers in a defined area. I have seen, even on very wet days, men and women factory workers standing in long queues waiting to board an omnibus while another company's bus has passed half empty.
  Sir William Darling: Municipal buses?
  Mr. McLeavy: No, not municipal buses, but private company buses.
  Sir W. Darling: Am I not right in saying that in certain municipal areas the private companies do not take up municipal passengers, and the municipal buses do not take up the private passengers? I could even tell the hon. Member which city it is.
  Mr. McLeavy: I am not suggesting that private arrangements may not be made, subject to the approval of the Commissioner, but any arrangement, whether for municipal or for private bus services, which denies the travelling public an adequate service is wrong, and cannot be defended. The facts that I have been citing are very serious from the point of

  1697
  view of the travelling public. I have seen these things over a long period of years. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter to find workpeople drenched to the skin, waiting for buses, and not being able to get on, while they find other buses passing by only half full and not stopping.
  I ask the House to consider these points It is not merely a question of the rights of vested interests. There are vested interests in the transport world. [HON. MEMBERS: "On both sides."] It is a question of a fair and equitable service for the community. I conscientiously believe that the proposals of the Ministry of Transport in the Bill will provide not only an adequate transport service for this country, but a service which will be a credit to the British nation.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Basil Nield: The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not pursue the points which he has raised. He will appreciate that it is necessary, in speaking upon a complicated Measure like this, to select special subjects with which to deal. I, therefore, hope tonight, in a brief speech, to ask the attention of the House to two separate and widely differing aspects of the major problem.
  In the first place, would the House be good enough to consider the position of the dock and harbour authorities under the Bill? I will seek here to follow, and in some measure to approve, the observations of the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins), who criticised the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that representations have been made to the Minister by the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association in this regard. This body includes in its membership no fewer than 82 dock and harbour authorities up and down the country, as well as docks and harbours which are at present owned by the four amalgamated railway companies. For the information of hon. Members I will ask the House to consider docks and harbours as divided into two groups. There are those which are now owned by the railway companies and which will be taken over by the State, and there are the independent ports. As a result of Clauses 70 and 71, the position will be that the Commission will take over and operate, as commercial undertakings, the ports at present owned by the railway companies.
  1698
  In regard to the independent ports, the Commission will have the duty imposed upon it by Clause 70 (2) to keep them under continuous review. They will have the widest possible powers to direct the policy of the independent ports, to group them, and even to take them over or transfer them if they think fit so to do.
  My submission to the House is that it is fundamentally wrong that the Commission, in one capacity, should operate commercial undertakings, and in another capacity, should have the right to investigate the affairs of its competitors and direct their policy. The Commission will be in competition with the independent ports. The association which I have mentioned put forward a recommendation in February of last year, at the request of the then Minister of War Transport, to the effect that an advisory council should be set up to advise and to assist the Ministry, and that it should be composed of representatives of all the interests concerned. The suggestion I make is that, if this part of the Bill is passed, there should be an advisory council which would have the task imposed upon it of keeping the ports under continuous review. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to deal with this aspect of the matter and, if need be, to receive further and more detailed representations.
  I turn to the second subject which I wish to discuss. I am anxious to add my appeal for those wide sections of the community who genuinely fear that their interests will be adversely affected by the Bill. My suggestion is that the great majority of transport users do not want this change. They desire to retain the present flexibility in the industry, and, above all, the right to choose, in regard to the use of transport. I am certain they feel that it is a great misfortune and a great mistake to depart from a system under which they are able to select exactly what they want, and whom they will employ. Then there are other categories of persons who will suffer. One in particular has been mentioned, those who are at present holders of "C" licences. I support with the utmost conviction the appeal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). At a time when the Government are asking for increased production and when a policy of expansion is essential, I submit

  1699
  that it is wrong to interfere with the conditions of the "C" licence holders, and to say that a man cannot carry his own goods on his own vehicle save under the strictest limitations and conditions.
  Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. and learned Member say from what part of the Bill he assumes that the customers will not have a choice of the transport available?
  Mr. Nield: I should have thought that that had been answered by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—It has been made clear to the House that there is to be a central pool from which will be provided the transport which is thought by the authorities to be necessary. —[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—Hon. Members opposite dispute that. This much they cannot dispute, that at the present time the trader can choose from the resources available to him exactly what he wants, and what he knows he wants—
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. and learned Member has put the word "thought" into my mouth. I did not say that.
  Mr. Nield: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I must apologise to him if I have misquoted him—
  Mr. Barnes: It is not the case that traders or anybody else will have to take the form of transport the Commission think they ought to have. Facilities will be there, and they will have the choice.
  Mr. Nield: That will be some sort of assurance to those who feel that this is a wrong scheme. I must say that I strongly query the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. One would like to know that traders are allowed to select their own transport—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Where does it say they cannot?"]—If hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me, I was dealing in particular with the question of "C" licence holders as well as ordinary transport users. No one can deny that limitations are placed upon these traders, and what we, and the traders say is that this is a wrong limitation and that it will retard or indeed frustrate the industrial revival which we all wish to see.
  I would add, in another regard, that I feel that road hauliers also are almost unanimously against this change. It has been said that under the 1933 Act many
  1700
  people are being kept out of the industry. That may be true, but that is not a very good argument for making the position worse. I am well aware of the situation under the 1933 Act, having been in the traffic courts a good deal before the war, and occasionally since the war. Under that system there have been many hard cases. There are men—perhaps ex-Servicemen—with one lorry, who are prevented from entering the industry because they cannot point to past service in a particular direction or to a long queue of customers waiting, and they are, therefore, kept out by the big battalions. But the position will be infinitely worse under this Measure, and those who seek to advance their own initiative and enterprise, will be prevented from doing so.
  Finally, there is the tragic lot of the railway stockholders to which, although this matter may be dealt with more fully tomorrow, I feel I must refer. Perhaps right hon. Gentlemen on the Government bench have not that opportunity to examine quite as closely as back benchers the correspondence from their constituents, but I ask the Minister of Transport—I am sure he takes the greatest care of his—to take a look at it over the last few days, and see if it is not the case that there are many people living on slender incomes derived from their savings who will be grievously harmed by these proposals. That is a matter which no Government ought to overlook, and if the Government would make a change in these matters, there would be immense gratitude, and the Government would also be applauded for being strong enough to change their plans. If not, I feel that the country will take the view that their motives in this matter are political rather than in the public interest.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: I feel some difficulty over such a description as the "tragic lot of the railway stockholders." It seems to be a very remarkable form of tragedy that they are receiving the full market value of their shares, and an appeal that they should receive more than the market value seems very difficult to follow when others who have had to accept compensation for lost or requisitioned property, under legislation passed not by this Government but previously, have had to accept it at the prewar market value or, in one particular case, at a percentage increase only. I do not want to anticipate

  1701
  at any great length what may be said tomorrow, but I am bound to point out that the railway shareholders before the war were in a very different position from that which they have reached by dint of an extremely favourable agreement with the Government during the war. I happen to live in a part of Scotland where there are some of the small men about whom we hear so much from the benches opposite. Some of these small men had their fishing boats requisitioned, and some of these fishing boats were lost during the war. These small men are unable to get any more than the prewar value of their boats —[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is not enough to buy new boats. When I am told that tragedy has come upon railway shareholders, I am bound to say that if I were a share fisherman I should regard it as simply absurd.
  That such is the case one can see easily enough by looking at the position of the railway marginal stocks immediately before the war. Take the year 1938 and take the marginal stocks upon which, after all, we can judge the amount of security in the stocks ranking in front of them. I think I am right in saying that in that year the Great Western Railway paid ½ per cent. on its ordinary stock, and that on what are the marginal stocks of the other three main line railways no dividends at all were paid. As a result of the somewhat profitable agreement with the Government, the Great Western Railway is now paying 5 per cent. on its marginal stock, the Southern 2 per cent., the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 4 per cent., and the London North Eastern Railway 3½ per cent. What the are receiving is compensation based on the present dividends and on the present market value of the stocks—
  Mr. Molson: The hon. and learned Member has chosen the year 1938, which is not a very favourable year for the railways. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman laughs—
  Mr. Hobson: The industry was beginning to pick up then.
  Mr. Molson: Actually the revenue that year was £29 million, and the compensation which the Government are now proposing to pay is £25,500,000.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am very much obliged for that interruption. Let me take the hon. Member a little further. Let us take
  1702
  one of those stocks and follow it through the prewar years and see what happens. Take the Southern Railway, one of the more prosperous ones. In 1935 it was getting nothing; in 1936 it was getting ½ per cent.; in 1937 1½ per cent., and in 1938 nothing; and ever since the dividend on that marginal stock has risen as a result of the agreement. I could not give the House any clearer case of the risks inherent in all these railway stocks, and marginal stocks of this kind are only an indication of the risk inherent in the senior stocks. To treat these stocks as if they were Government securities is entirely contrary to reality, and that could not be better shown than by looking at the market value. After all we are told about the virtues of free competition, free enterprise and the rest of it, are we now to be told that a market value which is reached by the free enterprise of dealers in stocks and shares is no indication of reality? Are we to be told—
  Mr. Molson Mr. Molson rose—
  Mr. Mitchison: May I finish my sentence?—that it is tragic injustice to receive the market value and no more?
  Mr. Molson: Has the hon. and learned Member read the report of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress in 1945, in which they went into this question as to whether a market value is a just and sound basis of compensation, and they came to the conclusion that it was not?
  Mr. Mitchison: I take leave to form my own opinion as to whether a market value is, or is not, a fair value for something which I propose to buy. If I were seeking to buy something, I would do so at the market value, and if the seller told me that he was suffering a tragic loss by receiving not more than the market value, I would tell him not to be so silly. That is the short answer in this case. The matter is made even simpler when you come to look at what the effect would be if you tried to give the railway stockholders the same income that they are now receiving instead of paying them the market value, for you would pay about 80 per cent. in excess of the market value. Why, when other persons who have had their property requisitioned or destroyed during the war have to take compensation at prewar values, railway stockholders should be entitled to the special preferen-

  1703
  tial treatment that is suggested in their case, I entirely fail to understand. Why it should be a tragic injustice, why it should be grossly unfair not to pay somebody more than the market value of what you are taking from him, passes my simple comprehension, though it may be clear to hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to tell the railway stockholders not to be so silly when they complain, but can be give any one year before the war in which the total dividends on those railway stocks fell as low as the £25½ million which they are now preparing to pay?
  Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), I see, is one of those who thinks it unfair not to give people something more than the market value of that which is being taken from them.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I only asked for one year.
  Mr. Mitchison: His argument is, therefore, that they should receive the income they are now receiving from railway stocks, or at any rate something—
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In one year?
  Mr. Mitchison: —more than they will receive from the Government stock they will get. In fact his argument amounts to this, that it is unfair to give the railway stockholders the market value and no more because they are suffering a reduction of income. Of course they are suffering a reduction of income, and they are doing so because they are exchanging comparative risks for the absolute security of a Government stock.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: What about that year?
  Mr. Mitchison: Supposing the railway stock holders had been taken over before the war, they would then have got, on any showing, less than they are now getting. They would then have failed to get during the war the benefit of a highly profitable agreement made with the Government. They would, in fact, have been put into the position into which many other people were whose property was taken from them at a fair market value at the beginning of the war or early in the war. These people have
  1704
  done remarkably well. I do not happen to be a railway stockholder myself but I happen to hold some of that stock as a trustee, and I repeat the opinion that they are doing extremely well, not only out of what is happening now but out of what has happened during the war.
  Mr. Osborne: If these stocks had been taken over before the war and the holders received less money in payment for them, surely the hon. and learned Member will agree that the money they received would have been worth more than it is today, and that the problem of reinvestment might not have been so difficult as it is today?
  Mr. Mitchison: I think the hon. Gentleman must revise his opinions of time. The money they would have received before the war, supposing that it had been put into Government stock or invested in any other way—let us assume they would put some, at any rate, into national savings—would still be money at the end of the war and they would, during that time, have received the interest on it. That is all there is to it. If people are now to be compensated by twice as much as the market value, on the ground that the market value is in one form of money, and their compensation is in another form of money, I do not know into what financial unrealities of time and space we shall shortly be getting.
  Mr. Molson: Neither do we.
  Mr. Mitchison: I want to say one or two things on another part of the Bill which deals with passenger transport. I heard an hon. Member for one of the Yorkshire Divisions making some statements about omnibus services in Yorkshire which were so far removed from my own experience that I feel some correction ought to be made. There is no subject upon which I have had more complaints and more indignant correspondence, than on the inefficiency of the local omnibus service in Northamptonshire, and I welcome most cordially, the provisions in this Bill enabling the Ministry to form an appropriate body for dealing with that question in rural districts such as that. The deficiencies arise from one or two things. First, in the area I represent, at any rate, there is no coordination between the railway and road services; that is to say, there is no arrangement whatever as to timing between the two. Secondly, the

  1705
  omnibus services there are, in effect, a complete monopoly of one of the subsidiary companies of Thomas Tillings, and whatever the Traffic Commissioner may be able to do, and he does a good deal in the way of trying to control the bus services, in the last resort the initiative about starting them rests, or is supposed to rest, on that particular form of private enterprise.
  I can only say that, although I have heard the representative of that company admit, first, that there was no serious difficulty in the way of omnibuses, secondly, that there was no serious difficulty in the way of labour, and thirdly, that he could, if need be, provide adequate transport services in the area, the fact remains that the services are completely inadequate and, since there is a monopoly, there is no competition of any sort between that company and any other. If we are to have a public body controlling these services, we should have firstly coordination between rail services and 'bus services, and secondly we should treat the obligation to get passengers to and from the remote villages of this countryside as what it ought to be, a public service, and not something which is merely undertaken if it happens to pay the bus company.
  Sir C. Headlam: Has the hon. and learned Member taken this matter up with the traffic commissioner in his area? That seems a rather pertinent point.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Member for his suggestion. I have taken it up with the Minister and the traffic commissioner. I have made every possible representation, and at the end of it, I am driven back to the belief that it is unrestricted, or more or less restricted, lack of private enterprise by this particular bus company which, for some reason or other, entirely fails to provide adequate services in that area. I speak with feeling on behalf of numbers of people living in these small villages, who say that they hope what ought to be a public responsibility will be recognised as such and what has hitherto been a method of filling the coffers of one of Thomas Tilling's subsidiaries, will become a public service, and with it a public responsibility.
  On the vexed question of "C" licences, it has struck me that many hon. Members who are making comments from
  1706
  the opposite benches have failed to examine the Bill itself. The Bill does in fact give the Minister power to allow traffic on "C," or, indeed, other licences, but particularly "C" licences, beyond the 40 mile limit. I should have thought it was obvious that in the carriage of agricultural produce, and in general in cases of carriage of one's own goods, beyond the 40 miles, there is no reason why a licence should not be granted. But I should also have thought it necessary to give the Minister power to restrict "C" licences in a great many cases. Otherwise, there will be ill coordination. We would have long-distance "C" licence holders many of whom would not be small people, but would be large people giving a form of service which would have slipped outside the national scheme which it is the object of this Bill to set up. In that respect, this Bill seems to be another piece of streamlined legislation, but this time it is very appropriately a streamlined lorry.
  When we are dealing with anything as varied and complicated as transport in this country, I should expect two things: First, that if we did nothing about it, we would get what we get at present in spite of numerous legislative attempts to put it right, a form of struggle between road and rail, and between other interests such as rail and canals which lead to no proper use of their respective facilities, and fail to produce what we want, a coordinated system providing for those who use it, the best possible service. Similarly, I would expect when we came to deal with such a complicated matter that we would have to leave full powers to the Minister, or some central authority. When I hear hon. Members opposite saying that this, that, and the other should be laid down as directions which in some case or the other the Minister should give the Control Commission, it seems to me that to attempt to do that would be bound to lead to failure, and would fail to give this Bill the flexibility it must have because of its subject matter.
  9.5 p.m.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I know that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitehison) will excuse me if I do not follow him in his remarks on the particular case of Northamptonshire buses and on the general case of road transport in this country, and will also excuse me

  1707
  if I do not follow him in the discussion of compensation. This gives me an opportunity of declaring to the House that I am, to a limited extent, a shareholder in railway debenture stocks. I hope, however, that as I shall not mention compensation, that will not be held to have biased my view. I do not presume to imagine that anything I can say will alter predetermined views or biased opinions and decisions in the passage of this great Bill of hon. Members opposite, for, as Mark Antony said:
  "I have neither action nor utterance, nor the power of speech
  To stir men's blood:"
  But that does not deprive me of the right, indeed the duty, of warning the House of the chaos and suffering which this Bill is likely to bring upon the whole of the country.
  On this side of the House we have never minced our words as to our dislike of nationalisation, because we see it, and have seen it, when tried elsewhere, to be costly when economy will be the life blood of the nation, to be slow when quick decisions and actions are essential to commerce, and to be rigid when flexibility is demanded in all our dealings. If we look at the two examples with which this country is already suffering at the hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, we do not find ourselves in any way consoled or reassured. We turn our eyes to coal. We see the light going out, we see the wheels of industry slowing up, and we see that valuable export trade of other years now a dream of the past. If we turn our eyes to civil aviation—
  Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. and gallant Member making an election speech?
  Colonel Hutchison: We find that the Tudor machines hoped for in 1945 are still to be in the promised land in 1947, we find that in every type of aircraft required for the operation of our services, the Americans are months or years ahead of us. In my country we find one British aircraft flying out while six Dominion or foreign aircraft are flying in. Is it surprising then that we have little confidence in this new effort to nationalise an industry of the country? While these undigested efforts from which the country is still suffering remain undigested, we
  1708
  see the Government plunging ever more deeply into the mire and the slough.
  Those hon. Members opposite who have a nodding acquaintance with that noble and almost extinct form of transport, the horse, will know that when that animal finds itself upon unreliable and soft ground, in a wild-eyed and panic stricken effort to get to safe ground on the other side it plunges ever more deeply in. It never turns and gets back to the ground it once knew to be safe. And so the Government, bearing upon their backs all the destinies, hopes and welfare of this country, are themselves plunging ever more deeply into the same mire. To industry this Bill is the unkindest cut of all. In the other Bills we certainly dealt with large areas, and great numbers of the population were affected, but here every individual in the country is touched. Formerly we were dealing in paltry hundreds of millions of pounds: now our ideas have grown and it is with thousands of millions of pounds that His Majesty's Government are about to play. Here we have more victims and less compensation. The complexities of the situation are even more grave and disturbing than those which were handed out to the Coal Boards and, in civil aviation, to the Corporations. On the top of this pyramid we are to see the unlikely figure of the Minister, like some brooding and distracted Zeus; handing out his patronages and no doubt dispersing exhortations, like his colleague on Mount Olympus, the Minister of Fuel and Power, and occasionally hurling his thunderbolts Is it surprising that we on this side of the House have no confidence in such a one-man brains trust?
  All over the world there are precedents for the failure of nationalisation in rail transport. I do not intend to waste the time of the House in the examination of these. Hon. Members only need look at the records and they will see instances of its failure in Australia, France. Canada and elsewhere.
  Mr. Shurmer: In America?
  Colonel Hutchison: I wish to draw the attention of the House to one outstanding example of failure in the nationalisation of road transport. Road transport was one of the first of the industries tackled by the Germans when the Nazi system

  1709
  came into force. The parallel is extraordinarily complete. Therefore, I would like the House to follow a little bit of history. This will be a salutary lesson for hon. Members opposite. What happened in Germany under the Nazi system when they nationalised road transport? In 1935, the German railways were owned by the State, along with certain bus companies. A very similar situation will arise in this country as a result of this Bill. Then Germany forced all its road transport into associations controlled by a Minister, and, in order to be able to divide and segregate long-distance transport—notice the parallel—and short-distance transport, it took as a yardstick 31.5 miles. Here we are pleased to take 25 and 40 miles. Having forced all transport into trade associations, the Ministry then proceeded to mobilise and take complete control of the longdistance transport and insisted upon them having a licence before they could trade at all. The only difference in what we are to do is that in our country the longdistance transport is to be State owned. Both were, or will be, controlled.
  In 1936, Germany saw that it was not possible to have an efficient system unless they controlled the whole of the road transport and so they treated short-distance transport in exactly the same way as they had treated the long-distance transport. Is that also to come here? They found they could not stand up to the competition of those left free. Will the Minister be able to stand up to the competition of those whom he proposes to leave free? There is nothing that inefficiency so abhors as efficiency. Then, the next step was to force the long-distance transport road rates up to the railway rates. Is that the Minister's intention here? Thereupon, Germany drew up an intricate system of rates, which was so intricate that, 10 years later, those very officials who were supposed to operate and understand it, had not yet properly learned and understood it.
  In order to be able to support this system that they had inaugurated, they thought unwisely that all that they would need would be a few police to examine the inevitable log books. That, of course, was soon found to be quite insufficient, and so they set up 18 regional transport commissioners, and very shortly, it was found that 18 regional transport commissioners were far too remote from contact
  1710
  with the wheels that were turning, and they proceeded to set up 80 district road transport officers, which, even with their staffs, were not enough; and, finally, they appointed 1,500 local road transport officers. The staff that was found to be necessary for all these busybodies numbered 7,000. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will calculate the sort of remuneration for officials of that type, I think they will find that a conservative estimate will bring them out in the neighbourhood of £4 million per annum. That is, £4 million per annum to control the road transport system of this country, which needs no control and which even hon. Members opposite have never impugned with inefficiency.
  Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison rose—
  Colonel Hutchison: So began the next phase—the struggle for priority, and, if hon. Members opposite want to do so, they can read all the evidence at first hand if they will only turn to the evidence of Minister Speer. The situation was so chaotic that even local transport offices broke down, traffic was held up and permits held up while they hunted for return loads, and so the Government then proceeded to pile upon this enormous mass of officialdom an equal number of what they, called traffic expediters. Is it surprising that, in the City of Berlin, an order was issued that no lorry should move more than two miles without first telephoning the traffic expediter if the vehicle was anything less than 75 per cent. full in volume or weight? Even the Germans, docile and regimented creatures though they were and are, rebelled, and so they found "permanent cargoes" and filled their lorries with empty cases so that, to the traffic expediter, they always looked full.
  The inevitable happened. Queues of hauliers were to be seen waiting outside the transport offices for permission to be able to move. The estimate of waste space was something between 25 and 50 per cent. It took from one to six hours to get permission to move a vehicle at all, and from 7 to 30 days to get permission to have even the smallest repairs carried out. I admit that the last part of this chaos came about in the war, but one might imagine that war was a spur to organisation and one knows that nobody ever accused the Germans of being poor organisers. [Laughter.] This appalling

  1711
  welter of chaos seems to threaten us here. I am always rather flattered when I hear hon. Members opposite laugh, because I notice that it happens when something goes home.
  Mr. Rogers: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is very stern, wild and Caledonian tonight, forgive me if I interrupt to ask him to leave Nazi Germany for a time and to treat, in the same detail, the experiment of the London Passenger Transport Board?
  Colonel Hutchison: It time permitted I would certainly like to do what the hon. Gentleman—whom I know well, and with whom I served in the war—wants, but time obviously does not permit. All I would like to say is, hon. Gentlemen opposite have two methods of defence when we succeed in striking home: either to try to laugh out of court and ridicule what is being said, or else to get very angry. I am glad to see them do either.
  The same chaos undoubtedly threatens us here; the same ultimate steps will have to be taken by the Minister. The Minister knows full well—indeed, he has said so today—that competition has got to be, in a measure, eliminated At any rate, he used words to that effect. What will happen to our coastal shipping, which has a semblance of some life left free in this Bill, but for whom certain schemes may be devised, and for whom certain advisory committees are, in fact to be set up? Will the Minister be able to afford to allow the short distance men to show up the inefficiency of the long distance State organisation, or to allow coastal shipping to show up the inefficiency of either? Of course not Sooner or later everything must be dragged into the net of nationalisation. If this 25 to 40 miles limit is unfair to the ordinary community in this country, it is even more vicious so far as my own country is concerned. Draw a circle with a radius of 25 miles or 40 miles almost anywhere in Scotland and see what is found within it.
  When it comes to the Committee stage of this Bill we propose to press for those limits to be extended in areas of that kind. We further propose to press that that valuable and important traffic to Scotland of the carriage of fresh fish shall be treated in the same way as is provided for meat. We are glad to know that the
  1712
  Minister proposes to allow us to have a separate Transport Users Consultative Committee, and we will ask him to see that that is a permanency. We will further ask that there shall be three separate executive for Scotland—for road, for rail and for harbours—because already centralisation has run riot and gone mad. We have not had the experience in the civil aviation treatment of our country to allow us to have any confidence whatever in the treatment we will have from centralised executives.
  Finally, there is nothing more destructive to the industry of this country than uncertainty, and the measures proposed in Clauses 70 and 71 in regard to all the activities in the ports of the country will bring about such a condition of uncertainty that it will stay their hands, and they will be unable to make or take any decision in the future. We shall also move that so far as we in Scotland are concerned those two Clauses shall be eliminated.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. McAdam: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, because for over 40 years I have been employed by a railway company, having passed through the grades, passenger porter, shunter, goods and passenger guard, to the position which I still occupy on the books of a railway company, that of foreman in the traffic operating department of one of our Glasgow docks. In addition to that, I have also served a term on the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen; I was a member of its Road Transport Committee and a representative of that Road Transport Committee on the Industrial Court; a member of its National Executive Committee, its Irish Negotiating Committee, and a representative of the National and Negotiating Committee on the Negotiating Committee of the London Passenger Transport Board. Having indicated my interest in and my experience of transport, I now want to give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill by saying a few words in regard to the inception and development of transport, because I claim that that inception and development have been anything but efficient, and because I also claim that future development ought to take into account what has retarded past progress.

  1713
  In the early days of the railways it was the practice to form companies to lay down railways over certain sections of country, and, when they were completed and ready for traffic, first to lease them and then ultimately to sell them to an adjoining railway company. That practice led to many abuses. Railway shares were overstated in value, and projects which were of no actual importance were sold and resold at extravagant prices. Quite a different story might have been told if the advice of that once great Liberal leader, the late William Ewart Gladstone, had been accepted, because in 1844 he introduced a proposal in this House that the Government should take over the organising of a nationally owned railway transport system. That proposal was turned down by the then Tory Government. One of its most bitter opponents was the Tory Member for Sunderland, at that time George Hudson. Hudson was popularly known as the railway king because he had been responsible for promoting companies over 1,000 miles of railway track. Today, however, Hudson is mainly recognised as one of the biggest financial frauds in the history of railway promoting.
  Financiers have always been only drawbacks to an efficiently organised railway transport system, and land and property owners, to put it mildly, were also a considerable handicap. For example, when the old G. and S.W. Company was extending its line to Dumfries it became necessary to pass through the land of the then Duke of Buccleuch. The only piece of land the Duke would part with was a piece which necessitated a tunnel being bored through a quarter of a mile of solid rock. For that quarter of a mile of solid rock, the then Duke of Buccleuch charged the G. and S.W. Company the sum of £20,000. Then a company was formed called the City Union Railway Company, for the purpose of linking up the North and South sides of the City of Glasgow by a railway seven miles in extent. By the time that railway had been completed, £2,375,000 of borrowed money had been spent in meeting the claims of land and property owners. The money was obtained by borrowing on a preference share basis carrying a dividend of 7 per cent.
  Is it to be wondered at that our railways, carrying such heavy financial burdens as those right from their early
  1714
  days, have always been at the head of the hard-up queue? Is it to be wondered at that railway workers have been called upon to work long hours under rotten conditions for miserable rates of wages? For example, when I started out in the railway service at the age of 23 as a porter at an Ayrshire mining village, I was paid 18s. for a 74-hour week. When the first world war broke out, I was being paid 29s. per week as a goods guard on express freight trains operating between Glasgow and Carlisle. When the first world war was completed, my wage had been raised to £3 5s. per week, because of the fact that on the outbreak of the war, there were 132 different main line companies which were taken over by the Government, and for the first time in the history of the railway trade union movement, our trade union officials were granted the right to conduct negotiations direct on our behalf by a committee of general managers. That committee, was also responsible for operating tactics, and so efficient did this method of operation prove to be, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), then seeking re-election as a Liberal Member of Parliament for Dundee in 1918, intimated that the Government had made up their mind to nationalise the railways. Unfortunately, as a result of the 1918 General Election, vested interests were returned insuch overwhelming strength to this House, that they immediately set about decontrolling all those industries which had been taken over during the war years, with the result that instead of the railways being nationalised, we had the Railways Act of 1921. That Act provided for the linking up of 132 companies into four main line groups.
  Then came another stage in transport development. During the war years, the Government had made extensive use of motor transport, and speculators, seeing in the roads a means of earning profits, decided to set up an alternate transport system to that operated by the railway companies. Road transport concerns sprang up in practically every important city and town in the country, and owing to the long hours the employees had to work, and the lower rates of wages they were paid, road transport concerns were in a position to offer cheaper passenger and goods rates than those of the railways. The result of 'this was that a large percentage of goods and passenger traffic left the rail-

  1715
  ways for the roads, and that in turn resulted in thousands of railway workers being dismissed the service, thousands being placed on short-time working, covering a period of years, and thousands of others being reduced in status, suffering a reduction in wages from 22s. to 20s. per week.
  The railway workers were not the only workers who were affected as a result of the road and transport war. Other workers in other industries were also called upon to feel the pinch. The railways were the largest users of such national commodities as coal, iron and steel, textiles and other materials, running from tracks to the steamer locomotives. Expenditure on all these materials was cut to the bone, creating unemployment in other industries, particularly in the case of the coal, iron and steel, engineering and textile industries. This unregulated scramble for profits out of the country's transport needs was allowed to continue until 1930
  In 1929, a Labour Government assumed office as the result of the General Election of that year. The Lord President of the Council was appointed Minister of Transport, and he had had some experience of the chaotic conditions which existed in the areas covered by the London County Council. He immediately set about having drafted and passed through the House the Road Transport Act of 1930. That Act provided for the linking up of competing transport concerns, and also provided for dividing up the country into 13 different transport districts. It provided machinery for dealing with hours, wages, and conditions of service. That allowed the trade unions to get in, with a result that when the second world war broke out, while competition still remained between road and rail transport, more effective organisation had been obtained inside the road transport organisation. From the start of that war the Government leased the railways, and exercised control over road haulage companies, but, speaking as one who worked on the railways during the whole of the war, I can say that there was little or no co-operation between road and rail transport.
  We have now reached the stage when the future of all forms of inland transport must be decided. That decision should be
  1716
  based on a policy which will provide efficiently equipped and co-ordinated transport by road, rail, and canal. If there is to be an efficient and co-ordinated transport system I recognise that millions of pounds must be spent. Take, for example, the position of the railway companies. There are, in operation on our main lines, locomotives and plant which were built over 30 years ago. Before and during the war I worked on brake vans which were built in 1886, and there are in operation today brake vans which were built over 50 years ago. There is also old plant in our passenger stations and goods depots. The railway companies have said that they would spend millions of pounds to bring their systems up to date but, as one who has had lengthy experience of local and national negotiations, I am entitled to ask: "Where do they expect to get the money? "especially having in mind their oft-repeated prewar argument that they could not afford the expense of more than modest improvements.
  I have vivid memories of their oft-repeated stories of their inability to pay poor widows the money due to them as interest on their shares. Between the wars, the railway companies were never able to earn the standard revenue laid down by the 1921 Act. They took from reserves, and the wages and salaries of their staffs, the money necessary to pay dividends on debenture stock. Having all these things in mind, I suggest that we ought to give a Second Reading to this Bill because it will abolish all that has been responsible for the position of the railway companies in the past the position which has prevented them from providing our people with the up-to-date transport service that they were entitled to expect.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) has been in reminiscent mood; I want to get back to the Bill. In introducing it, the Minister pleaded in aid that Canada was the example on which he drafted this great experiment.
  Mr. Barnes Mr. Barnes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Turton: The Minister shakes his head. I may be getting deaf in my old age, but I distinctly heard him say that. What are the facts in Canada? In Canada not all the railways have been

  1717
  nationalised, but it is quite true that the Canadian National Railways were nationalised. Some nine years afterwards, a Royal Commission was appointed to examine the working of this railway. The report states:
  "It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Board of Directors and the Management of National Railways were amenable to political influence and pressure which it would have been in the public interest to have withstood."
  The real analogy with this Bill is one which was so very ably given earlier in the Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison). I challenge the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, or any other Minister, to give an illustration of any country where there is a complete monopoly of all transport, except Germany and Russia. Those are the only two. This country, if this Bill becomes law, will become the third. We have here a clear-cut issue between personal initiative and State monopoly.
  I would like to state what the position will be in the areas in which I was born and which I represent—the rural areas. Let us try to see the picture of what will happen in the County of Yorkshire if this Bill goes through. First, hon. Members must realise that there are three factors concerning transport in rural areas, which are rather different from some of the examples given today. There is, first of all, the question of flexibility. We never know what the weather will be, or what crop it will be possible to harvest on any particular day, and, therefore, the needs of transport for agriculture and its ancillary industries are continually changing.
  Mr. Scollan: That happens now.
  Mr. Turton: As a result, the producer and haulier have to get in touch at the last moment. Then there is the question of perishability. Soft fruits and vegetables have to be got quickly to their destination or they are of no value. Thirdly, there is the question of distance. It is all very well to talk of 25 miles around London, with its large consuming centre. Twenty-five miles is an entirely different matter in my constituency where the dales stretch for 10 to 12 miles, and the consuming centre is some 60 miles away.
  1718
  Bearing that in mind, let us see what is going to happen in the rural districts, first of all to goods transport, under this Bill. Let me take as an illustration a typical road haulier in the North Riding of Yorkshire. I will tell the House the story of that business, so that it may get a picture of it. Just after the last war, a man from up the Dales bought a secondhand lorry and started business as a village carrier. He had two sons who helped to build up the business. Today they have a fleet of 20 lorries covering the whole area of the North Riding, and they do the following jobs. They do the milk haulage for the whole area for 33 miles, to the "Glaxo" factory. They do the milk haulage for the Co-operative to York, which is 43 miles. Those two items are both cut out by the Bill. They carry the whole of the manures and fertilisers for all of the farmers in that area of the North Riding from Goole, which is 56 miles. They bring the manure from South Bank to that area, which is 60 miles, and they carry the manure from the Malton Minerals Company, if necessary going 60 or 80 miles. They have the job of collecting the farmers' grain and taking the corn to the mills, and that is a job which is subject to whether the mills are full at a particular time. The area is so scattered that the hauls are normally from 40 to 60 miles. Finally, they are helping; in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), in building some of the few houses that are being built. Some 96 houses are being built with sand and aggregate brought by hat haulage company to Whitby, a distance of something like 46 miles—again outside the limit.
  Under the Clauses of this Bill, those two men will have their business wiped out by a State monopoly. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer one question, a question which I think the people of this country are asking today. What wrong have those two men and their father done to the community that you take away their job from them by this Bill? All my constituents, when they want goods moved, ring up those men day and night. At 7 o'clock on a Saturday night those men will be rung up for the haul on Monday morning. Are we to be told that an official, under the system of this Bill, will be up ready to work at 7 o'clock on a Saturday evening.

  1719
  [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh.
  Mr. Shurmer: We were laughing because we were wondering whether the goods mentioned by the hon. Member were carried together.
  Mr. Turton: I forgot that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) is not very quick in the uptake; I said that they had 20 lorries in the fleet.
  Mr. Shurmer: According to what the hon. Member has said, they must have 100 lorries.
  Mr. Turton: The reason small firms are able to do so much is because of the system of return loads. It is in the private business that one can manage to work out how to get long and short hauls fixed up for return journeys. It was found that under Government control and regulation during the war one did not get those return journeys. That may have been due to some failing of Government control. It may be that when the Minister nationalises the industry, he will say that he will be able to get return loads. If so, from where will he get his man on the spot, with a telephone, who will work at all hours of the night dealing with farmers' demands for perishable goods?
  Let me next turn to the "C" licence holder. In addition to the road haulage driver we have the farmer who uses his "C" licence for carrying his own goods for certain jobs. Let us take a very common haul in my constituency—sugar beet. Many of the farmers are taking sugar beet for longer distances than 40 miles. It is quite true, that all they have to do is to apply to the licensing authority for a permit and eventually, if they prove their case, they would be granted exemption for a particular load of sugar beet. But that is the very trouble we have been having in farming during the war. It is the red tape of having to apply for a particular permit to carry more goods that has made for wastage in the war. The agricultural merchants are at the same time with their "C" licences carrying wheat and grain to the mills which usually are over 40 miles distant. Why? Because the nearest mills in harvest time get filled up and agricultural merchants, knowing the state of the market, have to go to the further mills which are further away. If a farmer who has to do this has got to wait
  1720
  to get permission to go more than 40 miles it will be found certainly in a harvest like the last one that we are going to spoil the grain and have more cuts in our bread ration than would otherwise be the case. Damp grain will wait for no man and no official.
  These agricultural merchants must have complete freedom as to where they will carry their perishable commodities, otherwise the country's food will suffer. Let me give one illustration of a constituent of mine. He writes:
  "I sent peas to Newcastle by rail because I was not allowed to send that distance by road. Those peas failed to get the early market the following morning and when they arrived they had deteriorated to such an extent that they were worthless."
  That is why in the rural areas this proposal first of all of nationalisation of the long haulier and then the restrictions on the "C" licences is going to cause dislocation and higher distribution margins. There has been an example of this nationalisation of all transport within our own Empire of which we know. What was the effect in Northern Ireland of this nationalisation of road transport charges? The fact was that charges there went up very considerably. Before nationalisation came to Northern Ireland to carry a 14 lb. parcel a distance of under 10 miles cost 3d.; in 1937 under nationalisation it cost 6d. and today it costs 11d. That is a rise in charges of 266 per cent. Even allowing for that the nationalised board there has not made any profits; it has made a loss. We in the country districts fear that under this system of nationalisation we are going to have red tape; we are going to have interference and we are going to have higher charges.
  Let me say just one word on compensation. The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) talked a good deal about railways, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made many abstruse arguments on the value of railway securities. I only want to give one illustration which is happening to a constituent of mine. This man owns 356 London Midland and Scottish ordinary shares. That is quite an ordinary holding for men who have worked in the railways, have made their savings and have put them back into railway equities. Today, that man gets £14 3s. 2d. interest. Under the Minister's scheme—the Government's boasted plan

  1721
  of fair compensation—that man will get only 14s. 9d. per cent. a year. It is shameful.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that one should get from a Government guaranteed stock an income equal to that from a very risky and ordinary investment?
  Mr. Turton: Let the hon. Gentleman find every justification in his conscience for that treatment. It is a fact. Let me take now the owners of lorries. Most of those lorries today are, on the average three years old; their secondhand price is £400 and the replacement value of a lorry is £500. Under the Government's scheme an owner will get £256 for each lorry, which is £144 under market price. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about depreciation? "] He receives £500, less depreciation of three years at 20 per cent., and that comes to £256 as the hon. Gentleman will find if he works it out. Why are such owners to receive £144 under the market price? I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that the fair thing is to give a man the market price. These are men who have built up the whole of their business and livelihood, and the party opposite is taking it away and robbing them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stands as the new "gentleman of the road" for the present day. He is a highwayman who is robbing—[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman may laugh. He is, no doubt, priding himself upon looking like Dick Turpin, but I would remind him that Dick Turpin, after a very glonous career, was duly hanged on the gallows at York near my constituency. They are waiting for him any time now.
  What is the alternative to this Bill? That is what we really have to get down to. [Interruption.] I cannot help it if hon. Members apposite will interrupt. The real answer is that we should have today an expanding economy, with more competition. I am not attempting to justify bus companies that will not allow small village carriers to run buses, but if the Government had the interests of the country-people at heart, they would allow the small man, the man who has served the country in the Forces in motor transport, to come in and compete against the big bus companies, and have more competition in this country. If we are to have full employment, surely we are
  1722
  going to need that? On Wednesday night this House will take the decision, and I know we shall be defeated. There are no foreign rebels m the Government on this matter. I am not talking of Members who now have a different nationality or anything else like that. I am talking now of rebels on foreign policy. Whatever happens here, I am sure that in the country, the people of England will rise and fight in their farms, in their fields and on the roads against the attempt by this Government to deprive them of their personal initiative and to throttle them with this State monopoly.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to relax the rules set out in the Third Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, so far as 6hey relate to the application of the electoral quota and, in consequence thereof, to postpone the enumeration date for the purposes of the initial report under Section three of that Act, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase occasioned by the passing of the said Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Boundary Commissions which, under paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule to the said Act of 1944, are to foe defrayed out of moneys so provided.
  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

    Schedule.—(The Third Schedule to the Principal Act, as amended.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. Gibson: On a point of Order. May I ask your Ruling, Major Milner, on whether it would be in Order for me to say something on Paragraph 7 of the Schedule?
    The Chairman: No, I think not. The Schedule is only a reprint of the Third Schedule from the original Act, as amended:
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his functions under the said Act, the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1919, or the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Acts, 1913 and 1940;

  (b) compensation payable to medical practitioners in respect of losses suffered by reason of any provision of the said Act prohibiting the sale of medical practices, the aggregate amount of such compensation not exceeding the amount apportioned to Scotland under the National Health Service Act, 1346, of sixty-six million pounds and interest on that compensation;

  (c)grants payable to local health authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in carrying out their functions as such authorities or in defraying expenses of any joint committee or board in exercising such functions, being grants not exceeding, in the case of any authority, three-quarters of the expenditure so incurred by that authority;

  (d)sums required to defray the expenditure of Regional Hospital Boards constituted under the said Act (including the expenditure of Medical Education Committees and of Boards of Management so constituted in exercising functions conferred on them by, or delegated to them under, the said Act);

  (e)expenditure incurred by other bodies under the said Act;

  (f) remuneration, sums in respect of loss of remunerative time, and travelling and subsistence allowances payable to members of bodies constituted under the said Act; and

  (g) superannuation benefits provided for officers employed in voluntary hospitals prior to the transfer thereof, to the Secretary of State under the said Act, for officers engaged in health services and for medical practitioners and dental practitioners providing services under the said Act;

  and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Secretary of State under the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  GERMAN NATIONAL (INTERNMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Snow.]
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I want to raise the question of the treatment of Mr. Karl Kuchenmeister during the past seven years. I raise this issue because Mr. Kuchenmeister is one of my constituents. He has three children for whom, naturally, as their Member, I want to see the best possible done. In my Division there is a growing feeling that justice has not been done in this case. What is more, it does not appear to have been done. I suggest to the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary that it is as important to see that justice is apparently done as in fact to do justice.
  I want to remind the House of the details concerning Mr. Karl Kuchenmeister. He came to this country in 1928 from Germany, and established a very successful business in Manchester. Without any question, he is a most expert engineer and a man whose services would be of value to this country. Within a short time he had built up a very extensive business and was consulted by many of the leading firms in this country upon industrial problems. He did not apply for naturalisation until 1939 because his main business was concerned with the importation of machines from Germany and if he had applied earlier for British naturalisation it would possibly, in the circumstances then prevailing in that country, have adversely affected his chance of getting those machines.
  In August, 1939, when the application for naturalisation was in, the Home Secretary requested him to leave the country, without any reason being given. He did not go, as one might have assumed as a result of his treatment by the British, back to Germany, but to Eire. There he applied on many occasions to come back to this country and eventually to come back to this country for internment. He went before an advisory committee and was duly interned and sent to Australia, where he stayed for the greater part of the war. He was sent back to this country in 1945 with the promise that his case for release would be considered—
  Mr. Stokes: Apropos the advisory committee, does the hon. Member know whether the advisory committee recommended his continued detention or not?
  Mr. Shepherd: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member that information, but I know that Mr. Kuchenmeister was interned as a consequence of the decision of the advisory committee. He returned to this country in 1945 with some promise of consideration which never materialised. The point which I think will concern the House is that this man, who has been interned now for nearly seven years, is at present in Brixton Gaol as an ordinary prisoner. He is not even allowed a watch or a fountain pen. He is kept in his cell for 18 hours a day. That, to my mind, is a disgraceful state of affairs in this country—that a man should be kept in prison when there is no case against him.
  I have tried to find exactly what he has done. I have visited the Home Secretary. I am sorry to have to say this in the unfortunate absence of the Home Secretary, but I got no more information from the Home Secretary than any outsider would have done coming from the street—
  Mr. Stokes: Nor did I.
  Mr. Shepherd: I take the very poorest view of that treatment of a Member of Parliament, It is particularly unfortunate because had I been given some information about what this man was alleged to have done I could have considered that information confidentially and if I considered it justified I could have reported to his relatives in Germany that I was convinced about it, and the matter would have been settled months ago. But I was given no information whatever about this case by the Home Secretary.
  I suggest that Mr. Kuchenmeister would certainly not have returned to this country had he been convinced that there was a case against him as a Nazi spy. I can certainly ask what possible case there can be, now that Germany is battered and broken beyond any possibility of any rebuilding in the next 20 years, for keeping this man from getting free and being of some service to the German Government. There is not even a German Government, so there is no justification for this man to be kept in prison now. I suggest, therefore, that it would be in the interests
  1726
  of British justice for the Home Secretary to release this man tomorrow morning.
  There is another point. The Home Secretary, not content with wishing to deport this man to Germany, states where he shall not go. This man is not to be allowed, according to the Home Secretary, to go to Eire. The Eire Government is prepared to have this man as a citizen, but the Home Secretary says that he must not go there. Whatever case may exist why this man should not remain in this country, I know of no case which would justify the Home Secretary saying that he shall not go to Southern Ireland, because obviously it would be of no service to the German Government if he went to Southern Ireland at the present time.
  I want to refer to one other matter. Since this man has been interned, the assets of the company with which he was concerned have somehow or other been robbed to the extent of £50,000 or £60,000, and this whilst it is under the supervision of the Custodian of Enemy Property.
  Mr. Stokes: By whom?
  Mr. Shepherd: The exact circumstances of the loss of the money are not determinable because papers and all kinds of relevant information are also missing. I think it grossly unfair that this man should be deported to Germany before this question has been satisfactorily settled. Certainly, if he is to be deported, he should be given the right to go where he chooses. The Home Secretary has said that this man can go to any consulate to get a visa to travel to some foreign country, but he would have to go between two prison warders and say, "I want to go to your country." On the other hand, if he writes to them, he has to write to them from the address "His Majesty's Prison, Brixton.",
  I suggest that those things are not fair to a man who has never been brought to trial for any offence, and who has been kept in prison against what I think is British justice. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary tonight to say that he will not only free this man tomorrow from the detention in which he is now being kept, for which there is no justification whatsoever, but will permit him to go where he chooses outside this country, because I believe that nothing that can be said against this man can justify his

  1727
  unlawful detention and prevent him going to whatever part of the world he wishes.
  10.13 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I have only one point to raise on this matter and that is, is this man being detained under Regulation 18? If he is, surely he comes under the same category as certain British subjects against whom nothing has been proved, but who are still restricted as regards their exit from this country to other countries? This matter was raised in another place not very long ago, and the Lord Chancellor made it fairly clear that one of the main reasons why people can be detained under that Regulation is if they are trying to evade military service. I hope when the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department replies, he will tell us whether it is under Regulation 18. If so, will he then explain how it comes about that the man mentioned by my hon. Friend is detained under a regulation which mainly affects those who are possibly going to evade military service if they leave this country? Regulation 18, and all the restrictions on the private rights of a citizen in that particular Regulation, were only just tolerable during the war. They are certainly not tolerable in time of peace when the need for this Regulation has largely vanished. I understand that Regulation 18 will disappear at the end of 1947, but it seems that special consideration should be given to these cases, and it is surely one of the things of which this country is proud that a citizen of this country has the right to move about. I do not know whether the gentleman my hon. Friend has mentioned comes under that category, but there is grave injustice being done today to the rights of the individual citizen, and it seems, not only of British citizens, but citizens of other countries who are affected. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to carry out the wishes of my hon. Friend.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): There are one or two points I would like to answer before I deal with the matter more fully. The last question directed to me was whether this man is detained under Defence Regulation 18, and the answer is "No." He is detained under Royal Prerogative.
  Mr. Stokes: What does that mean?
  Mr. Oliver: It means that the power of the Crown can be exercised against the national of a State at war with this country, or with His Majesty. It is a power every Home Secretary has had when this country is at war and that is technically the case today. There is power to detain any national who is a member of that State. That is the power which is being exercised today. If I understood the hon. Member who introduced this matter, Mr. Kuchenmeister came back to this country under a promise. I do not know whether I heard the hon. Member correctly, but, if that be so, I have no knowledge that any promise was given to Mr. Kuchenmeister when he came back to this country in 1939.
  Mr. Shepherd: I said he came back to this country in 1939 knowing full well that he would be interned, but when he returned from Australia in 1945, he was advised that his release would be considered.
  Mr. Oliver: I am very sorry, I thought it was that some promise had been made to him. He certainly returned from Australia in 1945, but I have no information, nor is there any indication that any promise was then made to him that he would receive some consideration. Out of a total of roughly 22,000 Germans and Austrians interned here during the war, there were some 1,200 who, it was decided, could not properly be released from internment and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. In order that none of them should be kept in custody any longer than was strictly necessary, opportunity was taken on every occasion to get these repatriated. At present, apart from 23 who are in hospital suffering from physical and mental illnesses, I think all but two have long since gone. The two who remain, one of whom is Mr. Kuchenmeister, are here solely because they have commenced legal proceedings the object of which is to test the validity of the Home Secretary's power to deport them, and to prevent the Secretary of State from deporting them, precisely in the same way that other internees with whom Mr. Kuchenmeister was classed were deported.
  Mr. Molson: Call him "K".
  Mr. Oliver: He was classed like the other internees, and it was desired that he should be returned to Germany. That would have been the case had he not commenced these proceedings. No one can object to, and no one desires to prevent, Mr. K. from taking such steps as he may think proper—
  Mr. Stokes: He does not want to go back to Germany.
  Mr. Oliver: I will deal with that in a moment. It is the settled practice of the Home Office, whenever an alien takes proceedings with a view to testing the legality of action proposed by the Secretary of State, to refrain from taking action, pending a determination of the matter at issue. That was so in Mr. K' s case. No step was taken, but the fact that an alien who is in custody has taken legal proceedings is, however, clearly no ground for releasing him.
  Therefore, the whole point rests on the fact that it is because Mr. K has taken proceedings that he is being held, as there is no justification for him to be released in the circumstances.
  Mr. Shepherd: Why is he being held?
  Mr. Molson: I quite appreciate the point the Minister has made—that the fact that an alien institutes proceedings against the Home Secretary is not in itself ground for releasing him. But is it or is it not the case that this man is confined in a prison like Brixton Gaol, and that he is confined, not in the same conditions in which aliens were confined during the war, but without any right of access or any of the personal liberty that was allowed to aliens?
  Mr. Oliver: He is confined to Brixton Prison, but I think that when most of the large number of aliens who were interned were sent back to Germany and Austria, it would have been unreasonable to have maintained the large establishments which had housed a large community of people who had been detained in them. Therefore, the very fact that there are only two such persons now here accounts for the fact that there is no place to which these people could reasonably be sent other than to a prison.
  Mr. Palmer: Could not Mr. K. be treated rather differently while at Brixton?
  Mr. Osborne: Why is he not given the same privileges as those prisoners who are allowed to have papers and correspondence, and are given a great deal of freedom?
  Mr. Oliver: I am informed that this man is not conforming to an ordinary prison routine. He has considerable liberties which are not given to the ordinary prisoner. It must not be assumed for a moment that Brixton is used only for the ordinary criminal. Hon. Members will know that during the war not only were enemy aliens interned there, but British subjects were detained under 18B.
  Mr. Molson: A highly desirable residence, in fact.
  Mr. Oliver: I do not know where, in the circumstances, this man could be placed. If any complaints were made with regard to the conditions under which he was being detained, if he is to be detained at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In the circumstances he must be detained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that a succession of Home Secretaries, starting with the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and including the present Lord President of the Council, one of the appeal judges, Lord Justice Somervell, and also the present Home Secretary, have reviewed this matter. Four successive Home Secretaries have reviewed the matter and—
  Mr. Marlowe: I feel, even on an intervention, that I must disclose the fact that I have an interest in this matter professionally, having advised this individual on one occasion. The hon. Gentleman is making the case that this man is detained merely because he took proceedings with regard to his detention. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that those were proceedings by way of habeas corpus, and were not those proceedings determined some considerable months ago? If that is so, what justification is there for detaining this man?
  Mr. Oliver: I understand that an appeal is to be lodged to the House of Lords. If there is any complaint about this man being detained, the complaint is brought about wholly by himself. The decision of the Home Secretary is that he should go to some other country, certainly not this one.
  Mr. Molson: I apologise for interrupting again. Are we to understand that there is a form of blackmail in this matter and that because this alien is instituting proceedings against the Home Secretary he is being kept in Brixton Gaol and that if he withdrew those proceedings he would be liberated?
  Mr. Oliver: If the proceedings were stopped, or when the proceedings are over, the Home Secretary will do as has been suggested. He will either be repatriated to Germany or it may be—and I think this offer has been made to the man—he may go to some other country.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Why cannot he go there now?
  Mr. Oliver: If the Home Secretary were to send him there now, the allegation would be that he had been sent there so that he would not be here, in this country, when his case was considered. There would be an allegation that we had sent him out of the country merely because there was some fear of what the result might be.
  Mr. Hogg: Do I understand that he wants to go to Eire? Why on earth should he not go there if he wishes to go? That is what I do not understand.
  Mr. Oliver: I do not know whether he wants to go to Eire. That is a point which has been raised but, so far as I am aware, it has not been stated definitely that he desires to go there. With regard to this man's going to Eire, I think it has been made clear that it is no part of the Home Secretary's duty when he is ridding this country of enemy nationals to permit them to elect the country to which they should go; and that applies in this case. We do not want to dump these people on OUT doorstep. When we wish to rid the country of enemy nationals it is not the function of the Home Secretary to say, "Where would you like to go?" and, If they say "We would like to go to Eire," for the Home Secretary to reply, "Very well, you shall go" [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] I do not think we should consider this
  1732
  case in isolation. We have to judge these matters as a whole. There have been 22,000 German and Austrian internees in this country, and if they had suggested that they should be permitted to go to Eire, would it have been the duty of the Home Secretary at that particular time to say, "Yes, you shall go"?
  As a rule, these people go back to the country of origin—they are repatriated. In this case, the Home Secretary has made an exception in the sense that he has suggested that this man may go to some country other than Germany, and so far as Eire is concerned, that at the moment has not been definitely settled. That is the position. While it is unfortunate that this man should be detained, what alternative is there left to a Home Secretary who has decided that this man shall leave the country?
  Mr. Tiffany: If it be argued that it would be unjustifiable to send him to Eire while his case is considered, if it is said that this would be an argument against justice, could not the same argument be deduced that it is also against justice to keep the man detained while his case is being heard, instead of allowing him freedom in the country to conduct his case? In any case, if he were allowed to be free, is it not obvious that he would not depart from this country until his case is settled?
  Mr. Oliver: There is no question of his departing from the country. He does not want to leave the country. But the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that he must leave this country, and that being the case, it is not in question that he wants to stay. This man wants to stay very badly, and these actions are, no doubt, promoted with that purpose in view.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Depot, Crystal Palace
  Depot, Crystal Palace
  Angle-iron
  Angle-iron
  Steel Allocations
  Steel Allocations
  Card Clothing (Licences)
  Card Clothing (Licences)
  Locomotives
  Locomotives
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  German Scientists (Housing)
  German Scientists (Housing)
  Dr. Schumacher (Government Hospitality)
  Dr. Schumacher (Government Hospitality)
  TRUST TERRITORIES
  TRUST TERRITORIES
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  GREECE (TRIAL)
  GREECE (TRIAL)
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (INDIANS)
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (INDIANS)
  TRAINING AREAS (ACREAGE)
  TRAINING AREAS (ACREAGE)
AGRICULTURE
  Hill Farming (Welsh Committee)
  Hill Farming (Welsh Committee)
  Water Schemes (Accounts)
  Water Schemes (Accounts)
  Potato Crop
  Potato Crop
  Legal Actions (Costs and Indemnities)
  Legal Actions (Costs and Indemnities)
  Clyst Drainage Board (Election)
  Clyst Drainage Board (Election)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cheese Ration (Farmers)
  Cheese Ration (Farmers)
  Licence, Liverpool
  Licence, Liverpool
  Bread Units (Transfer)
  Bread Units (Transfer)
  Indian Tea
  Indian Tea
  Barley (Conditioning Deduction)
  Barley (Conditioning Deduction)
  Canadian Wheat (Shipping Delay)
  Canadian Wheat (Shipping Delay)
  Wheat (Stocks and Extraction Rates)
  Wheat (Stocks and Extraction Rates)
  Milk Registration (Transfer)
  Milk Registration (Transfer)
  Gift Food
  Gift Food
  Gift Parcels
  Gift Parcels
  Egg Packers' Compensation Scheme
  Egg Packers' Compensation Scheme
  Cranberries
  Cranberries
ROADS
  B and C Licences
  B and C Licences
  Passenger Services
  Passenger Services
  Works, Suffolk
  Works, Suffolk
  Third Party Liability
  Third Party Liability
  Bus Shelters, London
  Bus Shelters, London
RAILWAYS
  Stocks (Dividends)
  Stocks (Dividends)
  Passenger Services
  Passenger Services
  Over-age Officers
  Over-age Officers
  Reserved Seats
  Reserved Seats
  Hotel, Hunstanton
  Hotel, Hunstanton
  Fares
  Fares
  Accident, Stratford Line
  Accident, Stratford Line
SHIPPING
  Overhauls (Foreign Ports)
  Overhauls (Foreign Ports)
  Ceylon and Far East (Passages)
  Ceylon and Far East (Passages)
  Bunker Coal
  Bunker Coal
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (ENGINEERS)
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (ENGINEERS)
  PENICILLIN (LOZENGES)
  PENICILLIN (LOZENGES)
  TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION (HOUSES)
  TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION (HOUSES)
  COAST EROSION (RESEARCH)
  COAST EROSION (RESEARCH)
  STEEL HOUSES
  STEEL HOUSES
CIVIL AVIATION
  Empty Seats
  Empty Seats
  Northern Ireland Advisory Council
  Northern Ireland Advisory Council
  COLONIAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SERVICES
  COLONIAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SERVICES
  MAIL CARRYING CONTRACT, LONDON
  MAIL CARRYING CONTRACT, LONDON
NATIONAL FINANCE
  L.P.T.B. Guaranteed Stock
  L.P.T.B. Guaranteed Stock
  Storm Damage (Insurance)
  Storm Damage (Insurance)
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS (EX-SERVICEMEN)
BRITISH ARMY
  Regular Engagements
  Regular Engagements
  Ranker Officers (Marriage Allowance)
  Ranker Officers (Marriage Allowance)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  ON-LICENSED PREMISES (STATISTICS)
  ON-LICENSED PREMISES (STATISTICS)
  PETROLEUM SUPPLIES (STATISTICS)
  PETROLEUM SUPPLIES (STATISTICS)
  GERMANY (TRANSFERRED WORKERS)
  GERMANY (TRANSFERRED WORKERS)
  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (AGREED SCHOOL SYLLABUSES)
  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (AGREED SCHOOL SYLLABUSES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Dowding—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Viscount Simon over the other notices and orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDIA.
2.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to call attention to recent developments in the situation in India. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, last week when the Secretary of State for India communicated to this House the Government statement about the Indian situation it was universally agreed that we should not make any comment at that moment; but my noble friend Viscount Cranborne intimated at the same time that we might find it necessary to ask for a discussion on this subject before Christmas. After careful consideration we have decided that this would be the right course. It will not be disputed—I am sure the noble Leader of the House would be the last to dispute it—that ever since the Cabinet Mission went to India in the spring we have exercised a proper restraint, and there is not one of us who does not realize that a debate on this subject now has to be conducted with great discretion.
When the Secretary of State for India gave his report to this House in July on his return with the other members of the Cabinet Mission from India it was in fact contemplated that there would be a debate on this subject in the House before the end of the year, and the month of November was mentioned. We really must not forget Parliament's responsibility in this matter. It is Parliament that has set up the existing Indian Constitution, and if the change is to come about, as it should, peaceably and in order, then it will be Parliament, that will have to enact the new Constitution which is agreed upon. I must say also that it is His Majesty's Government who are responsible in the last resort today for the Central Government of India. It is perfectly true that the subject which is called law and order is a Provincial subject and not a Central subject, but if disorder becomes so widespread and so serious that it passes the control of the Provincial Governments then, as your Lordships may know, it is the Governor of the Province who has a special responsibility which is personal to him—it is not a responsiblity of the Governor in Council at all. And if the Provincial Governor finds that matters go too far for provincial control, then it is the Viceroy, not the Viceroy in Council but the Viceroy in person, who has cast upon him by Statute and by the instructions that are given to him and are passed by both Houses of Parliament, the duty of intervening with a view to discharging his special responsibilities, such as, for example, his special responsibility for the protection of minorities.
Therefore it is not a technical or a fanciful point but the real truth that it is His Majesty's Government that must accept the responsibility in the last resort for the maintenance, as far as may be, of law and order. The Viceroy is not some independent potentate who decides things just as he likes; he acts in constant consultation with the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government, in case of need, gives him instructions. Therefore I say it is perfectly plain as a matter of Parliamentary propriety that we ought to have a debate on this subject, in view of the situation that has arisen—indeed, in view of all that has occurred since the proposals of the Cabinet Mission were made public on May 15.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): May 16.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thought they were announced to this House on May 16 but were in fact made public on the previous day. However, let us call it May 16. In view of ell that has happened since the proposals of the Cabinet Mission were made public on May 16, and, I must add, in view of the frightful, widespread outbreaks of communal violence in the last four months, that is to say, since the Interim Government took office, a debate in your Lordships' House is quite plainly justified.
There are two other considerations. Whether it is because the Indian problem is so complicated—and it is one of the most complicated and difficult problems in the whole world—or whether it is because popular attention is called to other exciting incidents going on in the world, it is no exaggeration to say that the public at large has very little appreciation of the course of recent events in India. I hold that one of the most useful functions of this House, where we endeavour to speak with moderation and at the same time with candour, is that from time to time the reports of our debates—and I wish they were more fully reported in the papers than they are—provide some enlightenment for the public outside. I hope I will not be thought to be impertinent if I go a little further. It appears to me that even among our citizens who closely follow the course of public affairs there are a great many who would not claim a close understanding of the drama that is now unfolding in India, unfolding, I trust, to a happy conclusion but certainly unfolding at present in a way which makes everybody anxious to the last degree.
I say this finally about our debate, at the beginning of it. I am sure that such a debate in this House can be conducted without aggravating the existing situation and without stirring up communal feeling. Anybody who knows anything about the subject at all, or who has the least appreciation of its gravity, realizes that everything possible must be done to reduce that communal tension to a minimum. I therefore do not expect that from any corner of the House there will be reproaches for raising this matter. After all, a Government which secured its success
916
at the poll with the war-cry "Let us face the future," will surely not resent the suggestion that it may be right for us occasionally to face the present and to reflect with hope, and with anxiety too, on what the future may have in store for India, for ourselves, and for the world. Therefore I make no apology at all for the decision to ask your Lordships to join in this debate.
It seems to me that an impartial and objective survey of events since the Cabinet Mission set out in March may serve a useful purpose. To the public spirit, energy and resourcefulness of the Cabinet Mission in face of unexampled difficulties we have all paid our heartfelt tribute. It was a very fine effort indeed. I should, moreover, like to put on record again what I am sure many of us feel—namely, that the Cabinet Mission did much to dispel an unfounded suspicion and a dangerous delusion. I thought my noble friend Lord Samuel put it very well in the debate of the 16th May when he said, and said truly, that the activities of the Cabinet Mission in India had dispelled the idea, freely stated by Indian politicians for years and echoed sometimes in the United States of America, that Britain's purpose was not to promote Indian self-government and independence but rather secretly and subtly to promote Indian divisions in order to re-establish and maintain our own rule. That is an utterly false charge; the exact contrary has been the object of successive Governments of every Party in this country and of the best thought of our people here in Britain. It is quite certain that if, unhappily, the consummation of complete Indian self-government is not peaceably achieved, it will not be because of obstacles that have been created by us or passions that have been fomented by Britain; it will be due to the fact that communal differences in India have proved so intractable that a peaceful conclusion cannot be reached.
While praising the Cabinet Mission, as I wish to do, I must observe that there was nothing new in the policy they were seeking to carry out. There was much novelty and ingenuity in the method, but the purpose was one which had been the British purpose for a very long time. I am sure the Secretary of State opposite will be the first to acknowledge that. Every Party in turn in this island has, for a long time past, devoted itself with

917
assiduity and persistence to trying to devise means by which British authority in India might be withdrawn and Indian self-government completed. No country in history has made such exertions as this country to get rid of its Imperial responsibilities I do not think it is too much to say that the assiduity and the persistence shown in trying to find an end to British control over India have not been less vigorous than they were in an earlier age when those qualities were exercised to establish that control.
I do not think it would be wasting your Lordships' time if I reminded you very briefly of the justification for my statement that, while the methods may have been novel and ingenious, the object of the Cabinet Mission when it went to India was not at all new. Take the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, and the Government of India Act, 1919, which was founded on it. There is a recital in the Government of India Act, 1919, which, we are told by his biographer, came from the pen of Lord Curzon. It is the famous recital:
"Whereas it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration, and for the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire."
As to those last words, much has happened since 1919. It is perfectly plain that under the Statute of Westminster, as well as according to the understanding of all well-informed persons, whether a self-governing unit chooses to remain within our Empire or to take what I think to be the far worse course of going outside it, the choice lies irrevocably with it and not with us. So much for the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Now go on ten years. I hope I may be forgiven for one moment if I refer to the Report of the Statutory Commission. After all, the Commissioners produced a unanimous Report, which is not quite as usual in Indian affairs as one would wish. They were seven Members of Parliament, drawn from all Parties, one of whom was the present Prime Minister. I hope that in future when that Report is referred to it will not be referred to as the "Simon Report"; let us call it the "Simon-Attlee Report".
There was no member of the Commission who served this country more devotedly,
918
with more zeal and determination to find out all the facts and to form a fair judgment, than did the man whose name I see at the bottom, C. R. Attlee, one of my colleagues. I am not at liberty to disclose how much of the Report he wrote himself, but I know very well the value we all set upon him as a colleague and as an adviser. I ask your Lordships to allow me to read what I think is the last paragraph in this Report which was written after we had been over every province in India, visited its chief towns and spent some time in the countryside. It is not to be compared with the experience of those who have lived there all their lives, but at any rate it is the result of the judgment of seven men belonging to different Parties who dedicated more Than two years of their lives to trying to advise upon this matter wisely.
We concluded in this way:
"No one of either race"—
and in this connexion that means no Briton and no Indian—
"ought to be so foolish as to deny the greatness of the contribution which Britain has made to Indian progress. It is not racial prejudice, nor imperialistic ambition, nor commercial interest, which makes us say so plainly. It is a tremendous achievement to have brought to the Indian sub-continent and to have applied in practice the conceptions of impartial justice, of the rule of law, of respect for equal civic rights without reference to class or creed, and of a disinterested and incorruptible Civil Service. These are essential elements in any State which is advancing towards well-ordered self-government. In his heart, even the bitterest critic of British administration in India knows that India has owed these things mainly to Britain. But, when all this is said, it still leaves out of account the condition essential to the peaceful advance of India, and Indian statesmanship has now a great part to play. Success can only be achieved by sustained goodwill and co-operation"—
and I venture to stress these words for they are not contrary, I think, to the views held on the Bench opposite—
"both between the great religious communities of India which have so constantly been in conflict, and between India and Britain."
That was the attitude at that time. I am well aware that many years have passed since then, but those fundamental propositions remain true.
Pass on another five years to the Government of India Act, 1935, with which the name of my noble friend Lord Templewood will always be honourably associated. To a certain extent it followed the advice of the Commission—it

919
abolished diarchy. It created in every province in India a unitary Government which, within its sphere, was really self-government. It made tentative arrangements for a Federation at the Centre which would include the Indian Princes. That part of the structure has never been realized. It has been impossible for a number of reasons, and largely because the accession of Indian Princes was not sufficiently forthcoming. Let us take the Cripps Mission. In the lifetime of the previous Government, in March, 1942, it went out, quoting what had previously been declared by that Government in August, 1940, as the intention of the Government of this country, as soon as possible after the war, to secure that India should attain a free status, as free as this country, under a Constitution to be framed by Indians by agreement amongst themselves, and acceptable to the main elements in Indian national life. Take the statement which was made by Mr. Amery, who became the Secretary of State for India in that Government. I will read only one sentence, in which he refers to the previous declaration at the time of the Cripps Mission, and he says on behalf of the Government:
"As was then stated, the working out of India's new constitutional system is a task which can only be carried through by the Indian peoples themselves."
I am perfectly justified, therefore, in saying that there is nothing new in this objective which effort after effort has been made to promote. Nobody is entitled to stand up now and object that the purpose aimed at is wrong and false. You may remember how my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury, in the last debate we had about India, referred in very feeling terms to the criticism which he and others in this House had felt it their duty to make of the Bill of 1935, and how he and others with him accepted the decision and desired honestly to work out the result at which we are all aiming. I say, therefore, that while the Cabinet Mission which went out last March was really pursuing the same general object, none the less it was adopting new and very ingenious methods by which it hoped to attain it.
May I remind your Lordships that just before they went out the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, made this public statement?
"My colleagues are going to India with the intention of using their utmost endeavours
920
to help her to attain her freedom as speedily and fully as possible. What form of Government is to replace the present regime is for India to decide, but our desire is to help her to set up forthwith the machinery for making that decision."
That was the purpose for which my noble friend the Secretary of State for India and his two colleagues left these shores. What did the Mission find? They found that in spite of all their efforts, which we all admired so much, it was impossible to get the new Congress and the Moslem League to agree either as to the outlines of a possible Constitution, or as to the creation of a Constitution-making body composed of representatives of all Indian parties and groups. They told us, as I well remember, that they had the satisfaction that they had brought, they thought, the two main parties nearer together, but there was a gap which no persuasion on their part could bridge. They therefore took a very bold course. It was really going beyond the purpose for which they went to India, but I had the opportunity of saying, and I did say at the time in this House, that I thought they were justified in taking that course and that they ought not now or hereafter to be reproached for taking it.
They took this course. They published an elaborate document, most carefully drawn up, in which they attempted to do the very two things which the Indian parties has not been able to do. One was to recommend the outline of a Constitution, the other was to propose a Constituent Assembly composed of 78 Moslems, of 210 Hindus (who for this purpose were treated as including the Untouchables) and 4 Sikhs to work the Constitution out. It was a very bold step, and one that might be thought to be going back a little on the repeated assurances that the Indians must do these things themselves. I think they were making a most manful effort, by one means or another, to bring the parties together, and nobody who has not had occasion, very closely and for a long time, to consider these subjects, can have any idea of how difficult it is to devise a plan which will reconcile these two things.
One is the Hindu aspiration for the unity of India, including the Indian States. It is all very well to say, and it is quite true, that it was the British rule which achieved a union of India, and that India was not thought of as a unity

921
until the British influence came. Even in the time of the Empire of Akbar or in the time of Asoka there was not even a really complete Indian unity, nothing which could have sent a representative to Geneva to the League of Nations, and nothing which could acknowledge a common sovereignty. That is true enough, but the aspiration of the caste Hindu that this should be achieved is one of the two great objects that have always to be kept in mind. What is the other object, which, believe me, bulks just as big and has to be brought into the picture on equal terms? It is the Moslem anxiety lest they should find themselves subject to perpetual Hindu majority rule. I can only offer my respectful compliments, having tried it myself, to anybody who produces a feasible scheme which will reconcile these two objects, but it must be done. Without that you cannot achieve the purpose which we have all solemnly declared we have at heart. The difficulty of the task has to be faced.
I think on the whole, after a fairly long experience, that it is the most difficult task in statesmanship to find a way of reconciling the Moslem-Hindu difficulties and to dispel the suspicion that is aroused. I really do not think that many understand the depth and width of the cleavage between them which has to be bridged. I saw in the report of the debate in another place last week on this subject that somebody introduced a comparison with Ireland. He said in effect that, after all, are there not Catholics and are there not Protestants in Ireland? There could not be a more ridiculous analogy. In Ireland, apart from the question of size, both Protestants and Catholics are Christians; they both speak the same language, subject to a refinement which enables some people from the south to detect an Irishman who comes from Belfast. Their social habits are similar, and inter-marriage, though it is frowned upon by the Catholic Church, is not uncommon. The Protestant minority has, to a very large extent, gathered together in Ulster, whereas the intermingling of Moslem and Hindu in dozens of towns in India makes the most perplexing situation, and makes a terrible headache for the administrator on occasions of excitement. Again, if you are going to talk about Ireland, Ireland at this moment is not under a single Government. It has
922
been found necessary to divide it. That sort of analogy is perfectly worthless.
I do not know whether your Lordships would excuse me if I made one more reference—it should be a very brief one—to the Simon-Attlee Report. We had an opportunity of studying this matter as closely as ever a body of English public men could study it. The passage I want to read to the House, if it will kindly allow me, has not changed its value with time. It is describing a situation which is the very basis of the whole Indian problem. The Commission said:
"It unfortunately happens that on Indian soil the opposition of these two faiths is terribly intensified by religious practices which are only too likely to provoke mutual ill-feeling. The devout Hindu regards the cow as an object of great veneration, while the ceremonial sacrifice of cows or other animals is a feature of the annual Mahomedan festival known as the Baqr 'Id. Hindu music played through the streets on the occasion of the procession of an idol, or in connexion with a marriage celebration, may take place at a time when the Mahomedans of the town are at worship in an adjoining mosque, and hence arises an outbreak of resentment which is apt to degenerate into a serious quarrel. The religious anniversaries observed by Moslems are fixed by reference to a lunar year which does not correspond with the adjusted Hindu calendar, and consequently it occasionally happens that dates of special importance in the two religions coincide—as, for instance, when an anniversary of Moslem mourning synchronizes with a day of Hindu rejoicing—and the authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order are then faced with a time of special anxiety. In spite of the constant watchfulness of the police authorities, and of the earnest efforts of leaders in both communities to reach a modus vivendi, the immediate occasion of communal disorder is nearly always the religious issue. On the other hand, when communal feeling is roused on some matter of secular interest, religious zeal is always present to stimulate conflict, and partisans are not slow to exploit the opportunity.
"It is a lamentable fact that the occasions when Hindu-Mahomedan tension is carried to the point of violent outbreaks have not diminished since the Reforms."
We went on to explain why. It is perfectly clear that so long as authority was firmly established in British hands and self-government was not thought of, Hindu-Mahomedan rivalry was confined in a narrow field:
"The comparative absence of communal strife in the Indian States to-day may be similarly explained."
I leave out the next few lines. The passage goes on:
"But the coming of the Reforms and the anticipation of what may follow them, have

923
given new point to Hindu-Moslem competition. A great part of the evidence given before us was on communal lines, and the same cleavage appears in the reports of the Indian Committees that sat with us. The one community naturally lays claim to the rights of a majority"—
I do not think we have any right to reproach the caste Hindus of India because they are moved by that consideration—
"and relies upon its qualifications of better education and greater wealth. The other is all the more determined on those accounts to secure effective protection for its members, and does not forget that it represents the previous conquerors of the country. It wishes to be assured of adequate representation and a full share of official posts."
I do not read those passages, your Lordships may be sure, with any desire to lay undue emphasis upon them, but for this simple reason. With great respect to your Lordships, it is not possible to understand what is now facing us, unless we do grasp the character of the chasm which separates these two great communities in India. The Moslem community in India numbers something like 90,000,000, which is more than twice the population of this island, and it is far too big to be regarded as a minority in the sense in which somebody once said that minorities must always suffer. Indeed there is truth in the observation that has been made before to-day that India is not one nation even if you do put aside the Untouchables—there are 50,000,000 of them—and perhaps one or two other groups. It consists of two nations, and the difficulty which we have got to pursue and hope to get solved—and we hope that Indians will solve for us—is to produce sufficient reconciliation between them. I must add one thing more. Those of us who are familiar with the history of government in this island, know that the essential thing in any peaceful reconciliation where there are deep differences is the virtue of tolerance. There have been times in our own history—the time of Queen Elizabeth, if you like—when there was not much tolerance to be found. The seventeenth century is full of examples of this want of tolerance in our history, and we know what it brought us. Tolerance is a thing that grows late in a community. It is a very unhappy fact, but an undoubted one, that of the many virtues which you may find in both We Hindu and Mahomedan communities in India, tolerance is very far to seek.
924
I have said that because that is the situation with which the Cabinet Mission had to deal, and they produced a most ingenious plan, which I will attempt very briefly to describe. If the Secretary of State for India will be so good as just to follow what I am now going to say, I shall be obliged, for I wish to be corrected if anything I say is wrong. The plan of the Mission was this. They proposed that the representatives of the Commission, the Constituent Assembly, should be grouped into three Sections, A B and C. A was the biggest; it included six provinces in the centre of India, though it extended to the sea on both sides. In that Section, the central block, the Moslem members would be in a decided minority. They would be, I think, in the ratio of 20 to 167. But in the other two Sections, B and C which were smaller—B was the Punjab, the North-West Province, Sind and Baluchistan; and C was Bengal and Assam—the Moslem members would be a majority, in one case quite a small majority. Each Section was to meet separately and was to devise the Provincial Constitutions for the Provinces within its area, and also if it wished the Constitution for the area of the whole Group. That was the extent to which the Government plan approached what may pass under the name of Pakistan. The Provinces were to have power to apt out of the groups as soon as the new constitutional arrangements had come into operation.
I believe that to be an accurate statement of what was to be the Government plan. It may seem technical, it may seem as though the details de not matter much, but to Indians of different races, this plan contains within itself arrangements which arouse the greatest possible interest and are of immense importance. Pandit Nehru and his caste Hindus contend that under that plan of the. Government's, the Provinces may opt out of a Group in the first place, and if that is so it might well be that one or other of those Provinces in Groups B and C, acting by itself, would go out. Mr. Jinnah and his Moslem League contend that that is not right, and that a Section must make a Constitution for the Provinces in its Group first, and that any right of the Provinces to opt comes later. Here is a Wing which is interesting and, I must say, leads in my case to some astonishment and to some amusement. His Majesty's Government

925
have most clearly stated that the meaning of that document is what Mr. Jinnah said. They have most clearly stated that on this point, if the Congress people think otherwise they have misunderstood the Government's intention. And yet it is suggested in some quarters that there should be referred to the Federal High Court of India the question as to what this Government proposal meant.
I really am quite at a loss to understand that. The Federal High Court of India has a certain jurisdiction to answer questions put to it by the Viceroy, but the questions have to be questions of law—the Statute says so plainly. I have not a notion how this thing could be carried through in that way. Are there to be advocates present, for the sides concerned, to advance competing arguments? Is the Secretary of State going to be called to give evidence as to what he meant? There is only one possible answer to the question what did the Government mean by their statement. That is for the Government to say, and that they have done. How, after that, it is sensible to talk about taking the opinion of the Federal High Court, I do not know. How you could do such a thing I have not a glimmering of a notion, and I think there must be some misunderstanding about it. The Moslem League, as I understand it, are very suspicious of the Hindu willingness to refer the thing to the Federal High Court, if indeed, that is the sensible thing to do. I do not take sides about it at all, but I can understand their feeling, when they have the Government's own declaration as to what the proposal means, that it is next door to idiotic to say: "We will now go to a bunch of Judges in order that they may tell us what the Government mean." This is not a question of construing a contract, or a treaty, or a Statute, or a will; it is purely a question of what is the Government's suggestion. If it is not stated in clear language, the Government have made it clear since, and I cannot understand how that can be a sensible proposal.
Let us consider what has happened. (I am studiously taking no sides in this matter and I do not want to.) What has happened, is that for good reasons or for bad reasons—I do not know—the Moslem members of the proposed Constitution Conference are at present not taking part
926
in it. With all my heart I hope they will, but they think that they have good reasons for refusing. Yet there are meeting at New Delhi a body of Hindus, who were elected to be members of this Constitution Conference. They have been sitting for a week. They have elected their Chairman—he was, of course, a Hindu—and they have been regulating their procedure. One gathers from the latest declarations of Pandit Nehru that they propose to proceed with their business with great rapidity. I want to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India and Burma. I put it because from my heart I believe that a plain answer to this question would greatly help the situation.
When the Secretary of State and his colleagues, in this elaborate document of May 16, proposed that there should be a Constituent Assembly which should thresh out a Constitution, by Indians and for Indians, did they ever for a moment contemplate that there could be such a Conference if it consisted only of one side? Is it not quite plain that those who are now assembling in New Delhi—sitting to-day, for all I know—are not in truth and in fact a Constitutional Conference at all? It is quite easy to prove that by examining the terms of the Government document. I can illustrate my meaning in a sentence. The Government document provides that at this Constituent Assembly, if it is alleged that a major communal issue arises and the Chairman rules that it is not a major communal issue, the other Party which objects and says that it is may claim that that question should go to the Federal Court. How can that happen when the other Party is not there? There are some forms of body which cannot exist unless the different parties to it come together; and this is one of them.
I invite my noble friend the secretary of State to tell us to-day, here and now, do the Government regard what is going on in Delhi at this moment as the Constituent Assembly? I foresee the greatest danger of misunderstanding, and possible charges of bad faith, if the Government do not make a plain declaration on that matter. The challenge was made in very clear terms in another place, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, my right honourable friend Mr. Alexander, in winding up for the Government, did his best to deal with it. How did he deal

927
with it? He dealt with it by saying: "This is a hypothetical question, and therefore I need not give an answer." My Lords, it is not a hypothetical question. These people are meeting now, at this minute, all by themselves, and the most recent declarations of Pandit Nehru show how much importance he attaches to the idea that he and his caste Hindus should constitute the Constituent Assembly which the Government propose. I cannot help feeling that it will be a good service—and I say it with great respect to the Secretary of State, for I can imagine his difficulties—if he would make it plain whether the Constitution drawn up by that truncated meeting can possibly be regarded as in accordance with the plans made by the Government.
It is the more important that it should be clear, because at the end of the recent conference in London, when the Government put their heart into the business of trying to reach agreement at the last moment between Mr. Nehru and Mr. Jinnah, the Prime Minister made a public statement when they went away. I would like to read that statement to your Lordships:
"There has never been any prospect of success for the Constituent Assembly except on the basis of an agreed procedure. Should a Constitution come to be framed by a Constituent Assembly in which a large section of the Indian population had not been represented, His Majesty's Government could not, of course, contemplate—as the Congress have stated they would not contemplate—forcing such a Constitution upon any unwilling parts of the country."
As far as it goes, it seems to me that the Prime Minister made a very valuable and useful statement, but it does not go to the point that I am putting.
One of the duties of the Constituent Assembly, if and when it has assembled, is to draw up a Constitution for the whole of India—a matter in which every great minority in India is concerned. I cannot for the life of me see how it is enough to say: "Well, of course the Constitution that may come out of this present body is one that we as the British Government could not allow or seek to enforce in areas of the country which do not in fact take part in its construction." There is only one possible answer, I humbly but most sincerely suggest to the Secretary of State. That is that this is not a fulfilment of the Government's proposal for a Constituent Assembly; and
928
whether it goes on or whether it does not, it is not until you get the representatives of these other great communities in—and I am sure that I am one of the first to hope they will come in—that you can say the work which is being done is the work of constructing a Constitution for a free country according to the Government's suggestion.
If that is not said, see what results will follow. You will embitter the very people who are holding out. More and more they will become convinced that from their point of view this is not a fair deal. It is not enough to inquire who is to blame for not turning up. You may argue about that till the crack of doom. It is a very complicated argument, and I do not wish to enter into it. Let us suppose, however, that the Moslems are to blame. Is the structure now about to be planned a Constitution such as the Government require? Now, my Lords, reverse the situation. Let us suppose for a moment that the only people to turn up at New Delhi were the Moslems, supposing the Congress Party decided to boycott it for some reason—good or bad. Are the Government prepared to say that in that event a Constitution brought up by the Moslems alone would be in execution of their plans for a Constituent Assembly? Of course, they would not say so, and the very fact that they would not say so shows in what a dangerous position they stand until at least on this point they make—as I hope they will—a clear declaration. The Secretary of State knows very well, as I hope the whole House knows, that I do not raise this point in order to provoke trouble, in order to intensify communal feeling, but because I am convinced in my bones, from the little that I know of this subject—and once you have given as much of your life as I have to this topic you cannot lose interest in it—that unless something of that sort is made plain now, we stand in the gravest jeopardy of misunderstanding hereafter.
There is another question with which I will deal shortly. I have mentioned this before, and for the moment the Secretary of State did not give me a very clear answer, although it was a very kindly one. I think the time has come to repeat it. When the Cabinet Mission boldly proposed the outline of a Constitution to be worked out by a Constituent Assembly, the composition of which they precisely indicated, was it the right view that the

929
Constituent Assembly should make any sort of Constitution they liked? Or was it the right view that they were to accept for the purpose in hand—not finally—the scheme the Government had made and try in detail to discuss it and see whether they could turn it into a completed whole? Because, mark you, if it is the view—I am rather disposed to think that Pandit Nehru takes this view; he appears to me to say so with great vehemence—that this truncated body is now engaged upon making what he calls any Constitution it likes, then I think the anxieties in the situation are redoubled. I do not doubt at all that when we spoke of Indians drawing up a Constitution for themselves we did not mean to put any restrictions upon them except certain restrictions essential to our honour and pledged word as regards minorities or as regards the Indian Princes; certainly not. As regards this operation it really becomes a very grave matter if we are to understand that this Constitution Conference is entitled to make any Constitution it likes.
I shall not detain the House much longer. I am sorry to have been so long. I have been most anxious to put before your Lordships and before the Secretary of State those anxieties which I am sorry to say fill my mind. My noble friend the Secretary of State communicated with me last Friday and asked me if I would let him know in advance what the particular matters were upon which I might ask him to give me a response—a really good procedure which is not infrequently followed in this House. I did so. I sent him some questions on Friday which I should like to read to the House in order that we may follow more closely any answer that he gives. The first question was this: Did not the statement of the Cabinet Commission announced to Parliament on May 16 last propose a Constituent Assembly for framing the new Constitution in which it was essential that representatives of the different major communities would be associated in certain proportions? And, following on that, I wish to ask: Do His Majesty's Government regard the Assembly which is now meeting at Delhi, and which contains no representative of the Moslem League, as a meeting of such Constituent Assembly? It may be the case—I most heartily hope it is the case—that this difficulty will be got over, that the Moslems will soon join it. But if
930
the Moslems continue their refusal to take part, will the conclusions reached by those who do take part be regarded by His Majesty's Government as a Constitution "settled by Indians for Indians"?
And thirdly: Is the Assembly now sitting at Delhi restricted in its efforts to frame a Constitution to the "basic form" (I am using the expression of the Mission) recommended by the Cabinet Mission; or is it at liberty to disregard the Mission's recommendations and frame a Constitution on other lines? I shall not trouble to read two further questions which deal with the Federal Court. I know my noble friend is thoroughly seized of the point and he will make such statement on it as he thinks fit. But it does appear to me that it would be well if, on this matter, in India as well as in this country, we had more information than is available at present.
Lastly, I must call attention to the news from India which reached us this morning by wireless and by newspaper. It is too widely confirmed for one to doubt its substantial truth, and I hope we shall not be put off to-day by the observation that as yet the India Office has received no official telegram. At Benares yesterday Pandit Nehru made a speech in which he claimed that the meeting at Delhi was the Constituent Assembly; that the Congress Members who were attending it would draw up any Constitution they liked; and that it would thereupon become the Constitution of India. Surely we ought to ask the Government now what is their attitude to this momentous declaration. Surely this reinforces my question whether this meeting of caste Hindus at Delhi can be regarded by the Government as the Constituent Assembly they meant at all. It is terrible to think what misunderstandings and what charges of bad faith may arise if the Government remain mute on this matter or say, like Mr. Alexander: "Oh, that is a hypothetical question." There is not much hypothesis about what happened at Benares yesterday. Such a claim, if it is persisted in, makes nonsense of the Cabinet Mission's patient efforts and threatens India with a Hindu Raj.
I am measuring my words as carefully as I have ever done in my life, and I speak under the gravest sense of responsibility. I say that the attempt to establish a Government in India, not by co-operation

931
between the major communities, but by reliance on the Hindu majority, threatens India with civil war, with anarchy and bloodshed on an unlimited scale. I, at any rate, feel that it is our duty, here in Parliament, to make an appeal to both sides—though, heaven knows, not to judge between them, which I am not attempting to do. To the Moslems I think we should say that we beg them to forget old feuds, to place some reliance in the British sense of fair play, and to do anything they feel they can do to join in a united Indian effort to frame a Constitution under which Indians of every class and creed may live at peace. To the Caste Hindus we should say that the British Parliament well understands the inspiration that is drawn from the prospect of complete freedom, but that the freedom must be for others, the 90,000,000 Moslems, the 50,000,000 Untouchables, as well as for themselves. We should beg them to realize—however little our words may count, we should do it—that a free and happy India can never be built up except by co-operation between the main Indian parties, and that that is the only road by which the consummation of their purpose can be reached.
Last of all, to His Majesty's Government here, who are trying to grapple with these fearful difficulties, trying to help to reconcile these contending forces, I would offer, if I may, the assurance of our understanding and sympathy, but I would beg them now to make a fuller declaration of their attitude, for upon them necessarily rests the heavy responsibility for seeing how law and order in India may be restored and how best Britain can help to promote a happy issue out of all these Indian troubles.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we on these Benches, deplore the policy of Parliament engaging in debates on the Indian situation at this moment, and after hearing the speech of the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, I still doubt the advisability of this debate. Although we were all interested in the historical summary, covering long periods of time, in which he engaged, and his survey of the fundamental elements of the Indian situation, which are not unfamiliar to your Lordships, it was only towards the end of his speech that he
932
raised a point of immediate relevance—namely, that he pressed the Government to make a statement now as to what they would do if and when the Constituent Assembly broke down. For my own part, I should regard it as highly inexpedient.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I made no such request. I never said a single word on the subject. I have not asked what the Government would do if the Constituent Assembly broke down. I am quite sure they are privately considering it, but I would never dream of asking such a question.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain what the final passages of his speech meant, for he said, and repeated with great emphasis, that the Moslems were not now members of the Constituent Assembly, but the Constituent Assembly is nevertheless meeting, and that Pandit Nehru had declared that it was a valid Constituent Assembly. The noble Viscount pressed the Government to say what is their attitude in that situation. Have I misrepresented the noble Viscount in any way? Is not that the gist of what he said?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Unintentionally, I am sure, my noble friend has completely misunderstood what I said, and I am in the hearing of your Lordships. I did not ask what the Government would do if there was a breakdown. I asked the Government to deal with the present situation and to say whether or not, in their view, the body that is now meeting was or was not the fulfilment of their plan.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It obviously follows from that that if the Government say it is not the fulfilment of their plan they must declare what their plan is in such an eventuality. At the present moment the Moslem League is considering whether or not it should enter the Constituent Assembly, and the Government have expressed the very earnest desire that they should do so. It is proper in this House to-day to express the same view, but to ask the Government to declare now ex-cathedra whether this present Assembly is valid or not cannot lead to any settlement of the situation but can only worsen it. I earnestly trust that the Government will not make any such statement. I wondered why it was that the Opposition put this Motion on

933
the Paper a week or two ago. It could not have had reference to Pandit Nehru's speech of yesterday, because it had not been made. It must have had reference to the general Indian situation.
In reading the debate in another place, it seems that it may have been initiated there to give the Leader of the Opposition in another place an opportunity of declaring what is the attitude of himself and his Party to the present situation. I venture to read what he said, as I do not think this infringes our usual rules of order of not quoting debates in another place, because we are allowed to quote official statements of Ministers and this statement by the ex-Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition has a quasi-official character. This is what he said in another place on December 12:
"There is another aspect. If we remained silent after all these months, it might be thought that we were in agreement with His Majesty's Government, and that the policy which they were pursuing was a national policy, and not a party policy of the forces which they represent. It might be thought that this was a policy of Britain as a whole, and that the execution of it was endorsed by the British people as a whole, whereas, for good or ill, the responsibility rests with His Majesty's Government. On their heads lies the responsibility."
That is a very grave statement, because hitherto the policy that has been pursued in this Indian matter has been regarded as national policy, for the reason stated under the Coalition Government and clearly stated in another place by the Secretary of State for India at that time, Mr. Amery, on June 14, 1945, when Mr. Churchill was Prime Minister and when the noble Viscount who has just spoken was the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Amery then said on behalf of the Government:
"As the statement makes clear, the offer of March, 1942, stands in its entirety. That offer was based on two main principles. The first is that no limit is set to India's freedom to decide for herself her own destiny, whether as a free member and partner in the British Commonwealth or even without it, The second is that this can only be achieved under a Constitution or Constitutions framed by Indians to which the main elements in India's national life are consenting parties."
He then went on to say:
"These principles, if I may quote the Prime Minister, 'stand in their full scope and integrity. No one can add anything to them and no one can take anything away'."
I should like to ask in what respect His Majesty's present Government have departed from that policy; what action of
934
theirs varies from that policy as laid down then, and why it should be necessary for the Conservative Party, as such, formally to dissociate themselves from the actions of the Government in this contingency. Indeed I can only think that that statement by Mr. Churchill can do nothing but mischief in India as indicating to the Indian people that, whatever this Government may do and whatever settlement it may arrive at, another Government may come into power later on to undo it because the present Government are not entitled to act, according to Mr. Churchill, on behalf of the nation as a whole. That passage from that speech in the other place is another illustration of the disadvantages of Parliamentary debates on these subjects at this juncture.
That disclaimer of responsibility brought instantly to my mind an event which occurred years and years ago but which has always dwelt in my memory. It was when the Campbell-Bannerman Government announced that full freedom was to be granted to the Boers after the South African War. I can recall as though it were today how Mr. Balfour rose in his place in the House and in tones of indignation said that he and his friends separated themselves wholly from that declaration, rejected any share in the responsibility for it, and felt that it was one of the most rash experiments in Colonial administration upon which any Government had ever embarked. Then it was the young Winston Churchill, as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who assisted the Prime Minister of the day in passing through Parliament the implementation of that policy—and indeed we should have fared badly in two World Wars if we had not adopted that policy at that time. Now it is the veteran Winston Churchill, ex-Prime Minister, who plays the part that Mr. Balfour played then, by rejecting formally and in Parliament a share of the responsibility for a policy of liberation. He and his friends may escape a share of the discredit if this policy fails, but, on the other hand, they have renounced all share in the credit if it succeeds.
Let me make it clear that the Liberal Party for whom I speak has from the beginning always advocated full self-government for India as the ultimate goal—not to be arrived at suddenly, but stage by stage—with a clear vision that when that people reached political maturity it

935
was only on the basis of their consent that India could remain a part of the British Commonwealth. We regard the Government policy in these days as broadly right, and up to the present time we see no reason why it should be made the object of criticism and animadversion. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place also attacked (although the noble and learned Viscount did not do so to-day) the formation of the Interim Government and the course of events that followed its formation. But what alternative was there to the creation of an Interim Government such as has been established in India?
Should we have continued a Government of caretaker officials during the long period—perhaps two years or more—which must elapse before the Constitution is finally shaped? If not that, should there have been a Government of high British officials and civil servants as before? If India had been under such a Government, I believe it would have become absolutely ungovernable—feelings and passions have risen far too high. The only course was to urge that both Congress and the League should take part in the Government, and although for a time that was found to be impracticable because the League stood out, afterwards, happily, the League came in and now we have a Government which, although it naturally has great difficulties to contend with, is framed on the right lines.
Now the Opposition members press for a statement as to the safeguarding of minorities in the future. All three parties concerned—the British Government, Congress and the Moslem League—have declared firmly and repeatedly that they will take no action to coerce any part of India to come into a Constitution with which the people of that part disagree. Therefore, until something is forthcoming to show that one or other of those three parties has repudiated and will fail to honour that obligation, it seems to be in error for this Parliament to intervene and to assume that minorities are going to be oppressed. Today, however, the Government have been urged by the noble and learned Viscount, as they were in another place by Mr. Churchill himself, to declare here and now what course will have to be taken in certain eventualities, if the
936
Moslem League do not form part of the Constituent Assembly.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord's notes, but he cannot possibly have made that note after hearing my speech. I did not say one single word to that effect from beginning to end.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I disagree with the noble Viscount as to what is the obvious interpretation to be put upon his words.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am in the hearing of the House.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: To repeat it again, he is assuming a state of affairs in which the Moslem League stand out, as they have done hitherto, and he is reproaching the Government for not dealing with that situation. What is the conclusion to be drawn from that? It obviously is that the Government ought to make a statement now. What statement are they to make? They are expected to make a statement that, if the Moslem League still stay out and if Congress go on with their present action in the Constituent Assembly, the British Government will pay no attention to those recommendations. Is not that the obvious conclusion? What other conclusion can there possibly be? Am I not perfectly right in saying that what he is calling upon the Government to do is to state what action they will take in certain eventualities which have not yet occurred?
At the end of the two days' debate in the other House Mr. Churchill repeatedly pressed Mr. Alexander to make a statement of that character and Mr. Alexander—rightly, in my judgment—repeatedly refused. What would be the result in India to-morrow if to-day the Secretary of State for India were to rise in his place and say: "We are assuming that the Moslem League will stay out and we are assuming that Congress will frame its own Constitution; in that event it must be clearly understood that the British Government will," or "will not," "do" so and so? That would be regarded instantly as a threat; it would be regarded as a gross intervention in the controversies of Indian politics; it would be regarded as contrary to the pledges repeatedly given that it is for the Indians to draw up their own Constitution and that it is not for this Government to direct what that Constitution is to be. We have said, Congress

937
have said and the League have said that force will not be used to compel minorities to form part of constitutional arrangements with which they have disagreed. If such a situation were to arise, then—and then only—would be the time for the Government to declare their action.
As to the present issue which has caused the deadlock and which has kept the Moslem League out of the Constituent Assembly for the time being, that is a tangled matter of Sections and Provinces, of opting in and opting out, and of legal interpretatations or non-legal interpretations. But the concrete issue is perfectly simple, and it has an actual point of substance of immediate importance. It is the Province of Assam. All this discussion on general principles has regard simply to their application to a particular case, and the Province of Assam is the one which is primarily concerned. That is a Province with a Hindu majority but it is one which is regarded as necessary geographically to the conception of Pakistan. The question is whether the Hindu majority in Assam should have the right now, at the outset and before the Constituent Assembly comes to any decision, to opt out of the Pakistan States, the Sections, or whatever they may be called, if in fact they are constituted; or whether it should not be until after the Constitutions for those Sections, including Assam, have been agreed upon, that Assam should have the right to opt out. I am sure the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, will correct me if I am wrong in any particular. I see he assents to that interpretation. The Government hold that the latter course is the right one, and it obviously should be the right one, because it is only when the Constitution has in effect been drafted and passed, and when Assam can see just what its rights will be under the new Constitution, that the people of that Province ought to come to their decision. That is a matter that ought to be settled by India for itself, and it is the Indians who know all the details. We do not know them, and it is not for us to intervene or to express any opinion in such a matter.
This again calls to my mind a not irrelevant simile which happened years ago. The noble Viscount said that India is not a parallel with Ireland, and that is quite true. Some of us remember in 1914 a very crucial conference at Buckingham
938
Palace between the Unionists and the Home Rulers in striving to arrive at a conclusion, while the European war was looming in the background. The subject under discussion was whether the Counties of Monaghan and Fermanagh were to become part of Northern or Southern Ireland. Similarly, that is the case of Assam. I very earnestly hope that it will not be the cause of any irredeemable disaster through the failure of this constitutional conference.
We all here regret the Moslem abstention. Whenever any negotiation is about to take place, whenever any conference is on the eve of being summoned, there is always a temptation for each party to say: "We will come into your conference with pleasure, but only if, before it meets, you express yourself willing to do what we want." They make it an absolute condition of participation that their terms shall be yielded in advance. That happens again and again in all parts of the world, the reason being that the rank and file of any movement are unwilling to trust their leaders to represent them unless they think their leaders will prove sufficiently tough in order to secure the desires of the movement as a whole. Probably that is so in this case also. Last summer it was the Sikhs who stood out, and, when we debated the matter, from all quarters of the House an appeal was made to the Sikhs to come in. They listened to that appeal, and they did come in. Now it is the case of the Moslems. Those who refuse to enter into discussions are, in my judgment, always in the wrong. When you are called upon to come into a discussion, or to take part in some great national political movement, those who say that they will not discuss unless their terms are agreed to are always in the wrong.
Our appeal should be to the Moslems now to come into the Constituent Assembly. Since we are called upon here in this debate to express our views on these matters, although I think it is unfortunate that we should be, we should now appeal to the Moslems to come into the discussion in the Constituent Assembly, and at the same time appeal to Congress to show them due sympathy and good will. If the Constituent Assembly fails, of course each side will blame the other, but both will agree upon one thing, and that is that the British are to blame. That is always the easy course to take. When

939
they are tired of quarrelling among themselves—and the same applies in Palestine and Ireland—there is always one matter which can be assured of unanimous applause whenever the two parties come together, if they do come together, and that is to blame a third party. (There again, those who are absent are always in the wrong.) It would not be fair in this case that they should do so. The British Government have taken every opportunity to meet and appeal to them, and at this juncture the responsibility rests fairly and squarely upon the Indian parties. If they fail, the prospects are gloomy indeed.
The history of India before the British Raj had been the history of incessant conflict between Hindu and Moslem. Those flames are not extinct, and the recent communal rioting has shown that clearly enough. When I spoke briefly on this matter in the debate last July, I ventured to draw the attention of the House to the almost invariable lessons of history, and I feel hound to repeat that to-day as I repeated it in private conversations in which I had the privilege of engaging recently in London with Mr. Nehru and Mr. Jinnah. All through the history of mankind, whenever an Empire has contracted or withdrawn, the consequence has been civil war and turmoil. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire lasted for centuries through the dark ages. In South America, when the Spanish Empire was rightly overthrown, for years and generations incessant conflicts took place. When Turkey was turned out of the Balkans we had that peninsula engaged in continual wars and conflicts, which still continue. In China, a similar state of things has existed since the fall of the Manchu Empire. The only exception has been the British Commonwealth, where power has been transferred to the Dominions without conflict and without war, after the one great conflict of the American War of Independence.
It has been said that the only thing men have learnt from history is that they will not learn anything from history. So it is apparently now that some of the Indian leaders talk light-heartedly of the British quitting India at once, and their being left to fight out their own disputes in their own way. That is a rash and terrible thing to say. Aggressive war is a crime, and civil war is equally a crime,
940
bringing appalling disaster upon vast and innocent populations. Already these communal riots which have taken place within the last few months have brought about the murder of more than 10,000 people, according to official statements made in another place. A widespread community conflict in India would measure its victims possibly by millions.
It is not only we in Parliament who feel this way. I observed that the leading article in The Times a few days ago spoke of "the anxiety now generally felt throughout this country as to the possibility of widespread civil war in India." If that should take place, what is to be the part to be played by this country and by the British Army? If there is no peaceful solution by constitutional means: if these riots recur and on a far vaster scale; if the strain proves too great upon the cohesion and the discipline of the Indian regiments—some of which belong to one Section and some to another and some are mixed—and if, while the lawyers and politicians argue and wrangle and pass resolutions, some new kind of warlord were to arise offering to the people the enjoyment of order at the price of the loss of their liberties and the establishment of tyranny, what should be the part to be played by the British Parliament, the British Government, and the British Army? Are we quietly to slip away and leave anarchy there, anarchy such as prevailed in China for example? After 150 years of British rule that would be the course of dishonour. On the other hand, are the British Armies to intervene in order to maintain or re-establish peace and order? That would mean that young men from London, Yorkshire, Devonshire, Scotland, Wales, or wherever it might be, would have to lay down their lives in India in order to put all end to a quarrel which is not of our choosing. Why should we be put to that dilemma of having to choose between dishonour on the one side and disaster on the other? Yet it seems to me that such is the situation now shaping unless the Indian parties can wisely concur in framing their own Constitution. The success of the Constituent Assembly is, therefore, a matter of vital importance to this country. To my mind, at this moment, it can best be forwarded, not by reproaches but rather, on our part, by reticence.
4.11 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene at this stage in the debate to lay before your Lordships some of the basic facts of the situation as I see them to-day, and to reply to some of the questions put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. That will not preclude me, if it is your Lordships' wish and with your Lordships' permission, from dealing at a later stage with any of the further points which are made in the course of the debate.
When I spoke in this House shortly after the return of the Cabinet Mission, I said that there was one thing which I felt sure we had accomplished during our visit to India; that was that we had convinced the responsible Indian leaders of the sincerity of His Majesty's Government and of the vast majority of the British people in their desire to give to Indians complete control of their own destiny. Since I have been home I have had the opportunity of assessing how far I had correctly represented British opinion. I have scanned nearly all the leading articles on India in the Press, I have talked with large numbers of people of all political persuasions, I have followed the recent debate in the House of Commons, and as a result I am satisfied that, whatever criticism there may be in detail of the actions and pronouncements of His Majesty's Government and the Cabinet Mission, there is almost complete unanimity throughout the country on the main issue—that the time has come for Indians to have independence, whether within or without the British Commonwealth, according to their choice.
Your Lordships will realize that that being so it was no longer possible for this country to frame a Constitution for India, still less to impose one. Their Constitution must be made by Indians for Indians, and the Constitution must command the consent of the major communities and be fair to minorities generally. These conditions do not arise from the caprice of a British Government determined to cling to power until forced to relinquish it, but from the inescapable political facts of human relationships. It was in the endeavour to assist Indians to form such a Constitution that we put forward for their acceptance our proposals of May 16. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has asked me several questions with regard to this
942
statement, and I will do my best to give him an answer. I will first deal with the two questions relating to the present situation. The whole objective of the Cabinet Mission was to find a way in which a Constitution could be framed by Indians by mutual agreement. In the statement of May 16, the Mission made proposals which, in their view, provided the most hopeful method by which constitution-making could proceed with general co-operation. For that purpose the presence of representatives of both major communities in the Constituent Assembly is essential to the success of the Cabinet Mission's recommendations. While His Majesty's Government have made it clear in the Prime Minister's speech of March 15 that it is not part of their policy that a minority should be able to place a veto on the advance of the majority, I would refer the noble Viscount to the last paragraph of the statement made on December 6 at the conclusion of the recent conversations with Indian leaders. The noble Viscount has already quoted that concluding paragraph. That paragraph seems to me to be quite explicit, and the Government have at present nothing to add to it.
In reply to a further question from the noble Viscount, I would say that, though all parties took part in the election for the Constituent Assembly, it is, of course, well known that at the present moment the Moslem League representatives are not taking their seats in the preliminary sittings which are now being held, and which are, therefore, clearly not representative of the two major communities. His Majesty's Government still hope that before the meetings in the Sections take place it will become so representative, and with that object in view, which they believe noble Lords opposite share, they do not think it desirable to make any statement on a hypothetical situation beyond that which they have made already.
I turn now to the noble Viscount's questions relating to the functioning of the Constituent Assembly under normal conditions. He asked whether the Assembly now meeting at Delhi is restricted, in its effort to frame a Constitution, to the basic form recommended by the Cabinet Mission, or whether it is at liberty to disregard the Mission's recommendation and to frame a Constitution on other lines? Under the Cabinet Mission's proposals the Constituent Assembly cannot frame a

943
Constitution which departs from the basic form recommended by the Cabinet Mission in paragraph 15 of their Statement unless this is agreed upon with the approval of the majority of the representatives of each major party. It is provided in paragraph 19 (vii) of the Statement of May 16, that
"any resolution varying the provision of paragraph 15 above"—
the basic recommendations as to the form of the Constitution—
"or raising any major communal issue, shall require a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the major communities."
The noble Viscount made reference at the end of his speech to the report of a speech by Pandit Nehru at Benares. I certainly would not minimize the gravity and importance of the remarks attributed to him. But I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has expounded the position as I see it, and I should be inclined to think that the speech at Benares was a political rejoinder to a very provocative speech made only a few days ago in the House of Commons. Be that as it may, I will only say that the position of the Government remains unchanged. Our intentions stand that Indians have the right to decide their own future. Our conviction stands that only on a basis of agreement can a stable Constitution be created. Our intention remains to do all in our power to bring the parties together. I was glad to note that in his concluding words, before he sat down, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that he shared that view, and he made his appeal both to the Moslem League and to the Congress Party to find an accommodation which would enable them to sit together in the Constituent Assembly and create a Constitution which would command the support of all sides.
Now, I should perhaps say a word on the difference between the parties, which is the main subject of controversy. It may seem, on the surface, to be a small one but, in fact, it is fundamental to the whole scheme. The task which confronted the Cabinet Mission was to reconcile the desire of Congress for a federated India and a strong Centre with the desire of the Moslem League for autonomy of the Moslem majority Provinces. The solution which we offered was a limited Centre, the Constitution for
944
which was to be worked out by a Constituent Assembly in which Congress would have a clear majority, and the three sections A, B and C, of which B comprises the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Provinces, Sind and Baluchistan, and C Bengal and Assam. In B and C the Moslems would have a majority and in those Sections we provided for the Provincial Constitutions and, if so decided, the Group Constitutions, to be framed. Thus, each party had a majority where it was most deeply interested. It was, however, provided that no Province could be forced into a Group against its will, since when it saw and could judge of the Group Constitution it could at the first election after the new Constitution was settled opt out of the Group if it so desired.
The question at issue is as to the method of voting within the Section. The intention of the Cabinet Mission was that it should be by a majority vote of the members present and voting in tilt, respective Sections, and their view, fortified by legal opinion as being the correct interpretation of the Statement, His Majesty's Government have reaffirmed in their statement of December 6. Congress desired a different method of voting in order to protect the position of those Provinces in B and C where there is at present a Congress majority, from being swamped by the large Provinces of the Punjab and Bengal. They claimed that the Statement of May 16, read as a whole, necessitated their interpretation—this is a point which I think perhaps the noble Viscount had not quite seen—and that, therefore, their acceptance of the Statement did not force them to take our interpretation. They declared, however, that they were prepared to submit the question to the Federal Court and to accept its decision.
VISCOUNT SIMON: What would be the question?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The question, as I understand it—it is put in various forms—would be how voting was to take place in the Sections. The Moslem League were not willing, on what to them is a fundamental point, to take this risk. It was to help to resolve this issue that the Indian Leaders were invited to this country, and His Majesty's Government issued their statement of December 6. I should like to make it quite plain beyond all question of doubt, that His Majesty's Government do not

945
consider that this issue is one which it is desirable should be referred to the Federal Court. The statement of December 6 makes this clear and also the interpretation which His Majesty's Government themselves hold. The view of the Government is that this interpretation should be accepted by all parties. They only mention this matter of the Federal Court because that was the view expressed by the Congress Party as to what the Statement said. If in spite of the views of His Majesty's Government, the Constituent Assembly meeting now at New Delhi were going to submit the matter to the Federal Court—which no one can prevent—the Government think it most desirable that it would be done at once. But as I have already said—
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. But he suggested that no one could prevent the Congress Party submitting the question to the Federal Court. He is aware, I am sure, that the Federal Court can only be asked to consider a question of law, and that on request of the Governor-General. The Congress Party have no right in the world to submit the question to the Federal Court. I cannot understand how it can be possible for it to be regarded as a question of law. When one is asked what does the Government mean by its own statement it is not really a legal issue.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not a question of law, it is a State document. The Congress Party have expressed their intention of submitting it to the Federal Court. All I am saying is that if they choose to do so—whether the Federal Court will entertain the submission is another rnatter—His Majesty's Government hope that it will be done at an early date instead of waiting too long. I repeat that His Majesty's Government stand by their interpretation of the Statement of May 16 as set out in that Statement, and that they will by no means depart from it, even if the Federal Court should be appealed to. His Majesty's Government hope that an agreement may yet be reached in a way which will allay the fears of both parties, for it must be obvious to all that no Constitution in which Groups are formed out of Provinces and themselves are part of an Indian Union, can be successfully brought into being and
946
survive unless it is based on mutual consent. One aspect of this matter is that there is anxiety in certain quarters whether the majority in a Section might not impose a Provincial Constitution upon a Province which would be contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants, and might even be of such a character as to prevent the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants prevailing in the decision whether or not to opt out of the Group. I am sure that neither side have any wish that this should take place. There is no reason why the two major communities should not come to an arrangement between themselves which would avoid any danger of it happening.
Your Lordships may wish that I should make a few general remarks before I conclude my speech. First, with regard to the Indian States. Ever since the Commission—which until now has been called the Simon Commission, but which the noble Viscount now calls the Simon-Attlee Commission—it has been a recognized principle that in the new self-governing India, the States would play an integral part. The Cabinet Mission's proposals provide for the representation of the States in the Constituent Assembly on a population basis. This would give the States 93 seats out of a total of 389. The manner in which these seats should be filled was left for negotiation between a committee appointed by the Indian States and a committee appointed by the British-India side of the Constituent Assembly. The States have appointed a committee for this purpose. When a committee has been appointed by the British-India part of the Constituent Assembly, negotiations on this matter can begin.
The Cabinet Mission made it clear, and His Majesty's Government have since reiterated, that they could not in any circumstances transfer paramountcy to an Indian Government. The position, therefore, will be that when British authority is withdrawn from British India, the powers of paramountcy will lapse and, as a necessary corollary, the obligations of the States to the Crown will also lapse. There was a welcome for the Mission's proposals on this subject by the Indian States, who are anxious co-operate in the framing of the new India Constitution.
I will now say a few words about the position of the minorities. The Cabinet Mission took the view that the only satisfactory method of securing protection for

947
minorities was by provision in the Constitution itself. The earlier Cripps offer contemplated that there should be provision by means of the Treaty, but further consideration has led us to the conclusion that this is not likely to be effective, and that view was supported in 1942 by Dr. Ambedkar. Your Lordships will realize that the basis of representation in the Constituent Assembly was the Provincial Legislatures; broadly, the lines of population. That being so, it was not possible to give to any minority sufficient representatives to exercise any really powerful influence in the Constituent Assembly. In order to meet that situation, the Cabinet Mission proposed that an Advisory Committee should be constituted to make recommendations as to minority protection. The Advisory Committee, we hope, will be an authoritative body representing both the minorities themselves and leading experienced statesmen from India. It seemed to us, as all Parties in India are anxious that minorities should have real protection, that the recommendations of such a Committee could not be disregarded. We see no reason to suppose that the Constituent Assembly will not by these means make fair and reasonable provision for minority interests. In the Statement of May 25, however, we have said that this is one of the matter on which His Majesty's Government will wish to be satisfied before the final steps for the transfer of power are taken.
I may perhaps interject a few remarks here on the particular case of the Scheduled Castes. This problem is complicated by political divisions among the Scheduled Castes themselves. A substantial proportion of the Scheduled Castes belong to a political organization affiliated to the Congress; a further proportion belong to the Scheduled Castes Federation, of which Dr. Ambedkar is the head; but the largest proportion of all, according to the voting at the primary elections, support independent candidates. The method of elections, I might add, is a very complicated one, and it would be difficult for me to explain it verbally to your Lordships. It is true, of course, that this system of secondary elections, to which Dr. Ambedkar agreed at the time of the Poona Pact in 1932—no doubt without much desire to agree—and which, I think, appears in the Act of
948
1935 (the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, will correct me if I am wrong) operates unfairly at the present time against Dr. Ambedkar's organization. But the Mission felt that in constituting the Constituent Assembly on the basis of the Provincial Legislatures, under the 1935 Act and the Poona Pact provisions, they had no alternative but to carry them out in the way they have done. Therefore, for that and other reasons, as I have already said, realizing that the protection of the Scheduled Castes would not be sufficient if left entirely in that form, they arranged for the creation of the Advisory Committee to which I have already referred.
I think that probably your Lordships will not wish me to go into greater detail on other matters. I would like to do so, but time is running on and there are a great number of your Lordships who wish to take part in this debate. I have not referred to the formation of the Interim Government, or to the great community of the Sikhs, and I have said nothing about the treaty which will have to be framed when the Constitution comes into being. In conclusion, I wish to make a special appeal to those of your Lordships who are taking part in this debate to make full allowance for the inherent difficulties. In saying this, I am not pleading for indulgence for myself or for His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships are fully entitled to make such criticisms of us as you may think fit. I am pleading for the Indian leaders, my friends, as I am sure they will allow me to call them—those who came over recently to this country at our invitation and those who stayed behind. They are all men with very heavy responsibilities, and they are spokesmen for large masses of their fellow countrymen and women whom they have to carry with them in any approach to a settlement. I feel sure your Lordships will have no wish to say anything which might make it more difficult for those men to come together.
4.38 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, it is with reluctance and hesitation that I address you to-day. I do so only because the greater part of my life was spent in India, and because I was in the very closest touch with the people there in a way in which I think few of your Lordships were able to be. I hope

949
I shall not be considered unduly egotistical if I talk of my own experiences and of what I gathered during my time there with my Indian comrades. When I went to India I followed a father and grandfather, each of whom had served there for thirty-five years, one as a Judge in the High Court and the other as a General. I myself served for nearly forty-seven years, and had the good fortune to come into touch with all our Indian races. I have been followed by a son and a grandson, both in my old Indian regiment, and together there is a total of 120 years in which my family has served India.
That being the case, I am sure your Lordships wilt realize that I have the greatest affection for India and her peoples. Even now, although years have passed since I left, I continue to receive by every mail letters from my old comrades, or their sons or grandsons, many of whom do not know English and write in their own vernacular. I attribute my affection for India to the fact that I had the good fortune to be appointed to what I consider one of the finest services, the Indian Cavalry; and I am glad to see a brother officer sitting close to me, in the noble Lord, Lord Wigram. We seldom had more than five or six British officers present with the regiment, which consisted of 625 Indians of all ranks. We further had the good fortune in that my regiment consisted of Sikhs, Punjabi Hindus, and Mahomedans. From the very earliest times we had the opportunity of being in touch with the different representatives of these classes in India, and I can say that though very often under the surface one realized what the communal troubles were, never did they ever come to a head when we British officers were in close deliberate touch, as we were, with our Indian officers and other ranks. And on more than one occasion we invariably stopped any trouble in advance.
I will mention one little episode to your Lordships, which will show you the feeling which existed between the British officers and our men. Years ago I was out on long distance reconnaissance with my squadron, travelling very light; fact with only what we could carry in our saddles. I woke up one morning to find that two or three of the men's cloaks had been thrown over me because the rain had come on. When it was mentioned,
950
the men said, "Sahib, it us our duty to look after you." Well your Lordships will understand that, when such feeling existed, one could not help loving one's men. I think I learnt most about Indians and their customs when I had the good fortune to march with my regiment from Central India right up to the North-West Province. It took some two and a half months of daily marching. I remember in Central India passing through what had been most magnificent old cities, with beautiful stone arches and stone buildings, but now absolutely eaten up in the jungle, because, as one heard, years before when the British were not out there, the whole country was marauded by people known as the Pindaris, who spared nothing and absolutely overran the country. I do not think that that could ever happen now. In addition, in every village at which we stopped the regiment were challenged by the villagers to play cricket or hockey. The villagers would gather round and tell us what their feelings were about the country.
A great many people in this country do not realize that India is not a country like, say, Spain or Russia. It is a continent which is very much more divided with its different ideas and opinions than is Europe. In Europe I think we are practically all followers of Christ, with hopes of a life hereafter. In India it is very different. As your Lordships will know, the largest communities there are Hindus and Mahomedans, Sikhs, Buddhists, and various others. I might say one word about the Sikhs, who are probably the people I know best in India. They consist of some 6,000,000 men. You might call them Theosophists. They are devoted to their religion, and I cannot possibly see the Sikh community accepting Mussulman domination of the Punjab. I am convinced that the Sikhs would fight and die rather than have Mahomedan domination.
With regard to the Mahomedans, I think they are inclined to tolerate us because they regard us as what they call Ala Kitab—"Followers of the Book." They regard Christ as one of the Prophets. The enormous depth of the antagonism between the Mahomedans and the Hindus has to be seen to be realized. The Hindu worshipper of idols is, in their mind, absolutely anathema. That, I can assure you, is the feeling of the Mahomedans generally. When, as a young officer, I first went out to India the railway ran

951
from Bombay to Madras, and from Bombay to Allahabad, where it bifurcated to Calcutta on one side and Lahore on the other. Fortunately, I may say, motor cars did not exist. Consequently, the District Officer had to go round his district either riding or driving. He got to know his people, lived with them and was respected by them. Nowadays the motorcar has passed on its celerity to the Britisher and everybody concerned, and the Administrative Officer, instead of being able to spend some time with his people, has to tear back to his office, which he finds paper-logged with correspondence of all sorts, possibly from this country, asking details about what Mahomed Khan is doing.
As a young man, when we went round these districts the people would hear you coming. The whole village would turn out. We went first of all to get recruits. Secondly, we went to get horses for the regiment, and thirdly to see our old pensioners, to see that they were happy and being properly looked after, as they should he. When one went from village to village all the people would turn out. We would sit under one of the big trees of the village. There would be a few moments' silence. Then tongues would be loosened, and we heard all the grievances that the people had, such as that the best well in the village had dried up, and that cattle had died. It was always brought in that one of the canal subordinates was refusing to give them a proper supply of water. After the durbar we would retire to our hut, and a single man would come to you and say, "Sahib, cannot you send a Britisher in place of this Hindu Judge? His exactions are so great that we cannot suffer him any longer." You would go to the next village and the same thing would happen. A Mahomedan would come and say to you, "Cannot you get rid of this Hindu Judge? His tyranny is so great that we cannot stand it." Those are the experiences which I had in those days.
I also realized quite early that it was quite wrong that Indians had no representation, there being no Hindu civil servants as Indian Judges or Commissioners or Administrative Officers. In the Army no Indians held the King's Commission. Later on that was put right. Sandhurst was open to young Indians. A certain number went there, and I think that every
952
one of those whom I saw was perfectly delighted with his treatment there and enjoyed it thoroughly. Sandhurst, however, could not provide all that we wanted. Later on an Indian Sandhurst had to be started, to which Indians were sent in much larger numbers, and as every Indian qualified, he took the place of a British officer, thereby starting Indianization in that respect of the Army. I can remember so well one incident. I was inspecting the Khyber Pass, and I saw a young Indian seize hold of a mule and push it by the head, I said: "What are you doing?" He said, "I am trying to show this mule what a British officer looks like." That was a young man who is now the ruler of a big Indian State. Later on, when I became Commander-in-Chief with a seat in the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State, I was once tackled as to why Indians had not received any high commands. I was tackled by one gentleman who was Mr. Jinnah. I pointed out that it had to be realized that it took at least twenty years for any Britisher to be fit to hold a Command, and we had no qualified Indians then, except a very few, and to contemplate giving an Indian a Command would simply to have been to sacrifice the lives of his own fellow countrymen. That, I am sure, was right, and it was generally received by everybody except Mr. Jinnah.
We have not heard anything about the Indian Princes. I do trust that the treaties we have made with them will be honoured in every possible way by the new Government that takes over. With regard to the Princes, I can remember things like this happening. I remember once asking Mahatma Gandhi what he thought would happen if we left India. He said: "Doubtless there will be bloody fighting." He seemed to accept that with perfect equanimity. I remember, when I was in India with the late King, he asked a very fine old Indian Prince what he thought would happen. He said, "Sahib, I would take one of my cavalry regiments to the City, and in a month there would not be a beast or a virgin left there." That was the sort of idea the people in India had as to what conditions in India would be like if we had gone. Well, we hear people talking in India of the Golden Age, the Golden Age being the time before India was contaminated by the foot of the British,

953
Perhaps it was a Golden Age for some. It was a Golden Age for the Mahomedan rulers with their various palaces and riches throughout India, but for the poor people it was the most abject misery that could possibly exist. The suttee was looked upon as absolutely right and normal, when batches of widows had to go up the funeral pyre to be slaughtered. The thugs or the professional garrotters used to stream all over India. A number of people were destroyed without anybody taking any notice. That was the Golden Age!
There were no canals in India in those days other than one or two very small canals. We built canals throughout India and land which was absolutely barren and desert land has now been turned into fields of wheat, barley and oats. There are villages all over the place where people live in happiness knowing they can reap where they have sown, which was certainly not the case in days gone by.
We are now faced with the cry "Quit India." It may be right to quit India, but I myself cannot believe that it is. I would say to those people who urge us to quit India, "Gently, gently, catchee monkey." If you go gently, gently, you obtain our object in most things. Some things have to be done quickly, but most things in life are the better for going gently, gently. Some of these people are urging us not to go gently but to rush things and to leave the country. Having heard people talk apologetically of our presence in India, I should say that we should never apologize but rather take pride in the fact that for 150 years the British people have been able to keep order and prosperity in India For 150 years we have done that, and surely we can take pride in that fact.
In another place a day or two ago I understand that someone stated that we deliberately stirred up communal strife in India. I can assure your Lordships that in all my experience I can remember no case of that sort, but exactly the opposite. I know so well how we have faced the possibility of communal troubles; how the officers have got together the leaders of India and urged them to stop those communal troubles. Time after time we have definitely succeeded in doing that. I would say, therefore, that there is no truth whatever in the statement made in another place a few days ago. Riots one did experience, and time after time we
954
were called out to repel riots, often caused by what we would think were trivial things. An enormous riot would break out because a Hindu had placed a pig inside a Mahomedan Mosque or a Mahomedan had killed a cow in a Hindu Temple. That would cause a state of affairs that was impossible to settle for a long time. We had trouble in the Punjab about 25 years ago when the Akali Sikhs broke out and took a temple. Very heavy fighting took place. But that is nothing to the riots we have seen lately in Calcutta, in Bombay, and, mostly, in Bihar. We realize that some 7,000 to 10,000 people have been destroyed in riots, and no one has raised a hand to put them right. I saw riots time after time, but order was soon restored by the close association and confidence between British and Indian officers. We were always able to get results from our mutual confidence in each other over years of real friendship.
Look at what has happened in Bihar and elsewhere. It really does seem as if riots have been let loose, and it may take some time before the country settles itself again. May I quote one verse of a poem written by that very nice American writer, Lowell, just a hundred years ago, with a title which seems to be an extraordinarily good one, Tire Crisis. He writes:
"Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide
In the strife of truth with falsehood
For the good or evil side.
Then it is the brave man chooses
While the coward stands aside
Doubting in his abject spirit
Till his Lord is crucified."
I was going to say that that moment of crisis has come, but it really has passed. The decision has been taken that we are going to vacate India, and one can only trust that it is a right decision, though I feel that there are some among the people who are known as "Untouchables", the unintelligent ploughers of the soil, and the Indian Christians, who will feel that we have deserted and possibly betrayed them. However, the die is cast, and I am sure everyone must pray, as I do, that for many years to come prosperity, good health and happiness may be with India and her people.
4.58 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, having held office as Governor-General of India from 1936 to 1943 I think it well to make plain that in what I have to say to your Lordships this evening I

955
speak for myself alone as an independent member of this House. I wish I could use words that might relieve in some measure the sombre tone of this discussion. I will, at least, do my best to avoid language that might in the least degree prejudice the outcome of the present very grave situation in India. Like every other well-wisher of India and of this country, I hope with all my heart that that outcome may be peaceful and constructive; that the dangers which now loom may be surmounted, and that we may witness very soon the achievement of that which has been the aim and purpose of British rule in India for the last 80 years and more, the creation of a united India as a self-governing entity.
The long-declared purpose of leading India to self-rule and to freedom sprang by progressive stages naturally and inevitably from the continuing characteristic of the British people. It was first voiced by the Sovereign herself upon the formal assumption of her authority over the Indian Empire in a Proclamation the words of which are still recalled with reverence. Successive Governments in the United Kingdom have contributed to the working out of this theme; every party in the State has subscribed to the same great purpose, each may fairly claim a share of the credit, and none may escape its portion of responsibility. It would not be reasonable to expect that political changes so profound and in such an environment as the Indian could be achieved without difficulty and without deep disturbance. Nor need we be surprised if the course of developing events in India has failed to adhere with nice precision to the path designed by those whose difficult duty it has been from time to time to endeavour to demarcate far ahead of the event the safest line of advance. Indeed, in execution of such a project it is well to be prepared for unexpected obstacles and to cultivate that resilience and resolution which are required to surmount them. I thought His Majesty's Government wise to send a Cabinet Mission to India early this year. I admire very sincerely the ingenuity of the scheme with which the Mission sought to assist the two main communities in India to come together for the purpose of building a new Constitution. I desire also to pay a sincere tribute to the courage, patience and persistence of the Viceroy in
956
his endeavours to bring the parties together.
The House will appreciate, and, I feel sure, sympathize with, my natural desire not to comment upon such criticism as has been levelled at certain aspects of the day-to-day management of the situation in India. Throughout the period of our rule in India we have held the scales evenly between the two communities. Each has been our ward and our friend; neither has been our favourite. The least divergence from that position of scrupulous neutrality has invariably proved to be a mistake. In the East rule assumes a paternal guise and no quality in the ruler is more valued than that he should be entirely impartial in the distribution of his favours or in the visiting of his displeasure, as a wise father towards his children. Therefore, I hope that, however much we may be tempted, we shall never take sides or favour one community at the expense of the other. From my own experience in India, which was prolonged and sometimes painful, I am able to certify that in terms of their nuisance value, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah were, in my time, extremely well-matched!
Time will show whether it has been worth while to do what has been done during recent months at the centre. I would myself agree that almost any course would be justified if it contributed to the building up of a Government of all Parties to which power could be handed over. Nevertheless, it must be said that the present position in the Government of India is thoroughly unsound. It is really of no use to say that the powers of the Viceroy have been left entirely as they were. Your Lordships will remember what precisely the more important of those powers are in law, as laid down in the Government of India Act of 1935. In the last resort Parliament exercises its authority in India by means of the Governor-General's veto and the Secretary of State's powers under Section 314 of the Act, taken with the Governor-General's control of Governors, the combination in the same individual of the posts of Governor-General and Crown Representative, and, of course, the overall control of the Secretary of State. That arrangement had its origin in embryo as early as the end of the 18th century. It has been recognized by those who have understood it as a well-tried and indispensable barrier against the exercise in

957
India of arbitrary power uncontrolled either by Parliament in London or by any popularly chosen Legislature in India.
What is the position to-day? It is that under stress of emergency His Majesty's Government have virtually nullified those powers of the Secretary of State and of the Viceroy by agreeing to a convention that the Governor-General shall, at all times, accept the advice of his Executive Council. Those, I suppose, were the terms upon which the nominees of Congress insisted before they would agree to take office. All this, of course, has been done without reference to Parliament and, therefore, without an amendment of the Act. The practical position, whatever may be the theoretical position, is very clear. It is that the Governor-General cannot pull up his Council without facing the resignation of the Congress Ministers and, therefore, a first-rate crisis. That is not a position that can last long because, to take the ultimate test, it is unthinkable that British troops should be employed to support policies over which neither Parliament nor the Cabinet in this country have effective control.
If indeed it be true that the present position must soon be cleared up and regularized, as indeed it must, very grave consequences follow. We are pledged at present to hand over power to a properly constituted authority having the confidence of both the great communities, in circumstances tolerable to minorities. That, broadly, is the position. My deep fear is that it may be a matter of years before such an authority, so constituted, is available. To implement our promises we should in those circumstances have to remain in India for a very long period of time, and the position there would be substantially analogous to that which is plaguing us in Palestine, but upon a far greater scale. We should be waiting for an indefinite period for the contending, elements to coalesce in order that we might hand over authority. In such circumstances, we should, I submit, soon find ourselves confronted with the formidable alternatives either of withdrawing British armed forces from India, whatever the consequences, or of reasserting our authority and re-establishing our prestige, not with the intention of remaining in India for all time but with the purpose, boldly proclaimed, of staying until an appropriate and competent
958
Indian authority could be developed to whom we could hand over.
Let us always remember that it is worse than useless to attempt policies in India that the British people cannot support with a clear conscience. That is the test by which every device must be judged. It is not practicable to remain in India without the fullest moral support from the British people. In my opinion, the sufficient re-establishment of British authority would be less difficult than many suppose provided it were undertaken with confidence and conviction. It may indeed be that we in this country are no longer able, or willing, to supply the necessary impulse. In that case—and I say this with profound reluctance—my advice would be that we should frankly re-shape our policy, renounce our pledges as being beyond our capacity to discharge and, having given a due date and due warning, march out. To attempt to remain in India and to bear responsibility without adequate power to discharge it would be fair neither to India nor to ourselves. I submit that this country is in no shape to endure over a long period a running hæmorrhage on that scale.
Above all, let us avoid a situation in which we may have to attempt to remain in India without the necessary instrument for administration. The Secretary of State's services are falling to pieces. Let no one suppose that we can administer the country through the agency of officers serving, for example, on the basis of five year contracts or anything of that kind. Nothing short of a covenanted service can meet your needs over long periods of time. No one is better aware than I how sharp is this issue of the services, but it has to be faced while there is any prospect of any material prolongation of our responsibility in India. The sacrifice that we are prepared to make upon the altar of liberty is indeed heavy. We may do our utmost to secure to the future India the greatest achievement of our rule, the unity of that great country; yet who could guarantee the success of our endeavour in that regard? India, indeed, may be destined to pass through very troublous times. We ourselves must face a heavy military forfeit. We must be prepared to lose the service of the one substantial standing army at the disposal of the Commonwealth. We lose, too, the immense labour resources of the subcontinent, a potent factor in war, and we

959
abandon a great land base peculiarly well placed for the purpose of maintaining peace and security in the East. India under British rule has stood as a steadying factor for two centuries, the one buttress that has defied the storm and helped to hold together the whole fabric of the Orient from the Red Sea to the Yellow River.
Our friends in the United States have been critical of our rule in India. They are watching now I do not doubt, across the long perspective of the Atlantic and the Suez Canal, the dissolution of an Empire. But there is another and more significant spectacle which should not escape American eyes. Let them take a look over their shoulder across the broad Pacific, for there they will see, far away on the horizon, a small cloud no larger than a man's hand, but one that may be destined to grow and to give much trouble in time to come, for when we leave India we must expect that another will seek to take our place. That is the measure of the sacrifice, and Britain will not be alone in furnishing it. Let us hope that the outcome may warrant the price.
5.14 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, the noble Marquess, to whom we owe so much for all that he did in India, began—if I heard him rightly—by deploring the sombre nature of the debate, but I do not think he lessened it by what he felt himself rightly bound to say. When this country has at last accomplished what has been its goal for India for all this long time, a goal accepted and striven for, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, rightly said, by all parties, which has been forwarded faithfully and carefully for all these generations, you would think that we should rejoice, and yet it is not happening just as we expected. I do not think those things ever happen as you expect them. We are in these matters uncontrollably apocalyptic. We think there will dawn a day when everything will be wonderful quite suddenly.
I remember my friend, Mr. James Maxton, saying a good many years ago that if only people would vote Labour, in five years there would be no injustice whatever in Scotland. Unfortunately, things do not happen like that. In the words of Milton in Samson Agonistes, they
960
are not as comely and reviving as we hope, and patience is more oft the exercise not of saints but of ordinary people. When we look at the facts I think we should be proud. We have in all these years been doing two things in India. We have gone through a process where we ourselves have made one concession, or one gift, after another, but perhaps the process has been so long and so slow that we have got into the habit of thinking that is what we do all the time, that that is the main gist of the matter and we in Parliament, assembled for the British people, say from time to time we shall do more and that now we are making the supreme act. But we have all this time been doing much more than that. We have taught the people of India to feel independent and to demand independence. In a sense, India has herself achieved independence, but that is only because we have made it possible.
After all, Congress was started by an Englishman—no, his name, I think, was Wedderburn, so he must have been a Scot—but at any rate it was started by people from Britain. We may not like some of the consequences of that. We may not sometimes like the way in which Pandit Nehru—if I may use a vulgar expression—tells us just exactly where we get off. But is not that better than a state of affairs such as happened after the First World War, where people gave a democratic government to Germany when they were not in the least prepared to use it? Parallel with this process of legal change there has gone on a practical process, a real process, of a change in the minds and hearts and readiness to obey of the people of India. Therefore, there are always these two things to hear in mind, the legal process, the legal happenings, and the actual state of mind of the people of India. After all, as even that most pedantic of lawyers, Austin, said, "Sovereignty depends upon the habit of obedience." It does not matter substantially what the legal process is. Pandit Nehru no doubt overdoes it, but that is his role at the moment. Something of what he said is substantially true.
The feelings of the people of India have profoundly changed in the last generation and we have got to take that into account. That means, I submit, that we have got to ask ourselves what we can do. I submit that a man's responsibilities, as a nation's responsibilities, depend upon his

961
powers. A man has no responsibility to do what he cannot do, and if the power has gone the responsibility has gone with it. Therefore, I think we must ask ourselves very seriously what power—not what legal right—have we got in the present situation. I venture to think we have a very important power. I think it is in our power—or let us be more careful and say it may be if things favour us—to give India a gift of extraordinary importance: to ensure that this momentous change, especially in India where there are these two rival communities, shall happen without civil war.
About that I want just to say this. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, talked of the fact that there was a time when the people of this country were not so very tolerant. It put me in mind of a remark of that distinguished Cambridge historian, Professor Figgins, where he says that toleration came to Europe because at last the Protestants and Roman Catholics realized that neither of them could subdue the other. That happened in France after the long wars of religion, and it has happened in England. We learnt toleration in England not because we have a genius for toleration but because it was at last borne in on both the Anglican Church and the Puritans that they would have to recognize that they could not get all their own way. The Presbyterians tried to establish a single church order over the whole of England, and they failed. Then, and then only, when both sides recognized that nothing could be done, they learnt to tolerate. Germany took thirty years of war to do it. Only by her device, which might almost be described as Pakistan to the nth power, of splitting up the whole of Germany into those little Princedoms did she escape from the consequences of intolerance.
I think the sanction which we have still left is a sanction which is expressed in the last part of the Government statement. The passage has already been read by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and referred to again by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but I should like, if I may, to read it once more:
"Should a Constitution come to be framed by a Constituent Assembly—"
mark the word "framed"—
"in which a large section of the Indian population has not been represented, His Majesty's Government cannot, of course contemplate, as the Congress have stated they
962
would not contemplate, forcing such a Constitution upon any unwilling part of the country."
I have talked about the habit that we have contracted in this slow process, but there is another habit which has been contracted in India and, as we see at present, alas, in Palestine, where you have a situation with two conflicting parties or races, neither of whom has complete responsibility, or rather both of whom are under a paramount Power which has all the responsibility. Each section becomes an adept at trying to put pressure on the paramount Power to compel the other one to do what they could not do themselves. That tendency has not been absent in India, and part of the exacerbation of the communal troubles which have marked the last few years have come from the idea, not tacitly explicit, but implicit in each side, that they might conceivably get the British Government or the Indian Army to do the business for them. I am sure that no one in this House or in the country can contemplate that.
This has been made clear in the Statement. If either Party supposes that because they have got a Constituent Assembly they might argue they have got legal powers and they are going to have the British Army behind them to suppress the other, they are very clearly and explicitly warned that they are not. That, I submit, is the only possible sanction that you can give in the situation.
May I just put this in terms of Pakistan? I do not think I disagree with a single word the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said about the intensity of the conflict between Moslem and Hindu. No one who has seen at close quarters the frightful passions which religious differences can develop will ever speak lightly of this. The threat to secede, to come out, to partition, seems to me, in matters of this sort, a kind of Solomon's Judgment in reverse. You may say, "I would sooner see the baby, much as I care about it, cut in pieces rather than submit to this condition." I am afraid to mention Ireland after what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, but, after all, I do not think he would disagree with this point. I should think that it was clear to everybody that there are enormous disadvantages in an independent community as small as six counties, but what the six counties said was that it was proposed to make them pay too high a price for the

963
unity of Ireland. I think the Moslems must be able to say, and must be able to say peacefully, "You propose to make us pay too high a price for the unity of India."
Of course, the disadvantages of Pakistan are enormous; it is just because they are so enormous, and because the administrative arguments against Pakistan are so great, that the Moslems have one great argument in saying, "In spite of that, you are not making it possible for us to live in the same united India with yourselves." Mr. Jinnah, it seems to me, must be able to say that. He must be put into the Constituent Assembly on terms on which he can say "Now, you have not done it." I think the two Indian parties are really up against it properly, if nothing can be done to bring these troubles to a happy issue.
I cannot conceive how it can be done in a fairer and more legalistic way than it has been done by this Government in all its details. You face both parties in India with what is really a very formidable sanction. You say to them in effect: "Are you really prepared to face what would be the horrors of civil war after the British Government has declared solemnly that you are not going to be supported? Whatever you may do about your Constituent Assembly, whatever you may pretend about your Constituent Assembly, you are not going to be given what powers we have in order to set upon the other side. Therefore, unless you come to an agreement you are not faced with what is after all a sanction which, it is to be feared, by this time does not amount to very much: that we shall take our promises back—that, alas, at this time would not amount to very much—but you are confronted with this very formidable sanction: that you will have to face a period of sporadic, undisciplined civil war of the worst kind." Are we to suppose that once the two parties are up against that, the statesmen of India, for all their differences, are not statesmen enough to recognize it?
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, once again we are discussing the position reached in the constitutional negotiations concerning India, when no final verdict can be given and when the issue still remains uncertain. On this
964
occasion, doubts have been expressed whether any useful purpose can be served by debate. Certainly, I recognize—and so, I think do all noble Lords who have spoken—that the obligation of restraint rests upon us: but the developments which have taken place in the past five months, and, in particular, the circumstances in which the Constituent Assembly has begun to meet have brought these matters to so serious a pass and raised such anxious forebodings, evidently, in the minds of us all, that Parliament on whom the responsibility for a final decision will rest can hardly refrain from taking cognizance of the present situation without acquiescing in its own inability to make any useful comment.
Whatever else may be said about this debate, I believe it might well be deemed to have been useful, if only because of the speech we heard from my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow, which, coming as it did from his vast experience of India, will repay the closest study. I would like to make just a brief comment on the situation as it appears to exist at present. I agree with all other noble Lords who have spoken that it would not be profitable to use this occasion to apportion blame on Indian parties or individuals. Rather we should recognize that an exceedingly difficult task rests in their hands. On the one side, the whole future of great communities is at stake. On the other, long cherished aspirations can so easily dominate the spirit of compromise. In such circumstances, criticism from this end will not mend matters in India.
I would approach the present situation by saying that I join with those of all parties in this country who reiterate their adherence to the final objective—the transfer of power to Indian hands, without convulsions and in a manner which will be acceptable to the main elements in the national life of India. That has been the proclaimed goal of British policy for many years. No one in India should lightly question the sincerity of those who now repeat their avowal. But, of course, its repetition, though necessary, solves none of the present difficulties. What we can do, at this stage, is to try to make some assessment of the chances of that goal being attained. The main facts of the position, as it exists to-day, are plain. The Constituent Assembly has begun to meet,

965
heralded by disorders in several Provinces, and accompanied by disharmony which, to judge by the speeches which are reported, prevails between leaders, even between those who belong to the same Government. From this Constituent Assembly one of the great parties is absent at present. Some, at least, of another important community are not satisfied with the manner of their representation, and there is some indication of apprehension on the part of the Indian States. That is the atmosphere which exists at this vital moment for the future of India.
If that atmosphere continues, and no betterment, or no easement, can be brought about, to what is it going to lead? Looking a little further ahead than the immediate moment, it seems to me that if this Constituent Assembly produces a Constitution in the framing of which the Moslem League has taken no part, or, if it has taken a part, from the conclusions of which it dissents, either that Constitution will eventually not be applied to those areas to which it is not acceptable, or that Constitution will be imposed on the whole of India. The first of those alternatives would mean the acceptance, in principle at least, of what is known as Pakistan, possibly accompanied by some other arrangements concerning some of the Indian States. The second of those alternatives would mean—I do not use the expression lightly, but I believe that it would certainly follow—civil war. If it should come about that those are the two alternatives which will eventually be open, for my part, I know which I would choose. I would prefer the first to the second, and if I interpret rightly the views of His Majesty's Government, from the important statement which they issued at the conclusion of the London talks, they too, though obviously with reluctance, would feel compelled to adopt the first rather than the second alternative.
But neither of these alternatives is what has ever been intended either by those who in the past have framed British policy or by His Majesty's present Government. Neither would produce any kind of Indian union. Neither would usher in a stable or a peaceful or a great future for India. In fact, the position as it stands to-day amounts to this: India stands in the open doorway of political freedom, but as she stands there she is looking out not on a fair prospect but
966
straight upon a precipice. Is it inevitable that events must take their fatal course and go crashing over that precipice, taking with them so many of the hopes and aspirations held by Indians, or for Indians? Can nothing be devised to arrest that fatal course? When men stand in that position, on the edge of a precipice, there is still time to pause and search for another way, and I would plead for a pause so that those who realize the necessity to compromise—and such people do exist—can once again get to work. I would urge the adjournment for a time of the meetings of the Constituent Assembly. It may be said that that would only mean delay. But what does a month or two matter, when you are dealing with the future of 400,000,000 people? This is a hot moment in India. The atmosphere is unfavourable for cool counsel. A pause is needed, before events have gone beyond recall, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will use their influence to obtain that pause so that wiser counsels may have a chance, even if it is only a slender chance, to prevail.
The only other thing I wish to do is to return again to the question which I ventured to raise on the last occasion that we discussed India. That is, the position of the Scheduled Castes in the Constituent Assembly, to which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India referred in his speech. Compared with the major issues which we have been discussing, this is not a vital problem, but it is one which we would do well not to ignore, for this community—or rather this collection of communities—is not well organized. It does not command the resources with which it can press its case, and its immemorial plight demands that its voice should be heard. My contention is that the manner in which the Scheduled Castes are represented in the Constituent Assembly does not reflect the wishes and the opinions of the Scheduled Castes themselves. If your Lordships will bear with me for a minute I will endeavour to do what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India refrained from doing—no doubt wisely. I will try to describe the system by which the members are elected.
As your Lordships know, the members of the Constituent Assembly are elected by the Provincial Assemblies. It is therefore important to understand how the members of the Provincial Assemblies themselves are elected. In the case of the Scheduled

967
Castes, there are two stages in the elections for their constituencies. First, there is the primary stage, in which only the Scheduled Caste electors vote. That is the important point to note, because it is in that stage that the views of the Scheduled Castes themselves can be ascertained. In that primary stage, in each constituency, four candidates are chosen to go forward for the final election. In this final election, in which one of those four is elected for the Provincial Assembly, it is not only the Scheduled Caste electors who vote, but the general body of Hindu electors in that constituency. But, so far as I know, in every Scheduled Caste constituency the general body of Hindu voters far outnumber the Scheduled Caste voters.
What happened in the Provincial elections in February of this year? I recognize that in a great number of constituencies there were no contests, but in those constituencies in which there were contests in the primary elections the returns showed that the candidates sponsored by the Congress Party received 28 per cent. of the votes. When they went before the general constituency the Congress-sponsored candidates virtually swept the board, and all others, except for a few, were eliminated. The noble Lord the Secretary of State mentioned the Independents. I think it is clearly true to say that the Independents do not lean towards the Congress Party, but lean the other way. My contention, therefore, is that this figure of 28 per cent. bears out the view that the manner in which the Scheduled Castes are represented in the Constituent Assembly does not reflect the opinion of the Scheduled Castes themselves. I would contend further, with great respect to the noble Lord, that in assenting to that arrangement for the Scheduled Castes, the Cabinet Mission gave perhaps less than adequate attention to the claims of these unhappy people, and perhaps too much attention to the claims of others who do not belong to that community but who wish, from the highest motives, to speak for them.
I do not raise this question again to press upon the Government some amendment to the present position, because I recognize that once you set up the Constituent Assembly it is useless to try to unwind it again. I raise the matter because perhaps the only thing that can be done is to make it clear that outside
968
India attention is paid to the plight of these Untouchables, in the hope that this concern may have some effect upon the ultimate decisions that are made by the Constituent Assembly. May I return for one moment to the main theme to which I ventured to give expression earlier? The situation in India to-day is very grave. The dangers have become so clear that I trust that a pause may be made, during which those who see the necessity for compromise may have their opportunity before events have gone beyond recall.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not at all agree with the criticism that this debate has been either unnecessary or mischievous. I have attended a great many Indian debates in my time, and I think I can say I never heard a debate on India in which less harm has been done. Indeed, so far as my judgment goes, we have had a very helpful debate. We have had one or two most impressive speeches—the speech, for instance, of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, and the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House, who comes to this House with a record of a great administrator in the government of Bombay. We have had further the opportunity of refuting once again, from all sides of the House, the two false charges which are constantly made against our Indian Administration—namely, that it is we who have divided India, whereas the unity of India has been the creation of the British Raj, and it is very doubtful—although it may be regrettable that this should be so—if this unity can continue when the British Raj comes to an end. Equally untrue is that other charge that the troubles in India to-day are due to our desire to cling to power. There again the exact opposite is the case. Much of the present trouble in India is due to the fact that we are in the process of divesting ourselves of our power. Those facts have come out to-day in the speeches which have been made.
Thirdly, I think another advantage has been gained by the discussion this afternoon. We have been able to clear up one or two points that at any rate to some of us were still obscure. Let me say without offence—I ventured to say it before—that I think the Government in the past months would have been wiser to have taken the Opposition more fully

969
into their confidence than has been the case. I know very well that the ultimate responsibility is upon their shoulders. At the same time, looking back over the course of Indian discussions in the last generation, I cannot think of a single occasion until the events of the last two years in which the leaders of the Opposition have not been taken into the fullest possible confidence over Indian questions by the Government of the day. I remember very well all those joint discussions we had at the time of the Round-Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committees, and I am inclined to think that had the present Government followed this course rather more fully some of the obscurities that have emerged to-day would not have arisen.
I do not rise to-day to go back to past history, nor do I rise to recriminate upon what may or may not have happened. Many of us could criticize many of the details that have happened in the last two years, but we have refrained from doing so. What I am here to do in two or three minutes is to put once again to the Secretary of State certain specific questions—I do not think they are hypothetical questions—upon which I consider it is essential that Parliament should be fully informed. My first question refers to the Constituent Assembly. I put my question in this form: Does the Secretary of State regard the Constituent Assembly as it is to-day, without the presence of the Moslem minority, as the Constituent Assembly that he contemplated in the Statement of May 16? Perhaps it is unnecessary to repeat this question.
This afternoon Lord Pethick-Lawrence has given an answer that, so far as I can judge, amounts to "No." The noble Lord made it clear that the Constitution must command the assent of the major communities. Obviously it cannot command the assent of the major communities if the major communities are not present. Secondly, he said it was essential that there should be the presence of both communities in the Constituent Assembly. Thirdly, he spoke of the preliminaries of the Constituent Assembly as being of no great importance from the communal point of view. Perhaps when he comes to reply he could make that point a little clearer. Could he make it clear that the Constituent Assembly is intending to carry out its announced programme—namely, that its opening sessions
970
shall deal only with questions of procedure? I shall not linger upon this question this afternoon because I certainly gathered from the noble Lord that he does not regard the Constituent Assembly as it is to-day as properly constituted within the meaning of the May 16 Statement.
I pass on to my second question, which deals with grouping. That question I am not even going to put to the noble Lord because he has already answered it. I was going to criticize the proposal that had been made of referring the question of grouping to the Federal Court. It seemed to me that it was not a question that was susceptible to the judgment of the Federal Court. I remember very well the details during the discussions upon the Government of India Act. The conception of the Federal Court was a court that would decide federal questions between the federal units. I cannot myself conceive that a question of this kind—namely, an opinion, not of fact but of what the Government intended—can possibly come within the scope of a court of this kind. I gather from the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government is now opposed to the question of its going to the Federal Court. That is a great relief to many of us.
I come now to my third question, which concerns the Scheduled Classes. Let me say that I very much agree with what the noble Earl Lord Scarbrough, has just said upon the representation of the Scheduled Classes in the Constituent Assembly. My question is a somewhat different one. When I saw Dr. Ambedkar when he was in this country at the end of the summer, his grave anxiety was whether the Scheduled Classes came with-in the definition of minorities in the Statement of May 16. Noble Lords will see the importance of this point. If they are classed as a minority within the Statement of May 16, then their future is one of the questions upon which the British Parliament has to satisfy itself at the end of the discussions in the Constituent Assembly. Would the noble Lord tell me to-day that the Scheduled Classes are definitely a minority within the Statement of May 16, and that their future will be one of the question upon which the British Parliament will have to be satisfied when eventually Parliament comes to ratify the Indian Constitution?
I go hurriedly on to my next question, and it is to ask for a little more information

971
about the attitude of the Princes. Could the noble Lord bring our information up to date? I read in the Press that the Princes are forming themselves into a Confederation. Is that the case? If so, could the noble Lord give us some information about it? My own view is that forming themselves into a Confederation of this kind would be a wise step on their part. Secondly, could the noble Lord tell us any more about the Negotiating Committee? He said that the members had actually been appointed. Perhaps he could give us the names of the members. I feel it is very necessary that we should know these details about Indian India; it is an essential part of any Indian system of the future, and at present we are left in great ignorance as to what is the actual position.
I come now to my last question concerning the Services. What is the present position with regard to the Services? I put certain questions to the noble Lord in the summer upon this point and his answer was that the Services were at that time at full strength mainly owing to the fact that the members of the Services had not been allowed to retire, but that at the end of the year they would be able to retire and the situation might be very different. Would the noble Lord now give us some information upon that point? Is premature retirement to be permissible at the end of the year, and if so, how are these administrative services going to be carried on? Secondly, I would ask the noble Lord to give the Services some definite assurance, in view of the speech that was recently made in Meerut by Mr. Nehru, who said that some of them would be prosecuted for acts committed in 1942. I have the words here. Would the noble Lord give the Services a definite assurance that they will be protected by His Majesty's Government from any acts of persecution or retaliation?
There are my questions, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some information upon each of them. They are not hypothetical questions, but questions to which it is very necessary that Parliament should have definite answers. I think we are apt to forget—and I do not raise the point to-day in any controversial spirit—that eventually any Indian settlement will have to be approved by Parliament. It is therefore essential that Parliament should be kept
972
fully informed at every stage and that Parliament should be assured that the transfer of power upon which all Parties are now agreed will be an orderly transfer and not an abject abdication or a surrender of our friends in India.
6.3 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, if I intervene for a short time in this debate it is because I spent many weary days in the Committee which was responsible in great part for the India Act of 1935. My noble friend Viscount Templewood, who has just sat down, tells us that this debate has done less harm than any other which he has heard on India. I rather think he might not say that of some of the debates in 1933 and 1934, which were initiated by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in some degree by myself. Anyhow, I think I shall be able to satisfy his critical mind on that point to-day. I see that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India is not here—
LORD AMMON: He is within hearing.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Then I should like to ask for a little more information about this Advisory Committee on minorities. Who is to appoint it? Is it to be appointed as a result of some election from the minorities themselves? What authority will it have? Will it have a right to be consulted on every matter affecting minorities, and will it have a right to publish its reasons and reports on anything to which it objects? Even if all these questions are answered, I cannot help thinking that it will be a very poor safeguard for the minorities in India. After all, this is not a question as between Hindus and Mahomedans. The Mahomedans are a minority, but they are a very powerful one, and no doubt they will prevail in getting some reasonable settlement if any settlement is possible. There are, however, many others. The Scheduled Castes are technically a minority, but they are a very numerous one; there are some 60,000,000 of them. In addition there are the Primitive Classes, 25,000,000 of them, who, although perhaps they may not be able to be represented, do require protection and superintendence. Then there are at least 6,000,000 Christians. I cannot really see why the Sikhs, who are no more in number, should have special attention and the Christians should not. Then there are the Jains, about 1,500,000, a smaller minority

973
of Parsecs and a very small minority of Jews.
After all, this is not a matter of numbers only. What I suggest is that all minorities., and indeed all individuals, should have some protection in the Indian Constitution. That raises the question: Is the Indian Constitution to be a fluid or fixed one? If it is to be a fluid one, like our own, you may put what you like into it but an Indian independent Parliament will be able to repeal it as and when they will. That is, of course, the disadvantage of a fluid Constitution, and any declaration put into such a Constitution will be of no value whatever. On the other hand, you may have a fixed Constitution, the working of which depends on organic laws. That is, of course, the case in America.. I have looked the matter up in the celebrated book of the noble Lord, Lord Bryce, and he says that one class of amendment—amendment, that is to say, to the original Constitution of the 18th century—comprises amendments which forbid slavery, define citizenship, secure suffrage of citizens against attempts by States to discriminate to the injury of particular classes and extend Federal protection to those citizens who may suffer from the operations of certain kinds of unjust State laws. If you can put an organic law, such as the American Law, into the Indian Constitution, one which can only be altered by some very special method such as a referendum to the Provinces concerned, or perhaps to the whole of the electors, you will certainly give them a great protection, although even then it will not be, in my view, an adequate one.
If you have organic laws, you must have a Supreme Court to interpret: them, as is the case in America, and you must have some adequate power to enforce the interpretation when it is given. That implies the complete independence of the Supreme Court, and I confess that I do not see how that can De secured in the ordinary Indian Federal Courts. I do not say that it will be necessary to maintain the right of appeal to the Privy Council, but I do say that if you have a fixed Constitution the Supreme Court ought not to be nominated by the Indian Government, because if that is done there will always be the suspicion of unfair and biased appointments with a view to Party advantage. Then you must have some authority which will be able to enforce the decisions of the
974
Court. That does not exhaust the subject, because, according to my information, in India it is often not legislation that is feared but some other action which, by devious methods not outside the Law, may operate to the grave disadvantage, of classes of persons and of individuals. I confess I do not see how you are to prevent that danger arising unless, under whatever name, you retain the Viceroy with his present reserve powers.
I would further say that if any question of secession arises, we must not regard it as the wish of the whole of the Indian people unless tie minorities consent. To allow a bare majority to bring about a secession when large minorities may wish not to secede, or may wish at any rate to delay secession until a fair solution can be found, would be as unjust as to fail to protect the minorities front legislative or administrative action. I do not see why we should give to India more than we have given to Canada or to other Dominions of our own flesh and blood. In Canada, there is an appeal outside the country and there is an effective protection for minorities which has existed since, I think, the Canada Act of 1774. In Canada, there is a Governor-General appointed front here. But Canada is free and independent, and can, if she wishes and has a grievance against the Empire, secede. I cannot see on what grounds India should ask for and obtain more. Go as far as you will in the grant of Dominion status, but do not throw over all the traditions of your predecessors who have had to govern India and so plunge India back into the anarchy of centuries past.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, if I rise for two minutes I do so only because I think it is fair that something should be said from the point of view of those who have disbelieved in the trend of our policy in India for the last fifteen years and more. There is a large body of opinion in this country which takes that point of view. I rise to say that I cannot see how there can be any outcome from the present situation except by the most terrible civil war within the knowledge of this generation. Nothing that has been said here or in another place leads one to suppose that there is any practical possibility of an accommodation between the two great sections in India. That conflict, which I believe now to be

975
inevitable, and to which nearly every other speaker this afternoon has referred as being at any rate on the horizon, will cause an amount of human misery which it is terrible to contemplate. When one asks what is the fundamental cause of all this misery and sorrow which is going to follow, one finds it is because the British people have lost belief in their moral right to govern India.
We are presented with the dilemma to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred at the close of his speech—namely, that we cannot relinquish our government without dishonour, and if we try to maintain it in certain circumstances we shall be asking British troops to sacrifice their lives for a cause which we have proclaimed is not theirs, and merely to prolong for a period our tenure of responsibility in India. That is a dilemma which has always been inherent in the policy of withdrawal. I wish people had contemplated it a little more closely at the time Edwin Montagu announced it as his ambition to stir the Indians "out of their pathetic contentment"—to my mind a lamentable ambition. It seems to me that no useful purpose is gained by refusing to face facts, and the facts are that the situation has now got to such a position, through the action of this Government and previous events, that there can be no peaceful outcome. What is more, when the fighting ceases how can anyone believe that any form of democracy can exist in India? It will not be democracy at all, but it will be rule by the power of the sword, and whose sword that will be it is not possible to say to-day. Therefore the prospect appears to be one of unrelieved gloom, a period of terrible tragedy before India and terrible suffering, a period of dishonour and weakness for Great Britain and the British Empire. I cannot see how anybody, except possibly the ultimate conqueror of India, will gain. But the root cause of all this is really the public opinion of the people of this country and the people of the United States. Those who have guided it have taken a heavy responsibility. If the Anglo-Saxon people have lost faith in their capacity and power to govern in other continents, and feel it their duty to stand back and let the local inhabitants fight it out amongst themselves, this suffering is inevitable.
I hope that our withdrawal will be made in as peaceful and as orderly a manner as
976
possible, but I cannot see how great slaughter and the sacrifice of those who have trusted us in the past can be avoided. I entirely dissent from the manner in which His Majesty's Government have handled this admittedly very difficult problem. They have done everything they could to expedite the movement of events, when all wisdom would have dictated going as slowly as possible. People talk as if it was quite normal to try to accomplish a process of constitutional development in India in a single generation which it took us a thousand years to reach. That idea, to my mind, has always been crazy, and how anyone could hope to contribute towards the peace and prosperity of mankind by expediting such tremendous developments I cannot understand.
If the crisis is reached in the year 1947, as I believe it will be, it will be as a result of the handling of His Majesty's Government. They have put us in such a position that we cannot escape from India without great loss in honour as well as loss in power. I think it is just as well that it should be recorded that there is at any rate a section in this country who deeply regret the course of events, and if we are to renounce our responsibilities in India I hope we shall never assume them again unless the British people are really determined to carry them through and fulfil them.
6.25 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, what I have to say is short, but I think it is strengthened by the fact that it comes straight from my heart. I hope that my small voice will be heard across the sea by the many people who were friends of mine in India, the Indians. I do not mean the Indian in high places, but the Indian whom we know so well as the man who has served the sahib and who trusted the sahib to the nth degree, his integrity and everything about him, the man who was our shikari, the man who looked after our ponies, the man who was in Government offices—and all those. I spent six years in India as an officer in the British Army. The generous leave we got in those days enabled us to travel a great deal and my joy was in the field of sport. I learnt the language to a very good working degree, and I met people in villages, whether it was in the jungle or in the pig-sticking country. I found their faith was everywhere the same. During these last months I have had a growing doubt as to

977
whether this man I have been talking about has been consulted. Does he fairly realize what is happening? Does he realize that if this thing goes through—as it inevitably will—the sahib walks out of India? I am fairly convinced that he believes that the civil servant, the British officer and the civilian who is working in mills and so on in Calcutta, will remain. My information is that he will get out as quickly as he can.
Another point I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is this. Is it not strange that in the ghastly turmoil of Calcutta, where the atrocities are such as to be almost unbelievable—I think I am right in saying that, but I will qualify it by saying I really do not know—there has not been one attack on a British soldier the whole time? We cannot say that about Palestine, and we cannot say that about Egypt. Does that or does that not show that the ordinary people of India are rather doubtful whether they wish the British soldier to go? I would therefore ask the noble Lord opposite if he, in all his deliberations, will go rather slowly. Let us try and get this agreement, if we can ever get it, before we do anything rash. Put the brake on and go slowly. I do not agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that this clash is inevitable, but if it does come I would ask you, and I would ask England, not to let down those people who have been of great service to us, even if it does mean loss of lives to ourselves.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, this debate, in the closing stages of which I am privileged to speak, may, I think, well go down as one of the most memorable of recent times. It takes place at a crucial stage in the long relations between the British and Indian people. It has been notable for contributions by noble Lords with a long and intimate experience of the complexities of the problems of which they speak. There has been my noble friend Lord Simon, who was the author of the historic Simon Report. There is Lord Templewood, who was responsible for the Government of India Bill of 1935. Then there was the Marquess of Linlithgow, who has just addressed your Lordships in such a very impressive and moving speech, who is the latest of a long and distinguished line of ex-Viceroys of India. There is Lord Scarbrough, who was Governor of Bombay for so many
978
of the most difficult years of the war, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, who was Commander-in-Chief in India. All these, and many others, have come to give your Lordships' House and the country the benefit of their experience and their advice. I am very doubtful whether any other Assembly in the world could produce a body of men so qualified to give wise counsel to the nation in such an emergency.
It has been suggested that this debate has been unnecessary, and, indeed, un desirable. I really can hardly believe that anyone would hold that view after listening to the speeches we have heard this afternoon. Moreover, to make such a suggestion ignores, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, one of the main functions of Parliament, which is to inform the people of this country of the great issues of the day, so that when the time comes they can give a wise and considered decision. And especially is this so on questions such as India, which are infinitely complex and infinitely remote from the ordinary life of the citizen of these islands. When erne listened to the questions which were being asked by the noble Lords to-day and when one realized that even such authorities as they were required elucidation on much that was still obscure, one could appreciate how much clarification is still needed by the ordinary citizen of this question.
I am sure the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, will agree we have not pressed him unduly on this subject during recent months. We recognize very well the difficulty and delicacy of the situation and we have, and quite rightly, put a severe restraint on ourselves. But if it is the essence of statesmanship not to show irresponsibility, it is equally, I think, the essence of statesmanship not to refuse to face delicate and difficult issues just because they are delicate and difficult. To postpone all discussion until an actual catastrophe occurred, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested the other day and reaffirmed this afternoon, seems to me to be the very bankruptcy of statesmanship. I can only say that the feeble and flaccid attitude of the Liberal Party shown this afternoon, as enunciated by the noble Viscount, would, if it were generally accepted in this House, make an absolute farce of democracy. I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me

979
for speaking so frankly; but he was a little rude to the Party to which I belong, so I hope he will not complain if I give him a Roland for his Oliver. Personally I believe it is such discussions as these that, in the eyes of history, will justify the existence of the House of Lords at the present time.
I personally cannot pretend to have a long practical experience of Indian affairs, such as has been enjoyed by other noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. It would be an impertinence on my part, and a waste of time of the House, for me to go in detail over that ground which they have already so fully covered. They have asked a number of important questions, and the Secretary of State has, in his earlier speech, already answered some of these. I do not say that we on this side of the House were entirely satisfied with his answers, but we are grateful to him for the effort he has made. By the way, I would say that the answers, in particular, which the Government have given as to their own views about the appeal to the Federal Court and as to the authority of a Constitutional Assembly from which one of the main parties is absent, seem to me amply to justify the debate, even if we got nothing else out of it.
My Lords, my purpose in rising to address your Lordships is not to cover the same old ground, but to attempt to crystallize the broad fundamental problem which faces both the people of this country and those who guide the destinies of these multifarious communities who make up the populations of the Indian sub-continent. That problem, as I see it in its simplest form, is that we are accustomed in this country to speak of India as a nation like Great Britain, and all the Hindus and the Moslems as parties, of the same nature as our own political parties. It is on that assumption that has rested the policy of a unified self-governing India which this country has pursued, in the face of constant disappointments and discouragements, over so many years. But is this whole conception of a unified and homogeneous India a reality, or is it merely a beautiful mirage? That seems to me to be the hard question which we and the Indian peoples themselves have to face.
After all, when the British first came to play a part in India 150 years ago, there
980
was, as we all know, no unity at all in the country. India was a mere patchwork of warring States and peoples, torn by perpetual strife and often racked by starvation and misery. It is we, the British, who gave India the unity which she has lately enjoyed. She even owes to us the possession of a common language, that most essential prerequisite of national unity. I think it was notable—possibly your Lordships noticed the same thing—that only last week in the Constituent Assembly, when one Hindu delegate attempted to speak in Hindustani, Pandit Nehru was obliged to bring pressure on him to speak in English. That can hardly have been because Pandit Nehru has any deep sentimental affection for the British tongue. It can only have been because he realized it was the only language common to all the delegates. The English language, paradoxical though it may seem, has, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out with great force in his Report, come to be a main factor in Indian unity.
It is, then, the British who have given India unity, a common language, and an equal standard of administration and justice throughout the sub-continent. That is not vainglorious boasting, it is a statement of cold, sober fact. The question that faces us, and the Indian people, is whether this unity is unalterably established in the hearts of the people of India, or whether it is something which is dependent upon the British connexion and which, without it, cannot endure. I am told, though I am not a musician myself, there is a phenomenon well known to musicians, of two notes which struck together create a hideous, ear-splitting discord. But if a third note be added, that discord is transformed into a harmony. That may be the function which the British have performed in India. If that be true, and if India without us forms two discordant nations, the argument for Pakistan is extremely strong. In any case, that is one thing of which I think no unprejudiced person can be in any doubt—namely, that it has been for many years the policy of this country and, broadly speaking, of the majority in all parties, to grant to a united India progressive self-government, leading to Dominion status, and ultimately, if such be the will of the people of India, to independence.

981
That has been, broadly speaking, the policy which we have adopted towards the Indian sub-continent. That was the underlying purpose of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, of the Government of India Bill of 1935, of the Government Declaration of August, 1940, and of the Cripps offer of 1942. We have pressed this policy, indeed we have almost forced it on India. But up to the advent of the present Government, we have always insisted on one essential prerequisite—there must be prior agreement between the two main Indian communities, Hindu and Moslem, before there can be any advance to the further stages of constitutional development. That was the prerequisite which had, I think, found a place in all the British plans, and one would have thought that it was an essential requirement. For on the possibility of agreement between these two main communities must depend the answer to the basic question: "Is India one nation or not?"
The position was well defined, I think, in the statement of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, in the House of Commons on March 11, 1942, before the departure of the Cripps Mission. I would like, if I may, to quote to your Lordships the relevant passage:
"We had thought of setting forth immediately the terms of this attempt, by a constructive British contribution, to aid India in the realization of full self-government; we are, however, apprehensive that to make a public announcement at such a moment as this might do more harm than good. We must first assure ourselves that our scheme would win a reasonable and practicable measure of acceptance, and thus promote the concentration of all Indian thought and energies upon the defence of the native soil. We should ill serve common cause if we made a declaration which would be rejected by essential elements in the Indian world, and which provoked fierce constitutional and communal disputes at a moment when the enemy is at the gates of India."
Of course, the enemy is no longer at the gates of India. But the broad argument that a declaration of policy that was rejected by essential elements of the Indian community could only have the effect of provoking fierce constitutional and communal disputes, is, I believe, as true to-day as it was in 1942.
If any of us, on this side of the House, have any criticism to make of the Government—and, believe me, I would say to the Secretary of State that I have not come here to make criticisms or advance party points, the situation is much too
982
serious for that—if we have any criticism to make, it is that the Government ultimately abandoned that position. This, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Samuel is the difference of view that has arisen between the Government and the Conservative Party, to which Mr. Churchill referred in his speech two or three days ago in the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, if I understood him aright, said that he could not understand what the difference was. I am very glad to be able, quite simply, to explain it. We, on this side of the House, we of the Conservative Party at any rate, cannot but feel that the Cabinet Mission, no doubt from the highest motives—and I am not in any way questioning their motives—committed just what the National Government in 1942 recognized was a fatal error. They failed to get agreement between the Hindus and Moslems, and vet went ahead with their own proposals for setting up a Constitution. It may, of course, be argued—indeed I think it has been argued to-day—that they had no option. We all honour the high purpose which inspired the Cabinet Mission. But it was there, I personally believe, that the fatal mistake was made. It was then that the only sound ground was abandoned.
What has been the result? It is exactly what the statement of March 11, 1942, anticipated. The Government lost control of the situation, and the result has been the immediate outbreak of just those fierce constitutional and communal disputes of which the National Government were apprehensive. To-day, as your Lordships have been told, the bitterness between Hindus and Moslems—if not between leaders, at any rate between their supporters—is more savage than at any time in the last century. Already, according to reputable, reports, upwards of 30,000 people, many of them women and children, have been slaughtered, and by all appearances the storm is only just beginning to rage. The Constituent Assembly has, indeed been set up as was intended. But the Moslems, as we know, are not present, and instead of it being evidence of national unity, as it was intended to be, the Constituent Assembly affords the most deplorable and convincing evidence of national disunity. One of the main parties whose assistance is absolutely essential to agreement is not taking part in its proceedings at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, complained of my

983
noble friend Viscount Simon drawing attention to this vital fact. But surely if the country is to judge wisely of the situation, such essential facts, however unpleasant, must be drawn to the attention of the British people. If those facts were ignored Parliament would have no raison d'être at all.
As I understand the position, it is still the hope of the Government—perhaps the noble Viscount will confirm this—that the deadlock will be resolved, and that the support which has been given by His Majesty's Government to the Moslem view as to the point at issue in the London talks and the assurances which have been given, that" they will not contemplate forcing a Constitution on any unwilling parts of the country" will induce the Moslem League to take part in the Constituent Assembly. Clearly, it is not for anyone who has any sense of responsibility at all, to say a word that is calculated to destroy this possibility. If they decide to take part, well and good. The Government's policy, which has been pursued with so much assiduous effort, will have succeeded, at any rate to the point of getting Hindus and Moslems to sit down together. If that happens, there is none of us but will rejoice. The consequences of the inability of the two communities to find common ground by mutual concessions, concessions by both sides, is too fearful to contemplate.
In their speeches delivered in the House of Commons, which, I suppose, everybody here will have read with the greatest care, the spokesmen of the Government, Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. A. V. Alexander, sounded, I thought, a not unhopeful note. But I hope that the Government will not fall into the error of deluding themselves (I was going to say" humbugging themselves" but I understand that term is not understood on the other side of the house) that this present impasse, as Mr. Alexander suggested, is merely a question of procedure. But noble Lords may have noted that, almost at the moment that Mr. Alexander was making his speech in the House of Commons, Mr. Jinnah was delivering a broadcast to the United States in which he said these words:
"Hindus and Moslems are two nations, distinct and different in everything that matters."
984
And he added:
"People should get away from the idea of a United India."
To Mr. Jinnah, clearly, the present difference between Hindus and Moslems is no mere one of procedure. It is fundamental. I hope, therefore, that this argument will not be produced again. It is not an impressive argument. As I understand it, the fears of the Moslem League are based on a view that it is the aim of Congress, under a facade of Parliamentary democracy, which is not in their view applicable to India, to impose a Hindu Raj on the other races of the sub-continent. That, clearly, is a cleavage far deeper than that between the Anglicans and the Puritans to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, referred in his speech. It is a cleavage between two civilizations. Nor, I am afraid, will the situation be made much easier by the regrettably provocative speech of Pandit Nehru published in the Press to-day, which, I should have thought, would be only too likely to be taken, by the Princes and by the Moslems and the other minorities, as evidence that Congress is utterly determined to establish a High Caste Hindu domination over the whole of India.
It may be that on further reconsideration Congress will moderate their view, and it may be equally that on further consideration the Moslem League will decide to enter the Constituent Assembly. If so, well and good. As I have said before, all of us will rejoice. But if the Moslems feel that the dice are too heavily loaded against them, and decide to remain aloof, we must face the fact that the policy of the Government, advanced with such good intentions, has failed What is it proposed should be done then? I fully recognize that the Government may not feel able to divulge their policy today, and I am not going to ask for it. We on this side of the House, however, can express our own views. It is clearly a delicate question and I hope I shall deal with it delicately. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, in the extremely impressive speech which he delivered to your Lordships, said—he will correct me if I have misinterpreted him—that, as he saw it, there would be only two courses open to the British Government. The first was to march out, bag and baggage, and the second was to recognize that the

985
two communities were unable to agree and to take over temporarily—I emphasize that word—the reins of government until such time as the Hindus and Moslems made up their minds either to unite into one nation or to separate into two. I imagine that very few people would quarrel with that assessment of the position which is likely to arise.
It may be argued that there are grave disadvantages attaching to either of these two courses; and, no doubt, that is true. The easiest alternative for the British people probably would, in many ways, be for the British to leave India, wash their hands of the Indian problem, and leave Hindus and Moslems to fight it out. Let us face the fact, however, that that must mean the probability, if no more, of civil war, with vast carnage and misery to countless millions of innocent people who have hitherto looked to us for justice and protection. The other alternative is that we should reassume the administration, temporarily, of the country, until the Hindus and Moslems could agree either to a joint or a separate future. That is in many ways a far harder path for the British people to tread. It would involve shouldering a heavy and most invidious burden. It would involve laying ourselves open to misrepresentation, both in India and abroad. We must recognize this last fact. And indeed it might, in any case, be impracticable—as I think the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, said—so far has the situation deteriorated. But if it were practicable, it might well be the only way consistent with our national honour.
That, at any rate, is likely to be the hard choice which will face the British Government and the British people if Hindus and Moslems cannot come to terms in the near future. What we must not contemplate, what we could not contemplate without bringing ourselves into contempt—and deserved contempt—is, first, to abandon those loyal subjects of the King to sectarian vengeance (as was suggested in a recent speech made in India). And, secondly, we must not contemplate using British arms and British prestige to impose the domination of one Indian community over another, whether it be Hindus over Moslems or Moslems over Hindus. I think all of us have warmly welcomed the pledge given by His Majesty's Government on December 6 that they will not do this. But, with all deference to the Government, I would
986
suggest that they will have to watch the situation very carefully lest they find themselves in the situation of doing that very thing against their best intentions.
Suppose we had to maintain law and order at the behest of Indian Ministers. That situation might easily arise, and we might, as a result, find ourselves pushed into the position of fighting for one community against the other. For this reason, I believe it is vitally necessary that the ultimate control of the use of British troops should rest with the Viceroy, especially as I understand that the Commander-in-Chief is no longer a member of the Viceroy's Council and therefore does not share in the decisions of that Council. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State, will correct me if I am wrong about this. This is a constitutional change, and one of crucial importance at the present moment; it is a very formidable change. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, said it was unthinkable that British troops should be used to support policies over which the Viceroy and Parliament had no control. We shall all agree with that, and I therefore hope that we shall have complete assurances on this particular point, when the Secretary of State for India replies.
My Lords, I have finished what I have to say, but before I sit down there is one most sincere plea that I would make to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord bears a name of great significance in the history of the British connexion with India. The first Lord Lawrence, as Governor-General, was faced with difficulties perhaps no less acute, and responsibilities no less overwhelming, than those which overhang his namesake, as Secretary of State in Whitehall. I would beg of the noble Lord, let him to-day draw courage and fortitude from the great example of Lawrence of India. Let him face the present dangers and difficulties with no less fortitude. If he does, he will, I am sure, have the unanimous support of this House, of the whole thinking mass of his own countrymen, and of all our friends in India—and we have still many friends, of all castes and creeds, those quiet, hard-working un-political people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has spoken to us this evening. Let the Secretary of State and the Government lead India to her goal of self-government, or independence (if that be the will of the peoples of India) under an ordered and orderly administration, and

987
not desert her, in her direst need of guidance, to flounder in that morass of civil war and internecine bloodshed from which British rule has protected her over so many fateful decades. If he and the Government act in this emergency with wisdom and firmness, he may rely on us, in whatever part of the House we sit, to help them to find a just and peaceful settlement to this most dreadful problem.
6.58 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, with your permission I will speak again in this debate, but as time is getting on I will not make a new speech but will rather answer a few of the questions which have been put to me this evening. Before I do so, perhaps I may be allowed to add my appreciation of what has already been said about the tone, temper and discretion shown by your Lordships. As Secretary of State, I am aware of pitfalls which noble Lords, perhaps with the best intentions, may not see yawning in front of them, and I can honestly say, at any rate so far as the great majority of the speeches are concerned, that nothing has been said which will add in any way to the difficulties of the situation.
Perhaps I might now endeavour to answer briefly the questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. He asked me: Do the Government regard the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly as valid within the terms of the Statement of May 16, so long as the Moslems are not represented on it? I do not think I have anything more to add to what I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I do not think that it is any good my attempting to do so. Then the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, asked me a question about the Scheduled Castes: Do the Government regard the Scheduled Castes as one of the minorities to be specifically protected under the new Constitution? The Government certainly regard the Scheduled Castes as a minority. They are certainly one of the principal peoples to whom the statement made in the course of our Mission in India applies and in respect of which the British Government would require to be satisfied. There have been debates and fine points taken as to whether they are a minority or not, hut, from our point of view, it is certainly our intention that they are one of the peoples with whom the
988
Minorities Commission would deal. But even if technically they were regarded otherwise, I would remind the noble Lord that the clause dealing with this question goes beyond minorities. Clause 20 of the May 16 Statement refers to "the Advisory Committee on the rights of citizens, minorities, and tribal and excluded areas." Therefore if, even by a legal quibble, the Scheduled Castes were not considered to be a minority, they would come in under the provision as to the rights of citizens. I think that meets the point.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: It means that when the Constitution actually comes to Parliament for ratification, the case of the Scheduled Castes would be one of the minority cases upon which Parliament would have to be satisfied?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should certainly think that is clearly so. The next question was: Upon what occasions and upon what authority have the Central Government during the last six months intervened in the Provinces for the maintenance of law and order? The Central Government have no power under the existing Constitution to intervene in the Provinces for the maintenance of law and order unless specifically requested. There has, in fact, been no such intervention. As your Lordships are aware—I think I referred to it in my earlier speech—the leading members of the Interim Government of both major communities have visited Calcutta and Bihar to use their personal influence, as All-Indian leaders, to promote communal peace, and I think with considerable and valuable effect. The noble Viscount also asked me about the Princes. In my earlier speech I stated the position about the Indian States and I have nothing to add to what I said.
The noble Viscount drew attention to reports in to-day's Press that uneasiness in States circles has been caused by a resolution in the Constituent Assembly proposing that India should become a sovereign independent republic. I am not in a position to add anything in this respect to what is available from Press sources. The noble Viscount asked me additional questions relating to two other matters. He asked me: Are the Princes forming a Confederation? I am afraid I have no really substantial information on this point. He asked me to give him

989
the names of the Negotiating Committee and I have those names. They are as follows: His Highness the Nawab of Bhopal; His Highness the Maharajah of Patiala; His Highness the Jam Sahib of Nawanagar; Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyyer; Sir Sultan Ahmad; Sir Mirza Ismail; Sardar D. K. Sen; Sir A. Ramaswami Mudaliar; Sardar K. M Pannikar; and the Maharajah Virbhadra Singhji. Those are the members of the Negotiating Committee appointed by the States.
Then the noble Viscount asked me some questions about the Services. He again referred to the speech made by Pandit Nehru. I should like first of all to say that I have made inquiries and I find that the speech was an extempore one and that no verbatim record exists. I am afraid I can only repeat what I said when the question was previously raised in your Lordships' House—namely, that I am convinced that your Lordships have misconstrued the main tenor of the speech. But if attempts were made to punish Government servants, who have acted in accordance with their duty and the law, appropriate steps would have to be taken.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would point out to him that a report of the speech appears in his own official summary.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, that is only a report, and it is that report which I think was misinterpreted. With regard to other questions about the Services, the efficiency of the administrative machine in India was undoubtedly impaired by the effects of the war and particularly by the suspension of recruitment, which had the approval of the Coalition Government, and which was inevitable in the circumstances. His Majesty's Government took early steps to resume recruitment to the Secretary of State's Service but, as noble Lords are aware, later decided not to proceed with the scheme on the unanimous advice of all the authorities concerned in India. If the scheme had been proceeded with, it would not have appreciably strengthened the administration in the immediate future. At the same time, it would have been regarded by Indian opinion as contrary to the general policy of His Majesty's Government, and would have been hardly fair to the individuals concerned, in view of the unanimous desire
990
of all Provincial Governments, under which officers would have taken up service, for the termination of the Secretary of State's service.
It must not be assumed, however, that the abandoned recruitment scheme served no useful purpose. From the Indian candidates who offered themselves for selection, there will be some available for recruitment to an All-India service under the control of the Government of India and to Provincial Services. There is good reason to believe that, when the temporary dislocations caused by the abandonment of the scheme have been surmounted, the administrative machine will begin to recover its strength. Noble Lords may be aware that there has been an embargo on retirement, except for officers who have done the maximum period of service, or in whose case there are special reasons for granting permission to retire prematurely. This embargo is to be lifted with effect from January 1, which will enable those who have personal reasons for wishing to retire to do so. A scheme of compensation for officers whose services under the Secretary of State are terminated for constitutional reasons has been drawn up and is at present the subject of correspondence with the Government of India. I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to it at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, asked me two questions. He wanted to know more about the Advisory Committee. So far as that is concerned, I am afraid there is nothing more to tell him, because it still has not been formed. There is nothing more than what appears in the Statement of May 16. When it is set up no doubt it will receive instructions, but I am afraid that is all there is to say. The noble Lord also asked me whether, when the Constitution for India was made, it would be a fluid or fixed Constitution. That also is rather a thing of the future, and I am afraid I cannot prophesy what is to happen in that respect.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask whether the noble Lord contemplates that the question is open as to whether it is to be a fixed or a fluid Constitution?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I cannot give that information on that matter. The Constitution is to be decided for Indians by Indians. What we have done is to indicate certain lines

991
which would be features in the Constitution if that is agreed upon, and it ought to be unless there is consent of the parties to other arrangements. Within that structure there may be considerable fluidity, but of that I am not in a position to judge.
I think those are the principal questions which were asked. I would like to say in conclusion one or two words about the speech of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him very much for his reference to namesakes of mine who played an active and splendid part in India. I could wish that they were in any way ancestors or relatives of my own, but in point of fact they are not; they come of an entirely different branch of the family, if indeed it is the same family at all. The noble Viscount told us that India was not one country, like one of the countries of Europe, but a great sub-continent, and with that I think we are all in full agreement. He dealt with the attitude of the Conservative Party. Well, he knows a great deal more about the Conservative Party than I know or pretend to know, but I am not quite sure that he speaks for all members of the Conservative Party in this House when he defines the difference between Conservatives and ourselves precisely in the way he does. I should have thought there were a great many shades of opinion in his Party, and that some of them were very much nearer to us than he is; and I should have thought there were one or two further away. However, that is a private matter which I do not wish to pursue.
The fact is that this question of agreement has ceased to be one imposed by this country upon India, but it remains owing to inescapable facts the condition precedent to any stable Constitution. No country, quite irrespective of any foreign control, can have a stable Constitution if there is a fundamental disagreement between two sections within it. I am bound to say that I think that is recognized by the Indians just as it is by us. They are people of great perspicacity. The fact that they take, and have to take, a partisan aspect does not prevent them from seeing that fundamental fact behind, and I have never found them ignorant or oblivious of that fact. I thank your Lordships for the courtesy which you have shown to me, and I thank you for the restraint you have put on your words. I hope that the result
992
of all our labours may be that the decision in India, difficult as it must necessarily be, will be one which will be carried out with good will, with general consent, and with the approval of mankind.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  7.16 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Orders be made in the form of the Drafts approved by the House on the 3rd instant.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CONTROL COMMISSION IN GERMANY.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the first question that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what are the restrictions on the giving of information to Members of Parliament by members of the Control Commission in Germany; and further, whether statistical information can be supplied to members.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, individual members of the Control Commission staff who receive written inquiries from either House of Parliament are required to refer them to the Control Office for Germany and Austria, Norfolk House, London. This procedure is in line with the normal practice of other Government Departments. The object is to ensure that noble Lords and honourable Members receive considered replies from, or on behalf of, the responsible Minister. Oral requests for factual information, such as statistics,

993
made by noble Lords or honourable Members When in Germany, are normally answered at the time if the information is readily available.
LORD SALTOUN: I would like to thank the noble Lord for his answer, but I would ask him if he is aware that a question of mine, addressed in that way towards the end of September and forwarded, as I am informed, through the proper channels, still remains without a reply?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord has put a number of questions, I think I am right in saying, at various times, and I hope that he will agree that they have received answers with reasonable promptitude. As regards the particular question which I think he has in mind, some slight misunderstanding seems to have occurred between himself and those responsible for answering it. I can assure him that now that misunderstanding has been cleared up the matter will be proceeded with rapidly.

DISMANTLING GERMAN FACTORIES.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the second question that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
Having regard to the statement of His Majesty's Government in another place that the number of factories in the British zone which have been or are to be dismantled is seven, is it the case that Treasury sanction has been granted for the engagement by the Control Commission of more than a hundred additional staff for the purpose of dismantling factories, requisitioning machinery or similar activities?]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the recruitment of the supervisory staff has been approved in principle but has only begun, and will not be continued beyond the numbers necessary to execute our obligations. The precise number required for this purpose is still uncertain. In regard to the number of plants being dismantled, it was indicated in another place on November 20 that, while seven plants were then being dismantled, that was the latest information then available. The total number of plants allocated for distribution
994
to the Allies, on which dismantling has now begun, is nine. Others already allocated are not yet being dismantled.
LORD SALTOUN: I thank the noble Lord for his answer.

POLISH LABOUR.
7.20 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the difficulties in the way of arranging for Poles in this country to be employed in the mines or in agriculture, arrangements can be made to utilize as many as possible in connexion with the overdue improvement of our road system. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the question that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I do not want to take up much of your Lordships' time. It is, I am afraid, the result of a mistake made at the end of the last century, when Poles were used as strike-breakers in the Lanarkshire pits, that to-day the miners will not have the Poles used in the mines. For some unknown reason, the farm labourer does not like to work alongside a Pole and so they are not used on the farms. These men are cluttering up the countryside. I have only to look out of the windows of my house at any time during the day to see about a dozen Poles wandering disconsolately to the pub or from the pub, if it is open, Or just wandering if it is not. This is obviously not a time of the year in which they can be put into mobile camps, but I do hope that with spring coming this Polish force will be looked upon as a means of providing a mobile force to work on the roads and as a force which can be moved with the work and housed in tented camps.
I do not want to prejudge the Government's reply, but I am afraid it may be they will just say that they are in negotiation. All I am going to say is that I hope their negotiations will meet with success because I do feel that it is bad for these young fellows to be idle at the moment. Our roads are badly in need of attention, and I think it would be a great help to the country and to these Poles if they were kept employed on the roads. I would just ask this one question. Is there any objection to the local contractor going to the local Polish camp

995
and asking the men to volunteer for work? I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
7.22 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as regards the last question put to me, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to refer it in that specific form to the Department directly concerned. I have equipped myself with a general reply to the point indicated on the paper and perhaps he will bear with me while I outline that to him. It would be a mistake to think that there has ever been any intention of confining the employment of Poles on release from the Polish Resettlement Corps to employment in the mines or in agriculture. The Government's intention is to endeavour to provide openings for those Poles who elect to remain in this country in any industry where, after consultation with the industry, it is found that Poles can be accepted without detriment to the employment of British subjects. That is the formula we have adopted and I think it is one which the noble Lord will agree is suitable. Discussions have already taken place with a number of industries on this point and are in progress with a number of other industries, including coalmining and agriculture. Up to the present about a thousand Poles have been found work in this country.
It is not the case that the only difficulties in the absorption of Poles are those in connexion with the willingness of industries to receive them. First of all there is the difficulty that most of these men do not know English and they have to be taught sufficient English to enable them to get along in civilian life with their employers and their workmates. Secondly, there is the difficulty of finding accommodation for the Poles in the precise neighbourhood where work becomes available for them. This difficulty is being energetically dealt with.
With regard to the particular suggestion that some of the Poles should be utilized in connexion with improvement of our road system, arrangements have already been made under which they can be employed in the civil engineering industry when suitable British labour is not available, and they can, therefore, from now on be utilized where the necessary arrangements can be made on road
996
improvements. Similar arrangements are to be discussed in connexion with road maintenance work with the National Joint Council for County Council Roadmen. The House can be assured that we are quite aware that we have only made a start on the tackling of this problem, but we mean to pursue it very vigorously. It may interest the noble Lord and the House to be informed that the number of Poles enrolled in the Resettlement Corps up to December 6 was 32,126, including about 600 women.
LORD SANDHURST: I thank the noble Lord for his reply which is one of the most helpful I have received in this House.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the general interest in the Roosevelt Memorial and the widespread criticism of the proposed design for the statue, they will arrange for a model to be shown in the Palace of Westminster before the work is executed.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the sculptor has nearly completed a clay model one-third of the ultimate size of the statue. I regret it is impracticable at present to move this model, but Sir William Reid Dick has kindly offered to show it in his studio, and if noble Lords and members of another place who wish to see the model will let my right honourable friend, the Minister of Works, know, the necessary arrangements will be made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

  GERMAN COAL.
  GERMAN COAL.
  THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.