Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 184: debated on Thursday 21 May 1925

House of Commons

Thursday, May 21, 1925

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

Private Business

Great Western Railway Bill [ Lords ],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

Village Settlements

asked the Minister of Pensions whether it was with his concurrence that the East Metropolitan Advisory Council were informed that grants were made by a Conservative Government; and whether, seeing that all grants are made by authority of Parliament, he will instruct his Department that in future no reference must be made to political parties in replies to resolutions or questions submitted by advisory councils?

:A suggestion was made by this advisory council last September that more sympathetic consideration should be given to a scheme for village settlements. In reply I pointed out that I had taken a personal interest in the matter, as was evidenced by the fact that a grant was made when I was last in office.

Awards

asked the Minister of Pensions whether awards made by medical boards are subject to revision by officials of his Department?

:Under the terms of the Royal Warrant pension can only be awarded in accordance with the rate of assessment certified by a medical board or a medical officer of the Ministry. In point of fact every award made by my Department under the Royal Warrant is in accordance with the assessment given by a medical board which has actually seen and examined the man.

:May I ask for an answer to my question as to whether awards made by medical boards, are subject to alteration by the Ministry's officials?

:The officials have no power to alter assessments. The assessments can be referred to a board but in every case it is a board which has seen the man, which finally makes the assessment.

:It is not the case that the assessors can alter the award. The award must be made by a board which has seen the man, but the assessors may point out that in their opinion the medical board have assessed a man too high or too low as the case may be.

:If I give the right hon. Gentleman a concrete case, will he have inquiries made into it?

:I should be very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend if he will send me particulars of any case he has in mind.

Electro-Cardiograph

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his Department possesses an electro-cardiograph; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of obtaining one in the interests of ex-service men suffering from cardiac dis-

:Arrangements have been in force for some years with local institutions whereby the Ministry obtain electro-radiograms in all cases where this is medically considered necessary. The nature of the Ministry's work whereby medical examination is carried out in the interest of pensioners at a variety of centres throughout the kingdom has not made it practicable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend s suggestion.

:Is it not a fact that through the Department not having an electro-cardiograph many ex-service men fail to establish their claim for cardiac disability, though found to be suffering from heart trouble in private hospitals which possess an electro-cardiograph?

:I think the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was whether we have got one. We find it best to use instruments which are locally available.

Appeals

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the hardships occurring frequently through the operation of the time limit respecting appeals against final awards, he will reconsider the whole matter, particularly the effect the present system has in regard to cases where an ex-service man's condition has become materially worse, or even a second or third disability arises, and an Article 9 claim is disallowed because it is alleged that the complaints which have subsequently developed were prevised and considered in the original award; and whether he is prepared to set up a special committee of medical and other advisers on this point?

:Under the administrative arrangements for the correction of errors of final award, which I have explained to the House, both the types of case referred to are being satisfactorily dealt with in accordance with medical advice. I see no ground, therefore, for adopting the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Final Awards (Notification)

asked the Minister of Pensions whether Ministry of Pensions Award 122a, Notice of Final Award, is now always despatched by registered post?

:Notification is sent by registered post in all cases where the final award involves no further money payment by the Ministry. In all other cases, notification is sent by ordinary post on a form with a perforated slip atached, on which the beneficiary is required to acknowledge receipt.

Electrical Advertisements

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider taking over authority for regulating the placing or display of electrical advertisements, illuminated sky-signs, and the like, in London and other cities?

:I cannot undertake this duty without the authority of Parliament.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these signs are at present governed by an obsolete Act which never contemplated electrical signs at all—in fact, they are not mentioned—and is he looking into the matter with a view to some Regulation of these matters?

:That was not quite the question which the hon. and gallant Member asked.

:If it be a supplementary question, my supplementary answer is that I will consider the supplementary question.

Habitual Drunkards

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases during the last 20 years the provision in Section 6 of the Licensing Act, 1902, regarding the blacklisting of drunkards has been put into operation; and the number of cases in that period where persons have been convicted of violating the provisions of the same section with respect to the purchase or sale of intoxicating liquor?

:The available figures are published in the Annual Volume of Criminal Statistics. I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Licensing Act, 1902

NUMBER of Habitual Drunkards "Blacklisted" and Number of Convictions for ( a ) "Habitual Drunkards blacklisted obtaining drink" and ( b ) "Licensed Persons selling drink to Habitual Drunkards blacklisted," during the years 1904 to 1923.) "Licensed Persons selling drink to Habitual Drunkards blacklisted," during the years 1904 to 1923.

(Extracted from Annual Volumes of Criminal Statistics.)

Year.

Blacklisted. Sec. 6 (1).

Habitual Drunkards obtaining Drink. Sec. 6 (2) ( a ).).

Licensed Persons selling Drink to Habitual Drunkards. Sec. 6 (2) ( b ).).

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1904

611

141

Not available.

1905

427

151

5

1906

352

87

3

1907

450

49

2

1908

223

43

2

1909

240

24

1910

289

20

1911

314

14

1912

293

18

1913

267

11

19141

Figures not available.

20

1

1915

12

1916

3

1917

1918

1

1919

6

1920

5

1921

10

6

1

1922

1

2

1923

1

5

NOTE.—Column 4 does not include convictions of officers of registered clubs for selling or supplying drink to Habitual Drunkards, as any such cases are included under the general heading "Other offences against Intoxicating Liquor Laws."

Figures for 1924 are not yet available.

Murder and Manslaughter Cases (Coroners' Inquiries)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to when he proposes to introduce legislation to regulate or abolish the procedure of double inquiries of Magistrates' Courts and Coroners' Courts in murder and manslaughter cases?

Children's Court, Cowbridge

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Press representatives have been excluded from children's courts at Cowbridge, Glamorgan, by order of the presiding magistrate; and will he circularise magistrates drawing their attention to the provisions of the Children Act, Sections 111 and 114?

asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that bona-fide Press representatives are protected from exclusion from a children's court by Sections 111 and 114 of the Children Act, he will take steps to safeguard their rights by drawing the attention of magistrates to the terms of the Act?

:I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones).

Aliens

Permanent Provisions

asked the Home Secretary if and when it is proposed to introduce legislation consolidating and making permanent the provisions of the Aliens Act?

:Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, on which the present system of regulating aliens rests, will be included in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill this year. I have under consideration, and hope before next year to have settled, the best way of putting the present powers on a permanent basis.

Registration

asked the Home Secretary whether he can state, approximately, the number of aliens at present in this country; and what proportion are Germans, Russians, and Bulgarians?

:There were 271,631 aliens registered in the United Kingdom at the end of March last, and of these 19,543 were Germans, 88,866 Russians, and 89 Bulgarians.

:Is it proposed to keep these Russians in this country after the non-fulfilment of the Trade Agreement of the 16th March, 1921?

:I do not think these 88,000 Russians are concerned in the Trade Agreement. They are not responsible for it. They were living here —most of them—before the War.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many aliens were imported in bulk in the West of Scotland?

:Is it not the fact that the majority of these Russians are White Russians, and not Reds?

Police (House Rent Aid)

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that a member of the police force who rents his house receives the full amount of rent aid, while the man who saves enough to buy a house receives only half the amount of rent aid, he will consider the desirability of removing this differentiation?

:I know of no such discrimination against a constable who owns his house. There is nothing in the Regulations limiting the rent aid in such a case to half the normal amount, and the intention is to put the man who owns his house as nearly as may be in the same position as if he rented the house.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries with a view to seeing whether there is not a substantial point in this question?

:If I bring a case to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he look into it?

:Certainly I will do so. That is also the answer to the hon. and gallant Member opposite. Any specific cases will be inquired into.

Street Accidents

asked the Home Secretary how many street accidents occurred in the Metropolitan Police area in the year 1924 in which motor vehicles were concerned; and in how many cases it was proved that the accident was due to the vehicle or vehicles concerned proceeding at too high a rate of speed?

:The number of such accidents was 59,122. To prepare an answer to the second part of the question would involve so much labour that I think the results would not be likely to justify it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Traffic Advisory Committee has given any further consideration to means for the prevention or diminution of street accidents; and, if so, when will he be in a position to communicate the result of such further consideration?

:I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 12th February last, except that the Advisory Committee are continuing their investigations into the question of the relief of congestion, and are considering what regulations can be made which, without being unreasonable, would reduce the risk of accident. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make in the matter, I shall be glad to consider them.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman taken notice of the report of the excessive number of accidents which have occurred during the first three months of this year; and as the right hon. Gentleman is asking for suggestions, may I suggest that there would be more peace —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Motor Speed Tests (London)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has any evidence to prove that the present method adopted by the Metropolitan police of timing motorists over measured distances with plain-clothed police officers is an efficient method of preventing dangerous driving, or is only a method of detecting fast driving?

:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to his question of the 7th May.

:May I ask if the answer referred to was any answer at all to the question. The answer was that timing was an efficient method of detect- ing excessive speed, but I asked if it was an efficient method of preventing dangerous driving?

:I have the question and answer here. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether I would consider any alternative method having that object in view, and in reply I said I should be happy to consider any practicable method of preventing such offences. I am looking forward to help from my hon. and gallant Friend.

:Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has visited a night club and has seen things at first hand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Lords Lieutenant (Parliamentary Elections)

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of giving the House an opportunity of considering whether Lords Lieutenant of counties, as His Majesty's representatives, should be prevented from taking part in elections for the House of Commons, other than those Lords Lieutenant who are themselves candidates?

:Up to the year 1911 it was the practice to pass an annual Resolution to the effect that it was an infringement of the liberties of the Commons for any Lords Lieutenant to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission to influence an election. In 1911 this Resolution was negatived on a Division, and, though in 1912 the old Resolution was passed, it has not been moved since. I know of no sufficient reason for raising the question at the present time.

Calender Rolls (Safety Guards)

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the number of accidents to workers that take place in factories and mills during calendering operations; that the risk of such accidents could be totally eliminated at comparatively small cost by the adoption of safety calender guards; and if he will take steps to ensure the use of such safety guards in all factories and mills where calendering operations are carried on?

:Separate statistics for calender rolls are not available, but I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Factories that the number of accidents is not large. The danger is one which is well known and to which attention has been given by the Factory Department for years. Good guards are available in almost all cases, and the practice of the inspectors is to insist on their use.

:Is it not the case that since the Home Office decided some years ago to do away with a number of factory inspectors the accidents have been greatly on the increase?

Quarrymen (Silicosis)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received notification of a number of phthisis cases amongst quarrymen, in particular that of Mr. Arthur Brook, of 415, Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, Huddersfield, now in Bradley Wood sanatorium, Huddersfield, due to the inhalation of stone dust; and whether the Home Office is now prepared to schedule this disease amongst those caused by industrial employment, therefore rendering the victim eligible for payment of compensation?

:I am aware of the occurrence of cases of silicosis among men engaged in working certain kinds of stone, but this particular case had not previously been brought to my notice. This disease cannot suitably be scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act but would have to be dealt with by a scheme under the special Acts passed by Parliament for the purpose— the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Acts, 1916 and 1924. The Home Office is proceeding with the inquiries in the industries affected which are necessary for determining the incidence of the disease before a scheme under the Acts can be framed. The potteries industry is now being investigated, and the inquiry into the stone industry is the next to be taken in hand and will be started as soon as possible.

Motor Police Control (Croydon By-Pass)

asked the Home Secretary what are the exigencies of traffic which seem to demand the institution of a motor police control for the prosecution of drivers alleged to have exceeded the 20 miles per hour limit on the Croydon by-pass?

:It was found that vehicles were frequently being driven on this road at speeds which, having regard to the exigencies of the traffic on the road, were dangerous.

:Is it not the fact that this road is one of the widest in the country and was built specially to allow traffic to go at a higher rate of speed and to get out of London quickly?

:I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's version of the reason for which the road was built. It was built for all His Majesty's subjects.

Education

Teachers of the Blind

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among teachers engaged in the work of training the blind owing to the latitude granted by the Regulations of his Department that a class can exceed 15 in number; if, in the opinion of these teachers, such numbers lead to inefficiency; and whether he will be prepared to meet a small but representative deputation of these teachers on the matter?

:I am not aware of the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Member refers, but I will gladly investigate any specific case or cases in which it is alleged that the size of a class is militating against its efficiency.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a strong deputation from the National Institute of the Blind? I mean by that, people who are connected with the teaching profession, teaching blind children?

:I think it would be better that I should have the facts before giving a deputation the trouble of coming to see me.

School Accommodation, Doncaster District

asked the President of the Board of Education what steps, if any, have been taken by the West Riding (Yorks) Education Committee towards providing elementary school accommodation at Armthorpe, Dunscroft, and Thorne, near Doncaster, for the children who are receiving no education?

:At Armthorpe the authority have, with the approval of my Department, acquired a, site to which an existing temporary school building is being removed. At Dunscroft an option upon a site has been secured, and all the children who are awaiting admission to school from this and the neighbouring village of Stainforth can, for the time being, be accommodated in a new school in the latter village, which is expected to be completed at the end of this month. At Thorne the final plans are in course of preparation for a new school for 350, a site for which is in the possession of the authority; in addition, the authority have published notices of their intention to provide a second new school for 1,000 children in the Moorends district, and are negotiating for a site.

Provincial Museums

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the disabilities under which provincial museums suffer, he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of museums throughout Great Britain with the view of giving financial encouragement to the educative work which is being carried on in them?

:If my hon. Friend will kindly give me particulars of the disabilities which he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them.

Village School Instruction

asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the success of the methods of village school instruction in mechanics for the farm as reported upon by the education committee of the Shropshire County Council; and whether he will himself take means to bring these methods to the notice of the public, and especially of the educational authorities in all rural areas, and give Members of Parliament the material to enable them also to make these methods widely known?

:I am aware of what is being done in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. A good deal of work is being done in rural schools in various parts of the country in giving courses of instruction specially suited to agricultural conditions, and I shall do everything in my power to encourage experiments in this direction.

:Will the Noble Lord answer the last part of my question as to whether he will give Members of Parliament the material to enable them also to make these methods widely known? Will he obtain a report of what is going on in Shropshire?

:I shall be glad to make any information fully available to hon. Members, but it is a matter of the collection of reports from individual schools throughout the country, and not a question of drawing up a general report for the country as a whole. It is rather difficult, therefore, to make the information available in a very easy form, but I shall be glad to do all I can in the matter.

Municipal Employes (War Service)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, following the Sutton award to postal workers, the Manchester City Corporation have agreed to make retrospective payment of allowances to employés who volunteered for service in the armed forces of the Crown during the War; how much these allowances will cost approximately; will he state the amount of legal costs incurred by the above authority in meeting the claim; whether any other local authority have made similar payments; and, if so, the names of such bodies?

:I have communicated with the Manchester City Council in regard to the first part of this question, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a letter which I have received from the Town Clerk on the subject. As regards the concluding part of the question, I believe that payments of this nature have been made by some other local authorities, but I have no definite information in the matter.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the other authorities who gave this promise during the War that they should follow the example set by the Manchester City Council?

:I have no reason to suppose that all local authorities will not fulfil any promises which they made during the War.

Following is a copy of the letter mentioned:

"Town Hall,

Manchester.

18th May, 1925.

SIR,

In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, enclosing copy of a question which is to be asked in the House of Commons on the 21st instant, the Manchester City Council have made certain arrangements with their ex-service employés arising out of the promises which were made to such persons at or about the time such persons joined His Majesty's Forces. The promises were dissimilar to those which engaged the consideration of the House of Lords in the Sutton case.

I am not in a position to state how much such allowances will ultimately cost the city as the settlement is on the basis of a formula, the financial results of which have yet to be ascertained by a separate calculation applicable to each employé, nor am I in a position to say what the amount of the legal costs incurred is for the reason that the accounts relative thereto have not as yet been prepared.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) P. M. HEATH,

Town Clerk."

The Secretary,

Ministry of Health,

Whitehall, S.W.1.

Housing

Direct Labour

asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the Aldershot Borough Council have decided to build 100 working-class houses by direct labour, he will state the approximate cost of the houses to be built; whether private contracors were given the opportunity of contracting for these houses; if so, what were the prices of the tenders made by private builders; and what was the saving, if any, on the direct labour scheme?

:The council are proposing to build 100 further houses by direct labour at the same estimated cost per house as in the case of the present instalment of 52 houses which they are erecting, namely, £500 inclusive of land. They anticipate as the result of the experience so far gained that the final cost will come out at less than this figure. So far as I am aware, tenders for these houses were not invited from private contractors.

:As there seems to be such a great saving by the employment of direct labour, will the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending to the other councils to adopt the same principle?

:The hon. Member is assuming that there was a great saving, although I told him that no tenders were received from private contractors.

:But the right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that there are municipalities which have proved the position with regard to the saving on direct labour?

Steel Houses

asked the Minister of Health how many steel houses for demonstration purposes have been completed; how many are in course of erection; whether he has received reports on any types of steel house other than the Weir house; and, if so, on which types?

:There are four types of house to be erected under the scheme of demonstration houses, namely, the Weir, Braithwaite, Atholl and Wild. These types were recommended for that purpose by the Committee on New Methods of House Construction. According to the latest information, the work of construction on the demonstration houses has been started in the case of 10 local authorities, and four houses have been completed.

Contributory Pensions Bill

asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the insurance scheme, he will consider making provision for wives whose husbands are complete and permanent invalids and unable to contribute in any way towards the upkeep of his home or children?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 18th instant to a similar question raised by the hon. Member for the Rotherhithe Division (Mr. B. Smith).

asked the Minister of Health whether under Clause 18 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions Bill, any soldier, sailor, or airman killed in the Great War will be considered to have been an insured person in spite of the fact that before he joined up he was not in any insured employment?

:The answer is in the affirmative, except in those cases where the soldier, sailor or airman exercised his option not to become insured.

West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth (Dismissal of Nurse)

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a. probationer nurse has recently been dismissed, without her certificate, from the West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, by the board of guardians, after two years and eight months' service, because she complained to the matron of being bullied by a sister in whose ward she was working; that there has been unrest among the nursing staff in this hospital for some past; and that a nurse won an action in the High Court of Justice for wrongful dismissal against the Brentford Board of Guardians in April, 1923; and whether he will have an inquiry held as to the recent dismissal at which the nurse will be permitted to state her case?

:I am aware that the guardians of the Brentford Union have recently had occasion to dismiss a probationer nurse, though not on the grounds suggested in the ques- tion, and of the case referred to in the third part of the question. I am not aware of any general unrest among the nursing staff of this hospital. The action taken by the guardians does not require any sanction or approval on my part, and I do not think this is a case for an inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests.

Voluntary Hospitals

asked the Minister of Health whether the Voluntary Hospital Commission has furnished a Report on the provision of additional accommodation; and whether he can give figures showing the total number of beds required, and the principal centres in England, Scotland and Wales where there is inadequate hospital accommodation, with the number of additional beds required in each centre?

:I understand that the Report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission is in course of preparation, and I hope to receive it before the end of June.

asked the Minister of Health how many approved societies and branches have agreed to devote a portion of their surpluses to payments in respect of hospital treatment of their members to the funds of voluntary hospitals; and what was the sum given to voluntary hospitals under agreements with approved societies during the 12 months ending 31st March, 1925?

:The number of societies and branches in England whose existing schemes of additional benefits include payments to hospitals or convalescent homes is 963, with a membership of about five million insured persons. The sum spent under this additional benefit during the year ended 31st December, 1924, was about £210,000. It is not possible to state how much of this sum was paid to hospitals as distinct from convalescent homes, but it is believed that by far the greater part was paid in respect of the treatment of members in hospitals.

General Medical Council

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the amendment of the Medical Act, 1858, in order to give a right of appeal to medical practitioners struck off the register by decisions of the General Medical Council holding them guilty of infamous conduct?

:I am not aware that there is any general demand among the medical profession for the amendment of the Medical Acts in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, and in the absence of general agreement I am not prepared to introduce legislation.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the absolutely autocratic power over the lives and careers of the whole of the medical profession given to the General Medical Council by the Medical Act of 1858 requires some revision?

:Is it not the experience of the right hon. Gentleman s Department that the action of the General Medical Council has been highly expedient in the interests of health and of the community generally?

:If there were any general feeling among the members of the profession that the powers of the General Medical Council were excessive,. I should have no difficulty in ascertaining it. They have not generally been backward in putting forward any grievance they might have.

Manipulative Surgery

asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interest of public health, he will consider legislative action to insure that persons qualified to give practical instruction in manipulative surgery shall have the opportunity of giving it and also of obtaining degrees in this branch of surgery?

:Under the revised medical curriculum adopted by the General Medical Council in 1922, practical instruction in manipulative surgery can be and is given by persons holding registrable medical qualifications. As at present advised, I am not prepared to recommend legislation for the purpose of establishing degrees or diplomas for persons who have not satisfied the statutory requirements of the General Medical Council.

Ministers of the Crown (Newspaper Articles)

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government accepts the rule that Ministers of the Crown, during their tenure of office, should refrain from contributing articles to the newspaper Press upon public affairs; whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for India is a contributor to the newspaper Press upon matters affecting public policy; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take?

:The laying down of hard-and-fast rules restricting the action of Ministers in this respect is a matter of considerable complexity, which seems to me to require more detailed consideration than I have been able to give to it since receiving notice of the question.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the OFFICIAL REPORT for 29th April last year, wherein his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the present Undersecretary of State for the Colonies put repeated questions and supplementary questions to the then Government in an attempt, and a successful attempt, to induce that Government to adhere strictly to that rule, and can he say how he can justify a departure from that principle now, a principle which they apparently held so strongly when out of office?

:I am not justifying anything. I remember the Debate to which allusion has been made, and I am having got out for me every allusion to the subject which has been made in this House for some years back. I am having the whole subject brought before me.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether statements of policy which are made in newspaper articles by Members of the Cabinet are subject to the usual rule of joint Cabinet responsibility?

:I have not noticed any articles of that kind. Of course, it is obvious in all contributions that some are less objectionable, and some more.

Royal Commission on Local Government

asked the Minister of Health when it is expected that the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government will be published?

:I have been asked to reply. I am not in a position to add anything to the replies given on the 5th March and the 8th April to similar questions by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Nuttall) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd).

:When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer to this particular question?

:As this matter is a very vital one to certain localities and public officials, cannot we get something a little bit more definite from the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that this Commission has been sitting for a long time?

:I would point out that a Minister does not control a Royal Commission, and has no authority over it.

Scientific Research

asked the Prime Minister whether action to ensure adequate co-ordination in respect of the whole of the expenditure exceeding £4,000,000 provided in this year's Estimate for scientific research, is being taken by the Lord President of the Council?

:My Noble Friend the Lord President of the Council has no responsibility for ensuring adequate co-ordination in respect of the whole of the expenditure for scientific research, which is estimated for 1925–26 to exceed £4,000,000, but the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council, for whose activities the Lord President is responsible, is, so far as the first-named Department is concerned, provided with machin- ery for the co-ordination of the research work of the technical establishments of the Fighting Services which has a civilian interest, and of certain other Government Departments. The Department has no control over the work of the research establishments maintained by other Government Departments, and has no responsibility in connection with research undertaken purely for defence purposes. Conferences between representatives of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Development Commission, are held periodically for the consideration of matters of common interest to these Departments.

Credit Insurance

asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take upon the Report of the Committee which has been considering credit insurance?

:If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Report of a Committee set up by the Federation of British Industries, it is being considered by the Departments concerned.

Cathedrals and Churches (Opening)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the diversity in custom with regard to the opening of cathedrals and churches in England both on weekdays and Sundays; that a great number of these are closed either wholly or in part excepting during divine service; and whether he will consider setting up a committee of representative clergy and laymen to investigate the reasons which prevent the cathedrals and churches of the Established Church being open free of charge to the public during all the hours of daylight, and to suggest the means of remedying the present state of affairs?

:The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the third part is in the negative. The matter is one which would more properly be raised, in the first instance, in the Church Assembly, or by making direct inquiries from the Archbishops.

Food Prices (Royal Commission)

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statements in the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices concerning the operations of trusts, combines, and trade associations, the Government proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the matter or, alternatively, will facilities be given to the Bill on trusts and combines introduced by the hon. Member for Hills-borough?

:The Government have undertaken to present to the House a large programme of important and urgent legislation, and it would be impracticable to enlarge that programme substantially at the present time.

:Can anything be more urgent than to see that profiteering is stopped in bread and the other necessaries of life?

:Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that the Cabinet have decided not to deal with the trusts before coming to the House for their opinion on the setting up of a Food Council?

86 and 87.

( ( for Mr. B. SMITH)asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, seeing that the Royal Commission on Food Prices report that there is in the baking and bread trade a considerable waste of energy and expenditure due to uneconomic organisation and to overlapping of services, he proposes to take any action or introduce legislation to render the bread trade efficient and to effect a reduction in the price of bread;

(2) whether, seeing that the Royal Commission or Food Prices report that butchers have doubled their money incomes since before the War, and that the price of meat is excessive, while the Ministry of Pensions purchasing in bulk is able to issue prime joints of beef at 7¾d. and of mutton at 10½d. per lb. to the hospitals, he will consider the desirability of opening in the poorer districts Government shops for the retail of meat at reasonable prices?

:The Government are carefully considering the whole of the Royal Commission's Report, and an announcement will be made as soon as a decision is reached.

Civil Servants (Parliamentary Candidature)

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee on the candidature of Crown servants for Parliament, etc.; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any action thereon?

Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain sanitary authorities are, in anticipation of the coming into operation of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, now enforcing alterations to buildings under their existing powers; whether any instructions have been issued by his Department dealing with this matter; and whether, in the absence of information as to the standards which he may demand in Orders to be made under the 1915 Act, and in order to obviate wasteful expenditure being enforced upon property owners by local sanitary authorities taking such action at the present juncture, he will notify the local authorities of the desirability of deferring action until such Orders are issued?

:I shall be glad to be informed of the cases which my hon. Friend has in mind and will then consider whether any action can appropriately be taken.

:Are we to understand that anything which helps towards clean milk is wasteful extravagance?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great inconvenience that is being caused to farmers and traders because of the slowness of the issue of these draft regulations?

Vaccination

asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the total number of public vaccinators in England and Wales, distinguishing those paid by salary and those paid by fees; the number of vaccinations performed by fee-paid vaccinators and the cost thereof during the latest year for which the figures are available; the number of medical officers of Poor Law institutions who also act as public vaccinators for such institutions, distinguishing those who perform vaccinations as part of their duties as salaried medical officers and those who are paid vaccination fees; and the total amount of the latter fees during the latest year for which figures are available?

:The total number of public vaccinators in England and Wales is approximately 3,514, of whom 15 only are paid by salary and the remainder by fees. I regret that separate information is not available as to the number of vaccinations performed by fee-paid vaccinators, or as to the cost of these vaccinations. The number of medical officers of Poor Law institutions who are also public vaccinators for such institutions is approximately 692, of whom 11 are remunerated for this work by salary. I am unable to give the amount of the fees paid to the remainder.

National Health Insurance Appeals (Cost)

asked the Minister of Health what was the average cost per case of appeals against decisions under the National Health Insurance Acts during the year 1923; and what was the average amount involved in such appeals in the same year?

:I assume that the hon. Member has in mind appeals under Section 90 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, against the decisions on disputes between approved societies and their members. During the year 1923, 34 such appeals were heard by referees in England and the average cost per case (exclusive of the costs of the parties) was £19 15s. 9d. The amount, if any, involved in a case is not ordinarily stated in the referee's award, but 30 of the appeals heard in 1923 were concerned with benefit claims and the average period of benefit in dispute was about 40 weeks.

Finance Bill

Silk Duties

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to levy the Silk Duty upon articles consisting partly of silk but already dutiable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley on the 19th May.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, when it says that other duties shall not be leviable, it is not possible that the framers had in mind the Artificial Silk Duties, which were not then in existence?

:The provision referred to in my answer is not limited to duties in force at the time when it was passed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making the preferential rebate on the Silk Duty, he will require proof that the articles are of Empire manufacture, or whether it will be sufficient that they should have been consigned from some part of the Empire?

:I assume the hon. Member to refer to the preferential rates of Customs Duty on import. Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, which governs the admission of imported articles at preferential rates of duty, requires, as a condition of such admission, that the articles shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of (Customs and Excise to have been both consigned from, and grown, produced or manufactured in, the British Empire.

also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new duty on artificial silk will be imposed only on products at present bearing that description, or whether products of a similar character, but manufactured by different processes and of different constituents, will also be liable to the duty?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) on the 11th May on Report from the Committee of Ways and Means.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement was no statement at all, and that it really does not deal in the least with the matters raised in the question; in the interests of of trade will he answer the question?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates to lose through silk and artificial-silk articles being imported into this country free of duty on the persons or in the luggage of passengers entering the ports of this country?

:As it was never intended to tax articles bona fide worn by passengers arriving in this country, or reasonable quantities contained in personal luggage, I cannot agree that the estimates of yield will be affected.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that every pound that the Exchequer loses owing to these articles being imported free of duty means at least £3 loss to the retail trade of this country, owing to people purchasing abroad instead of at home?

:Is it not the fact that nearly every other country takes this risk, and are we not, as a whole, a fairly honest people?

:The question on the Paper asks what we estimate we shall lose. The estimates were compiled on Board of Trade information, which necessarily had no means of taking into account articles worn on the person.

:But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when I put the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday he stated that the Treasury had taken into full account all the loss that was contemplated in this way? I put this question to know what was the estimated loss.

:It is impossible for us to know the exact amount involved, because from the necessities of the case there are no returns available.

:Will it not be an incentive to people to buy their clothes abroad instead of buying them in London?

Income Tax and Super-Tax

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated amounts of Income Tax and Super-tax, respectively, due by 31st March 1925, but not collected by that date, and what were the similar totals for 31st March 1924?

:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) on the 11th May. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Gold Imposts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to give such information, as is consistent with the public interest, of the source from which £1,600,000 in gold bare has recently entered this country?

Forged Transfers Acts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the necessity of legislation to amend the Forged Transfers Acts, 1891 and 1892, making it compulsory for all limited companies to adopt them?

:I have been asked to reply. If my hon. and gallant Friend cares to let me have a statement of the grounds on which he bases his suggestion, I shall be glad to convey it to the Departmental Committee which is now considering the Companies Acts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the better protection of registered stockholders, he will consider making compulsory the adoption of the provisions of the Forged Transfers Acts, 1891 and 1892, in respect of Government stocks registered at the Bank of England?

:These Acts apply only to companies', local authorities' and Colonial stock, not to British Government stocks, and they are in any case permissive. I do not, however, think that the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, even if it were practicable, would confer any advantage upon the holders of Government stock, as quite special precautions are, in fact, taken against the registration of a forged transfer of Government stock.

War Loans

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of registered holders of War 5 per cent. Loan, 1929–47, and 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan, 1961, respectively, and the average amount of each holding?

:The number of accounts of registered 5 per cent. War stock is 2,885,707, and the total held is £1,706,992,709. There are 174,096 accounts of registered 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan, the total held is £669,260,139. In view of the size of particular holdings, e.g., by Government Funds, an average derived from these figures would be misleading: and it must be borne in mind that the number of accounts, which alone is available, is no safe guide to the number of individual holders.

Parliamentary Publications

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number and the total published prices of such of the non-Parliamentary publications published by His Majesty's Stationery Office in the year 1924 as would have been designated and issued as Parliamentary publications in the year 1914?

:A statement on these lines would be so largely a matter of opinion as, in my judgment, not to be worth the considerable clerical labour involved in preparing it. The main change since 1914 in the practice of classifying Government publications is that referred to in the Report of the Select Committee of Publications for 1923 and Appendix I of that Report contains a detailed statement on the subject which will, I hope, give the hon. Member substantially the information he desires.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation on this matter?

Unemployment

Middlesbrough

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received an intimation from the Middlesbrough Corporation that, having regard to the heavy capital liabilities already incurred by them on unemployment relief work and in view of the high local rates which are crippling industry, they cannot undertake any further schemes without an increase in the Government grant; and, seeing that there are nearly 9,000 unemployed in Middlesbrough out of a total population of 130,000, and the number is rapidly increasing, will he state what steps the Government propose to take in this matter?

:I have been asked to reply. The letter from the Middlesbrough Corporation to which the hon. Member refers, dealing with their financial position, has now been received. While I regret the degree of unemployment at Middlesbrough, I should add that during the present year the number of men on the Unemployed Register has not been rapidly increasing but has been practically stationary. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to offer more favourable rates of grant than those generally in operation.

:In coming to their decision had the Departments in mind that 40 per cent. of certain of the trades in the district were unemployed, and that the numbers of the unemployed this year must be thousands more than last year?

:At the time that the Minister of Health and I came to the decision we found that the figures of unemployment in Middlesbrough were very much the same as now.

Travelling Facilities

asked the Minister of Labour whether the managers of Employment Exchanges have been instructed to pay the train or omnibus fares of those who live miles away from the Exchange and are in receipt of unemployment benefit; and, if not, will he reconsider his stated reason for not opening an Exchange on the ground that there are good transport facilities for those who live five or six miles away?

:No such instructions have been issued, and I have no authority to pay the travelling expenses of claimants for benefit living at a distance from a local office, except in certain cases where they are summoned to attend a court of referees or a local employment committee. Applicants living more than four miles from the nearest local office are not required to attend more frequently than once a week, and in these circumstances I do not think the existing arrangements can fairly be regarded as unreasonable.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that five and a-half miles from an Exchange is too far to expect people to walk there and back, and in many cases they are unable to do it, and does he not think even if transport facilities are available it is a very serious matter to put a tax of this kind on the small amount which they are getting in unemployment pay in order to pay their fares there and back?

:Of course it is always a balance between justice to the individual and expense to the State, but when it occurs only once a week I think on the whole the balance is in favour of the present system. In any case I have not the power to deal with it without legislation.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Argyllshire some of those who are entitled to un-employment benefit have to travel over twenty miles, and the expense of transport there is so great that if they were to travel in order to "lift" the benefit, the expense would exceed the whole sum, and so they have to do without it in many cases where they are fully entitled to it?

:Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will furnish me with details of those cases.

Australian Exchange Rates

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that exchange rates with Australia at present stand at a premium of 2°7 per cent. in favour of Australia as compared with 1°2 per cent. in April, 1924, and 'I per cent. in 1923; and whether the Government are taking any steps to correct this handicap to British traders dealing with Australia?

:The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The exchange on Australia was brought within a fraction of parity a few days after this country returned to the gold standard, and the premium on Australian pounds is now only ¼ to ¾ per cent. for cable transfers.

Government Departments

Salaries

asked the Financial Secretary of the Treasury whether in next year's Estimates the salaries proposed to be paid to each civil servant, or group of civil servants, can be shown in actual amounts instead of in basic amounts with the amount of bonus being shown in a lump sum?

:In view of the somewhat complicated nature of the bonus scale and its liability to variation with the cost of living figure, I see some difficulty in this proposal, but the suggestion has been noted and will be carefully considered before next year's Estimates are compiled.

Inspectors of Taxes (Examinations)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that before the War examinations in open competition for inspectorships of taxes were held at various centres, including Glasgow and Edinburgh; that all candidates are now examined in London, thus involving-Scottish candidates in considerable travelling and lodging expenses; and that these examinations are held at the same time as the university graduation ceremonies, thus preventing Scottish university candidates from being capped: and if he will see that the pre-War examination arrangements are restored?

:The conditions of the examination for Assistant Inspectors of Taxes have been altered considerably since the War. Its duration is longer, and it involves interview before a board as well as oral tests. In these circumstances, it is now impracticable to conduct it at more than one centre. The present date has been selected as being the one most generally suitable for eligible candidates. It comes at the end of the academic year and avoids University examinations and the open competitive examination for administrative posts in the home and Indian Civil Service.

:Would it not be possible to set up a satisfactory interviewing board in Edinburgh on the lines previously adopted?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that this practice will not play into the hands of pupils of the Universities? Is he quite satisfied that it is fair that candidates who may have to come long distances from all over the country should be so heavily penalised against candidates who reside in the neighbourhood of London?

:In answer to the first part of the question, it is obviously impossible to hold these examinations all over the country.

:Is this not the first instance on record of Scotsmen not wishing to come to London?

Ordnance Survey

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to transfer for administrative purposes the Ordnance Survey from the control of his Department to that of the War Office; whether the cost of the survey is borne on the Civil Vote; and, if such alteration is contemplated, what is the reason?

:I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Class 1, Vote 11, of the Civil Service Estimates for the current financial year, from which he will see that the cost of the survey, estimated at £160,000, is borne on the Civil Vote.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are changes going on, that those on the Whitley Council have declined to deal with the matter on the ground that it involves high policy, and that civil servants are being substituted by others?

:I will bring this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Board of Trade

( for Mr. PRESTON)asked the President of the Board of Trade why the staff of the Board of Trade has increased from 2,535 on 1st August, 1914, to 5,556 on 1st March, 1925, particularly in view of the transference of so many duties to the Labour and Transport Ministries?

:The figure quoted for 1914 by my hon. Friend excluded the staff transferred to the Ministry of Labour. Since 1914, the Board of Trade have undertaken many fresh duties. Included in the figure for 1925 are 1,300 officers employed on permanent duties such as those of the Mines Department, the Sea Transport Department, and the coastguard, which have mainly been transferred to them from other Government Departments. Further, there are 1,400 officers employed on temporary duties, such as those of the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), Shipping Liquidation, Reparation Claims, Food Liquidation, War Medals and Pensions, etc. I have not attempted to account for the exact difference, and I think that my hon. Friend will see from the figures I give that no comparison can be made between the staffs employed in 1914 and 1925.

Air Service, London and Prague

asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the negotiations for permitting British aeroplanes to fly over German territory so as to be able to establish an air service between London and Prague; and what is the cause of the delay in the establishment of this air route?

:I much regret that no progress towards the establishment of an air service between London and Prague has been possible. The German authorities, while agreeing to the continuance of flights by British aircraft to Cologne and Berlin, refuse to permit the operation of a regular service across German territory to Czecho-Slovakia.

:Is any diplomatic action being taken in this regrettable matter, which has been hanging on now for three years?

:Yes, Sir, we have been engaged in constant negotiations both in Paris and Prague, and I much regret that no progress has been made.

Airship R 33

76 and 78.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty is the only Department of Government which has designed and constructed airships, a naval officer was included on the court of inquiry into the circumstances attending the breaking away of R 33 from her mooring mast; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the safety of ships at their moorings is a problem constantly in the minds of naval officers, he will request that an experienced naval officer be lent to assist in the complete elucidation of this regrettable accident;

(2) whether his Department, prior to the breaking away of the R 33, consulted the Admiralty with reference to the most suitable type of apparatus for mooring airships to masts; and, if so, whether the recommendations of the Admiralty were adopted?

:The implication in my hon. and gallant Friend's questions that the Air Ministry has had less experience than the Admiralty in the mooring of rigid airships to masts is incorrect, as is the suggestion that the Admiralty is the only Department with experience of airship construction. On the contrary, even when the Admiralty were still responsible for the design and construction of airships, it was by the Royal Air Force that practical experiments in regard to mast mooring were conducted and the 1921 trials, which finally established the practicability of the mooring mast, were carried out entirely by the Air Ministry. The problem is an entirely different one from that of the mooring of ships at sea. For these reasons, whilst I desire to utilise all available airship experience, whether at the Admiralty or elsewhere, there would have been no advantage in this particular case either in consulting the Admiralty before the recent accident to the R 33 or in requesting the assistance of a naval officer in elucidating its cause.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the airship broke loose the crew on board consisted of one officer and 20 men, notwithstanding that during the day very bad weather was reported throughout the country?

:Yes, Sir. I am aware that the crew did consist of that number, but I do not think there is any cause of criticism on that account. If my hon. Friend wants further information on the subject, he had better put a question.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any of the old type of mooring masts are being built to-day?

:I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by that. If he will put a question down, I will answer it.

:Arising out of the original answer, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any new type of mooring is anticipated, in view of the fact that the existing one is insufficient to hold the ship?

:No, Sir. I would not admit the implication contained in the second part of the supplementary question. As to whether any other kind of mooring mast is contemplated, another kind of mooring mast is at present the subject of expert investigation, and until that expert investigation is completed, I cannot give any further answers on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the investigation into the breaking away of the R33 is complete; if so, when the result will be published; and can he now state the findings of the court?

:The investigation is still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement as regards the publication of the Report.

Electricity Schemes

asked the Minister of Transport how many districts had been defined under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919; and how many schemes to set up authorities for such areas have been approved?

:Sixteen electricity districts have been either provisionally or finally determined by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. Parliament has approved schemes setting up joint authorities or joint advisory bodies in five cases, and also another scheme of re-organisation for a district where the establishment of a central authority was found to be unnecessary. Two further schemes, each providing for a district authority, have been approved by the Commissioners, and the Orders embodying the schemes have been submitted for confirmation.

:Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these joint advisory boards or electricity authorities there are at present?

Ex-Service Men (King's Roll)

asked the Minister of Labour whether all, or any, of the four great railway companies are members of the King's National Roll?

:All the four main trunk railway companies are on the King's Roll.

asked the Minister of Labour how many proprietors of coal mines out of the total number are upon the King's National Roll?

:I will make inquiries and let the hon. and gallant Member know the result.

Wireless Apparatus

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the National Association of Radio Manufacturers are . threatening to withhold supplies of wireless apparatus from traders who, having made all necessary allowances for costs and profits, may be willing to sell the apparatus at a lower figure than a minimum price fixed by the association; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter in the interests of the users of wireless?

:I have no knowledge of any such action on the part of the National Association of Radio Manufacturers—and in any event, I have no power to intervene as suggested. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that wireless licences contain no restriction as to the origin of the apparatus used.

:Will the Noble Lord take the matter into consideration if I give him the details of cases, and will he use his influence with the Prime Minister to deal with the matter by legislation on trusts and price fixing associations?

:I shall be glad to go into any matters which my hon. Friend may bring to my notice, but he knows as well as anyone that the questions of trusts do not affect the Post Office but the Board of Trade.

Exchange and Currency, India

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether, in view of the partial restoration of the gold standard in this country, which appears to fulfil one of the conditions, referred to by the Viceroy of India on 20th January last, precedent to the creation of a currency committee to examine and make recommendations in regard to Indian exchange and currency, he will represent to the Secretary of State the desirability of such a committee being set up at an early date, having regard to the uncertain factors imported into Indian exchange and Indian markets generally consequent on the anticipation of the formation of such a committee?

:The important considerations involved in this question are receiving and will continue to receive the careful attention of my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State. But I am not in a position to add at present to the information I have recently given to the House on the matter.

Royal Navy

Officers' Marriage Allowance

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what conclusion His Majesty's Government has arrived at with regard to officers' marriage allowance in the Royal Navy?

:No decision has yet been reached.

:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on Tuesday on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Coast Guard Life Insurance Fund

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give any information with respect to the Coast Guard Life Insurance Fund; and whether he can account for the delay in distributing the sums accumulated by this fund?

:I can assure my Noble Friend that there has been no avoidable delay in dealing with this matter. The Friendly Societies Act requires that a period of three months shall elapse from the date of the notification of the Instrument of Dissolution in the London Gazette before the Instrument becomes effective. This period expired on the 13th April, and a sufficient period thereafter is necessarily required for the completion of the realisation of the property of the fund and the final preparation by an actuary of a scheme of distribution. It is hoped to commence the distribution in the course of a few weeks.

Questions to Ministers

:Before I call questions on for the second round, I wish to say that I found yesterday that certain hon. Members were not aware of the rule that they must only ask questions on behalf of another hon. Member if they have received a specific request applicable to that particular day.

Prisoners (Elementary Education)

asked the Home Secretary whether he will state at which prisons no elementary teaching is given; how many prisoners under the age of 21 there are at those prisons; and what is the length of their sentences?

:Elementary education is not given at the following prisons: Brixton, Pentonville and Norwich. From a recent return the number of prisoners under 21 confined in these prisons is: Brixton, one on remand; Pentonville, none; Norwich, none.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the amount that was spent last year on the elementary teaching of young prisoners; whether the classes held are restricted to young prisoners below a certain agelimit; what is the salary paid to the certified teachers from outside the prisons; whether the officers of the prison service who are engaged in part-time teaching have had any special training and receive any extra pay; and what are the subjects taught?

:It is not possible to state with any accuracy the amount spent on the elementary teaching of young prisoners, as the officers employed on this work do not give the whole of their time to it. In consequence of the limited number of teachers available, elementary education is confined to young prisoners and a few prisoners over 21 years of age. The certified teachers from outside are paid according to the rates of the local education authority. Officers of prisons who are engaged in part-time teaching have had no outside training in teaching. They are paid a special rate of pay fixed for the clerk and schoolmaster grade, and pass a literary examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners. The subjects taught in the elementary classes are those usual in schools outside (consisting mainly of reading, writing and arithmetic). Information will be found on the general subject of education in prisons in the Commissioners' Annual Reports (page 17 in the Report for 1923–24).

Police Strikers (Cash Payments)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from local authorities concerned replies to the Home Office letter of 14th March last respecting the question of cash payment to ex-police officers ( vide Mackenzie Report): and what further action he proposes to take?

:I have received replies from two of the local authorities, and am awaiting replies from the others who are concerned.

Disinfectants (Sale)

( for Mr. BENNETT)asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has accepted the recommendation contained in Clause 14 of the Report of Lord Trevethin's Committee of Inquiry that the law should be altered so as to permit properly-qualified chemists to sell ad hoc disinfectants, provided such disinfectants are sold in a form approved and with instructions for use approved by some competent authority?

:I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 7th May to my hon. Friend the Member for the Frome Division, of which I will send him a copy.

Cinema Film Industry

( for Mr. JACOB)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulty of reviving the British cinema film industry so long as the American block control system is in operation, he can see his way to obtain powers to make block control illegal in this country as being in restraint of trade?

:The difficulties of the British film-producing industry are not, I think, mainly due to the particular system mentioned, and I doubt if the action suggested would by itself be of material assistance to the industry.

:Is it not a fact that the remedy lies in the hands of the British exhibitors themselves if they would show a little more interest in British films, and would not that be of advantage to the producing industries in the long run?

:I am not able to enter into a discussion of the difficulties of the film industry as suggested in the question, but I would recommend hon. Members to read the Debate which took place recently on this subject in another place.

Business of the House

:Could the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take next week; and could he also tell us at the same time when he wishes the House to reassemble after Whitsuntide?

:Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I make an appeal to him, in view of what happened in the later hours of last night and the early hours of this morning in this House, not to enter into any agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the course of Business of the House, when he, with the best will in the world, is not able to speak on behalf of those sitting behind him?

:On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

On Tuesday, Supply—Ministry of Pensions Vote.

On Wednesday, discussion on ex-ranker officers' pensions; Lords Amendments to the Agricultural Returns Bill and the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill; Merchant Shipping (Equivalent Provisions) Bill [ Lords ], Report and Third Reading; Report stage of the Money Resolutions on the Criminal Justice Bill and the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. At 8.15, private Members' Motions.

I hope it may be possible to take the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment on Thursday, but that must, of course, depend on the progress we make; and I hope that we may be able to adjourn until Tuesday, the 9th June, but that, of course, again, must depend upon the state of the business.

:As a somewhat serious and quite baseless insinuation was made against me by one who ought to know better, may I ask if the Prime Minister has any observations to make in reply to that question?

:I was not able to be here last night, and have not acquainted myself with what happened.

:I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition what he means by saying it is a "baseless insinuation"? [ Interruption. ] He was not here last night, so he does not know what happened.

:Unfortunately, I also was not present last night, and am not in a position to ask any questions about what happened. I simply want to ask the Prime Minister whether he really means only to give us one day for the discussion of the Finance Bill—whether he knows of any precedent at any time for only one day being given for the Second Reading of a Bill which imposes a series of new taxes, several of them of an absolutely novel character—some of them restoring old taxes, some imposing new taxes—about which there is a great controversy in the country? I would ask him whether he really thinks it fair to the House of Commons, where the question of Ways and Means and Supply is such a fundamental constitutional question, only to give one day for the discussion? I would also ask whether he really thinks it will conduce to the shortening of discussion at later stages, and whether it is not desirable that we should have at least two days for the discussion of the Finance Bill?

:I am not surprised to receive that request, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would complain that as a rule I am unwilling to take into consideration the general wishes of the House, or to allow what I believe to be a fair time for discussion. But I may say that I have caused a list to be prepared of the time that has been taken on various Budgets for many years past, and for the purpose of greater accuracy I have provided myself with a copy. Without attempting to weary the House, I would observe that the practice has become very general of devoting more time to discussion on the Committee and Report stages of the Resolutions and less time on the Second Heading of the Finance Bill, which I think is a sensible arrangement, because, after all, on the Committee and Report stages of the Resolutions and during the discussions in Committee it is possible to discuss the proposals in detail, whereas on the Second Reading the tendency of the Debate very generally has been to discuss the general financial questions of the Budget as a whole.

I would only observe that, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister, there was an interesting Budget which included a new tax which struck at every interest in the country, namely, the Corporation Profits Tax. That was a far more important tax financially than any of this year's proposals, most of which are comparatively minor proposals, although I admit that some, no doubt, are not. In 1921, for example, we took three days for the discussion on the Resolutions, whereas this year we have taken five, that is to say, two more; and the Second Reading of the Bill itself was taken in one day. I find that in 10 years during the period since the Liberal party came into power in 1906, one sitting has been all that has been allotted to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and, with every deisre to meet this request, I do feel very strongly, after consideration, that, having regard to the time we have devoted to the Resolutions, we are giving a reasonable time if we ask the House to take the Second Reading on one day.

:As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a period when I was responsible for the Budget, may I ask him whether he is aware of any precedent during those years of the Liberal Government inviting the House of Commons to carry the Second Reading of the Budget in one day when three separate sets of new taxes were imposed and a new principle introduced; and, in the second place, may I ask him whether there was ever a refusal on the part of the Government—I have not the facts with regard to 1921, but of course I accept them from the Prime Minister—whether there was any refusal on the part of the Government of the day to accede to any request by the Opposition for more time for discussion? I would still ask him whether he will not reconsider his decision and give us at least two days for the discussion of all these new taxes?

The second question I want to put is whether there is any other opportunity, except when the Resolutions were first introduced, when we had two days in Committee, on which we can survey these proposals as a whole, whether when we go into Committee we are not discussing the taxes in detail and whether the Second Reading is not practically the only opportunity we have of surveying the Budget as a whole, in view of the state of public opinion and the representations we have received from our constituents since the first discussion.

:In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first question I have not got all the details of what passed on the various occasions. I do not know whether more time was asked for or not. I remember very often in the 1906 Parliament we had our requests refused. But I would remind him that although in 1921 it was a question of one tax and now it may be a question of three, if that be the right number, the amount involved on the taxpayer was infinitely greater in 1921 than it is now. I quite agree that the object of a Second Reading Debate is to discuss general principles, and it would be to the advantage of the House to have additional time in Committee rather than on Second Reading. I regret very much that I cannot see how it is possible in the present state of business to offer longer time.

:May I ask you, Sir, this question in reference to the allocation of time. Supposing at the end of a normal day's sitting an application for the Closure were made, would you consider that, in the words of the Standing Order, as an infringement of the rights of the minority in the House?

:With regard to Wednesday's Debate, is the question of the ranker officers to be left to the free vote of the House, or is it to be made a question of confidence and the Whips put on?

:I explained quite clearly before Easter that this was a matter on which the Government takes the whole responsibility.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions Continuation) Bill, without Amendment.

Oxford Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major Sir Bertram Falle and Lieut.-Colonel John Ward; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mitchell Banks and Mr. Murrough Wilson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

Supply

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1925–26

CLASS II.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £67,293, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, and Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals."—[NOTE: £52,000 has been voted on account. ]

:The Ministry for which I have the honour to speak to-day may be described as the Benjamin of all the Ministries, and I think I am entitled to Joseph's coat of many colours, in view of the manifold different interests which fall under my jurisdiction. The Ministry was instituted in August, 1919, with a great flourish of trumpets, but since that time it has rather retired out of the limelight, and has been content to "do good by stealth and blush to find it fame." la-deed, the Estimates of the Ministry have been taken only once after its inception six years ago, namely, in 1920. Since then the House of Commons has apparently placed such confidence in the Ministry and its works that it has never asked that the Vote shall be taken, and it has remained for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to ask that it shall be taken to-day, on the question largely, I understand, of electricity. I propose, before dealing with electricity, to say a few words on other matters. I am sur- prised really that the House of Commons has not asked for the Ministry of Transport Vote to be taken oftener, because, after all, if we come down to bed rock, transportation is the basic industry of civilisation, and unless we solve transportation, in my opinion we shall never solve the housing problem, and therefore the various activities which come under the purview of the Ministry are, in my opinion, of very considerable national importance.

4.0 P.M.

The amount of money asked to be voted is really trivial. In fact, I am almost ashamed to ask the House of Commons to spend a day in discussing the trivial sum of £119,000 in view of the lighthearted way in which the House sometimes votes away scores of millions in a few hours. Indeed, the Estimate of £119,000 is actually £17,000 less than the previous year, so that the accusation so often made against Government Departments of over-staffing and increasing expenditure cannot come home to myself. But to be perfectly frank, no doubt those Members who have studied the Estimates will have seen that the gross estimated expenditure this year is £262,000, because the Appropriations-in-Aid sum up to the considerable amount of £142,000. These Appropriations-in-Aid are composed as follows: Contributions from the Road Fund towards the central administrative expenses of that fund, £104,000; expenses of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, also a charge on the Road Fund, £13,000; and contributions from the four great amalgamated railway companies towards the expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, namely, £14,000, making from the three sources £131,000. The Committee, I am sure, will join with me in congratulating our great public bodies, the Corporation and the County Council, on the extraordinarily efficient way in which they have carried out the duties put upon them by Parliament of collecting the duties which make up the Road Fund. I take no credit for it. All the credit is due to the local authorities, because the Road Fund had a gross income last year of some £17,000,000. The local authorities by extreme efficiency spend only 2¾ per cent. of the gross total on the cost of collection, and I think that amount compares extremely favourably with any other tax which is collected in this country.

:How much is spent out of the Road Fund on the improvement of the roads?

:If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait, I will tell him later on. Though we have many new forms of transport — mechanical transport on the roads, air services, and many other services—yet I think the Committee will agree that at the present time the railways are, and for many years, as far as I can see, will be, the main backbone of the transport service of this country. And my responsibility is considerable in that on me falls the duty of inspection, with a view to securing the safety of the travelling public and of those employed. I am glad that the work of the revision of the safety requirements has been quite recently completed. Anyone who wants to live for ever, in my opinion, should take a season ticket on a British railway, because statistics prove that on the average, during the last five years, out of every 165,000,000 passenger journeys made, only one person has been killed. It is a tribute to the administration of our railways, and, above all, to the working staff on the railways, that the general public are carried so safely and swiftly. Then the staff are not forgotten. My inspection officers have the assistance of the Railway Employment (Safety Appliances) Committee. On that committee are representatives both of the unions and of the companies, and they have done, I think, a good work for the safety of the staff.

The Railway Rates Tribunal are carrying out a work of great complexity and a very heavy task, namely, the fixing of the charges which are to be the standard charges in future over the railways in the United Kingdom. The Committee will know that, up to the institution of this body three or four years ago, there were certain maximum charges for passengers and goods in this country, and, inside those charges, the railways could charge what they liked. But Parliament in its wisdom has decided that rates and fares should be fixed by a tribunal. That work is going on, and I hope that in no distant future these rates will be fixed. At any rate, I can say that the tribunal is sitting frequently, and working hard at its task. Our railways are doing their best, in my opinion, to keep their rolling stock up-to-date, and the four great amalgamated railways propose to spend during the present financial year no less than £8,750,000 on capital works. That is necessary in order to make up for the wastage of the War, and it will be a substantial contribution to the alleviation of unemployment during the coming year.

I am sure that the Committee and the whole country would like to see progress made in the electrification of our railways. But, after all, the Committee must remember that as long as you have railways privately owned, you must allow these bodies to carry on their own business in their own way. If you have them nationalised, no doubt you can electrify them; but then you must remember that if electrification be a failure, in whole or in part, the taxpayer will have to make up the loss. But, whatever the reason, electrification is not making the progress that I should like to see, except on the Southern line. The Southern line, with considerable enterprise, and in face of the difficulties of amalgamation which were specially acute there, have in execution a very substantial programme of electrification, of which a section, I understand, will be completed by the end of July, and will carry the electrification of the suburban railways almost beyond suburbia—25 miles or more right out into the country—enabling travellers to get to their business more expeditiously, I hope, more comfortably, and with certainly better rolling stock.

:May I ask whether there is in contemplation the electrification of the main lines, or only of the suburban lines?

:Not that I know, but that is all bound up in the general question of electricity development, which no doubt will be elaborated later on in the Debate. Before I leave the railways, I am sure that the Committee will appreciate the fact that next month we are going to have 1,000 delegates over here, from 47 countries, to celebrate the centenary of railways in this country. It is a compliment to this country, because we started the railways, and I am sure that the delegates will receive traditional British hospitality. The Government are to entertain them at a reception at Lancaster House; the great companies are going to give them and their ladies a banquet at Crystal Palace; they are to visit Darlington to see the original little line which exists there, and to take part in the local celebrations; and visits are being arranged for them to the various centres of interest in this country. They will no doubt also attend strictly to business in the morning, and sometimes in the afternoon. I hope and trust that they will carry away with them a happy impression of this country, and also a sincere admiration for the railways of this old land.

May I say to the Committee a few words about roads. Roads in this country are an old and equally a new service. In the eighteenth century they were the only means where by people could travel from one end of the country to the other. In the beginning of the nineteenth century they suffered a great eclipse. The iron horse was born, and he soon drew traffic, through traffic, from the main arteries, which before had carried our transportation. Our country roads then carried only the farm wagon, and the carrier's cart, the farmer's gig and the squire's carriage. But the introduction of mechanical transport 20 years ago has changed all that, and now we see roads, which a few years ago were deserted, invaded by a stream of mechanically-propelled vehicles greatly to the benefit of the country side, because the motor omnibus is making the life of the people in our country districts infinitely better and happier than ever before. Instead of the labourer's wife having to tramp four or five miles, she can now for a few pence go and do her shopping, and take part in the local amusements of the neighbouring town. I think, therefore, that this motor omnibus traffic will be a great factor in arresting the depopulation of the people in our country districts and thereby add to the strength of the nation.

During this current financial year, the net revenue available from the Road Fund is £16,700,000. I am now giving the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the details which he desires. I propose to allocate that sum as follows: £11,345,000 for works and maintenance and improvements on Class 1 and Class 2 roads, which is practically two-thirds of the net available revenue. I attach, and I am sure the Committee will attach, the greatest importance that the main weight of money should go to the maintenance and improvement of the great arteries of our traffic, because, after all, the money is found by the motorists, and that is its proper destination. That money goes to help the county councils and the rural district councils to keep up their roads, and assist them in the matter of rates. £1,250,000 is for assistance to district authorities essentially rural in character; £3,700,000 towards the cost of new constructions, re-constructions, widenings put in hand, and expedited— I have underlined expedited—to assist employment; £250,000 for widenings, diversions, etc., on unclassified roads for which authorities other than district authorities essentially rural in character are responsible; and £155,000 for surveys and for general purposes, making up a total, as I said at the beginning, of £16,700,000.

:Where is the gap up to the £17,000,000, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke?

:I was talking of the £17,000,000 which was the gross last year. You have to deduct various charges and expenditure. I am dealing now with this year.

:May I ask whether the sum which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned relating to new roads includes the expenditure on the acquisition of property, or is merely for works?

:I think some of it goes to the acquisition of property. It has been the policy of successive Governments with regard to road communication and the Road Fund to anticipate works of a vital and necessary character to traffic, because of unemployment, rather than wait for three or four years to carry these works out.

It is often said to me: "Why should the Road Fund be used on schemes for the relief of unemployment? That is a matter for the local authority or for the nation as a whole. It is not a matter for the Road Fund." I agree. But what is not appreciated by those who make that remark is that all these so-called works for the relief of unemploy- ment are works of urgent and obvious necessity for the improvement of communications, and all that successive Governments have done is to anticipate those works by a few years while unemployment is rife in this country, rather than wait for the time when we hope unemployment will not be so serious a sore on the body politic. Is the Committee aware of the large sums which have been allocated and spent in the past for road improvements, which are allocated now and which will be spent in the future? On works executed to relieve unemployment, assisted from the Road Fund, excluding the Mersey Tunnel, the Road Fund has spent in the past no less a sum than £10,500,000, and the local authorities have contributed £8,250,000, a total of £18,750,000. That has been done under different Governments. In the coming years, going down to the financial year 1930-31, the Road Fund is going to find £23,750,000, and the local authorities are pledged to find £10,250,000, making £34,000,000 still to be spent, or a total sum of £52,750,000.

Ought we not to be thankful that those who were in charge of the Government in previous years, before I had anything to do with the Ministry of Transport, took this long view? The motorists gain and the general public gain, because they are getting improved communications before the normal time. I cannot see any limit to the increase of motor traffic in the not-distant future. Therefore, we are ready to take these steps at once. In order that we shall not be throttled and strangled in the exits of our big towns and suburbs and in the country as a whole, we are doing these works now, instead of 10 years hence, when they must cost twice or thrice what they cost now. We have, therefore, a programme ahead as far as new construction and reconditioning of roads is concerned on main arteries of traffic of £34,000,000, towards which the local authorities will find £10,250,000.

In view of what one reads—I am not an expert in these matters, and I can only read the newspapers—and the prospect of what one must consider to be a black outlook for employment during the coming winter, it is some consolation to think that we have this programme ahead, that substantial works are now being undertaken, and that others will be started in the autumn whereby, at any rate, the unskilled worker may be given a chance to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I admit that you cannot do so much for the skilled artisan, the skilled engineer, the cotton operative, or others of that sort, but there are many hundreds of thousands of the unskilled unemployed for whom we shall be able to do something substantial to help them in the coming winter. All the money has been found out of revenue. In view of the great capital commitments of this country—I am sure the late Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me in this—it may be necessary in the future to do some of this work by loans, but as long as we can, as far as the Road Fund is concerned, carry on, paying our way year by year, it is far better, far more economical and far more in keeping with the traditions of British finance rather than financing these things by loan. As far as the local authorities are concerned, they find the money usually through short-term loans of five, six or seven years.

May I say how cordially I approve of the decision of my predecessor, the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), in adding to the construction of new arterial roads—a practice which he initiated last year of reconstructing and modernising our great trunk roads. He started a policy, which I am continuing this year, of taking the great trunk roads radiating from London, like the sticks of a fan—the London to Edinburgh road, the London to Holyhead road and the London to Bath road, and going to the local authorities, the county councils, and saying: "Here is a stretch of road which needs reconditioning. It needs widening. What will you give towards the reconstruction? We can find so much from the Road Fund." The authorities have cordially co-operated in that policy, and at the present time no fewer than 17 counties are actually at work reconditioning these great trunk roads which pass through their boundaries.

May I say a word as regards Scotland. We all love Scotland, and we are glad to be there. We all appreciate the business acuteness of the inhabitants of that part of the British Isles. Their business acuteness is excusable, because in many parts of that country the local authorities are very poor. A penny rate brings in next to nothing, and the great trunk roads up in the North, the West and the North-east cannot, obviously, be maintained by the local authorities there in the state which we find necessary for modern traffic. Therefore, last year a big scheme of reconstruction was started from just north of Perth, at Blair Atholl, and is now being carried on, with a considerable rebuilding of bridges, right through to Inverness. I know that I should have a bad time in this House if I allowed the East and the North-east to have all the plums. Therefore I am starting a scheme this year for reconstructing the west road from Glasgow to Inverness, so that both parts of Scotland may be equally favoured. That road will go through Ballachulish, Fort William and Fort Augustus, will join up at Inverness, and proceed through Inverness up to the constituencies of hon. Members who are now sitting opposite to me. It is a sound policy, because it will enable the agriculturists to get more into touch with the centres of population, and to market their produce. It will bring tourists into the country, and, in general, will bring a stream of money into these poorer districts, which really need it very much at the present time.

There are a few minor aspects of roads to which I should like to call attention in passing. I am anxious to preserve, as far as possible, in road construction the beauty of the landscapes. The road is hideous. You never can make it anything else per se. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—

:At any rate, that is my opinion. The Committee will agree that it is a good thing to try to make the road as beautiful as you can. One of the most pleasing features of the country are the beautiful old bridges. What I am trying to do when it is necessary to condemn an old bridge, because it is obviously unfit to carry the modern traffic, is either to rebuild, as far as possible, with the old stone, on the old lines on a wider scale, or to allow it to remain in situ, and a new bridge shall then be built so that the old bridge may remain as a beautiful relic of the past centuries.

It is a sound policy to build by-pass roads around many of our towns. That policy is being pursued. If there be one thing more than another which annoys me when I can get into the country, it is the level crossing. Level crossings are out of date, and ought never to have been allowed. We are pursuing a policy, with contributions from the railway companies, from the local authorities and from the Road Fund, of doing away with these level crossings as soon as that policy can reasonably be carried out. We are also proceeding with the strengthening of many bridges, in order to enable them to carry the modern traffic.

May I now refer to quite another subject. By Section 14 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920, it was enacted that, if a local authority refused a licence to a company to run omnibuses within its area, or put restrictions upon the issue of their licence, an appeal should lie to the Minister of Transport, who should decide whether the refusal was justified or not. That duty is not a pleasant one. The position of the Minister of Transport in this respect very much resembles that of the referee at a football match. Although in the vast majority of cases amicable arrangements have been arrived at, in some cases I have had to issue orders on the local authorities. I know that the Estimates are not the appropriate time for me to express an opinion on this matter, and all I can say is that I am bound to hear these appeals, and to give decisions enforceable by law.

The Committee will remember that last year the House passed the London Traffic Act. I now find myself in rather an invidious position, because in 1923 I was largely responsible for framing that Measure, which was carried into law by the late Government, modified somewhat by the late Minister of Transport. Recognising as I did the extreme complexity of the question and the almost impossibility of satisfying everybody, I did hope that I should have had the honour and glory of passing the Measure, but some other Minister would have the task of carrying it into effect. However, I have to remember that not only did I take part in framing that Measure, but that I had to carry it into effect.

London is an extremely difficult city to deal with. If only in the last century we had had a Baron Hausmann, as they had in Paris, to build great avenues through that old and narrow city, and to provide avenues through which the traffic could pass, we should have been in a much better position than we are to-day. Our grandfathers cared for none of these things. When you consider that within the quarter mile of the City of London there are fewer than 100 culs de sac and 100 streets in which only one line of traffic can pass—though those conditions do not prevail to any extent anywhere else in London I admit—the Committee will see how difficult is the task for London to effect, as compared with many other big towns. It seems to me that the first thing which emerges from a survey of London traffic is that there must be a diminution in the number of omnibuses on our streets. I see no other way of decreasing the congestion, and I must warn the Committee that in any arrangements, on the advice of the practical advisory committee, to curtail the number of omnibuses, I must hope for the support of this House, because unless that is done the main object of the London Traffic Act must fail, as by no other means can we have some relief from the congestion from which London suffers at the present time.

There is one other aspect of London traffic which does not come under me, in reference to which I would like to pay a tribute. That is the way in which the police carry out their duties. The policeman is a guide and friend to the pedestrian; he is always courteous. He is courteous even to the motorist, but though courteous, he is very adamant in carrying out all the traffic regulations, and I do not know anybody who, in his methods with regard to traffic, is a greater autocrat except the President of the United States. The Act of last year set up a body called the London Traffic Advisory Committee, of which hon. Members know a great deal, a Committee representative of all interests, and which I am glad to state publicly, renders the greatest assistance and help in dealing with this thorny subject. They have dealt, among other matters, with the number of omnibuses on the streets, and on their advice, but entirely on my own responsibility, I stabilised the number of omnibuses on the streets two or three months ago.

They are investigating the subject of parking motor cars, a subject which every week increases in importance as the number of motor drivers increases. They are going into it as closely as possible with the view of allocating a certain number of secluded streets, or streets where the parking of vehicles would not hinder the traffic, and scheduling them as places where people can leave their cars for a certain stated time.

Then the Advisory Committee have helped me very much in what is called the co-ordinating of street repairs. Previous to the passing of the Act, it seemed to be open to anybody to do anything he wished at any time to a street. Contractors came, and put down wooden blocks. The telephone people came, and pulled them up. Then the gas company pulled them up; next the Post Office pulled them up. To make an end of the confusion and inconvenience caused by these repairs, we have a scheme by which, six months abead, everybody has to send in a schedule of what he wants to do, and the Committee tries to fit in the work so as to decrease the inconvenience as far as possible, and anybody who, except as a matter of urgent necessity, breaks the rules laid down is liable to be punished.

Then there is the question of all-night repairs. I am often asked by hon. Members and others, why are the repairs not-carried out at night time? The answers that it can be done in such streets as Victoria Street, which is not a residential area, but you cannot expect people, especially when persons in the district are sick, to pass the nights listening to the noise of drills breaking up concrete, which would render sleep impossible for anybody within 300 or 400 yards of the place where the work was being carried on. Therefore, you cannot carry on these all-night repairs in such places. Seasonal repair work has been dealt with, and the Traffic Committee, greatly daring, have stepped in where angels fear to tread, and are investigating the question of the traffic on Waterloo Bridge. The question of the hay market at Aldgate has also been investigated. One hates to destroy ancient customs, but anybody who has tried to get through Aldgate when there is a hay market will know that it does occasion great inconvenience which, however great our reverence for ancient buildings and institutions, must be mitigated to meet the requirements of modern traffic. One-way traffic has been tried in Long Acre, and the Committee most patriotically and unselfishly, in order to investigate the traffic, are to go to Epsom on Derby Day to judge for themselves whether the traffic is properly conducted.

Finally, one word on a subject of really considerable importance, a subject which the Traffic Committee are investigating. That is the means whereby the inhabitants of the outer suburbs can get into the Metropolis from the North-east, East and South-east. I had that matter before me when I was Parliamentary Secretary two years ago, and visited some of the districts. Candidly I came to the conclusion that most of the statements made to me by deputations were accurate. It is a very serious question indeed, and it grows in seriousness. The blocks in traffic may be and are annoying to those who are rich, and may and do cause loss to the business man when he wants to go to his business. Yet the people for whom we ought to have most sympathy are the wretched daily breaders, who have to come in and spend an hour, or possibly even more, before they begin their day's work, under conditions which we should not like to endure, and then when their work is done at the end of the day, return in the same conditions.

:That was done to relieve the traffic. As far as my investigations go, they lead to the conclusion that it is not possible to increase the over ground traffic.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the exclusion of private cars from certain areas?

:I may just say one word in conclusion. A subject which is of great interest to-day to the Committee is the subject of electricity. As the Prime Minister has announced, the Government hope to introduce legislation to develop electricity, and to increase and cheapen the supply. In my opinion, perhaps the industrial future of this country may depend upon it. Social reform must be extended, but it does not follow necessarily that social reform will enable this country to compete more successfully with the foreign competitors in the neutral markets of the world. When we consider that at present, as far as I know, we are only, by services or by goods, doing very little more than paying for the raw material and food which we import, it is evident that a cheaper and more plentiful supply of electric power is essentia1; and we may hope that, as steam, after the great wars of Napoleon, enabled this country to become the great manufacturing country of the world, electricity may, after the last great war, perform a similar service to the present generation. The Committee must not imagine that because, in the opinion of the Government, electricity is a matter which requires earnest consideration, the Electricity Commissioners, with their restricted powers, have not been doing a great deal during the last few years. With great patience, ability and hard work, the Commissioners, during the past five years, have sanctioned capital expenditure on the development of electricity to the extent of no less than £60,000,000.

Their efforts have been directed towards economy by favouring large and suitably placed stations and centralised stations, coupled with a network of intercommunicating cables to join these stations. The Committee will remember that the late Government authorised an expert examination into the technical question of the standardisation of frequency. There are also questions arising out of improvements in intercommunication, and the Government propose to have these examined without loss of time. In January I had the good fortune to secure the services of three eminent gentlemen to act on a Committee to examine the whole question of electricity. The Chairman of the Committee was Lord Weir, Lord Forres, better known as Sir Archibald Williamson, who made investigations in 1918, was one of the members, and Sir Hardman Lever was the third. Their draft Report only came into my hands last Friday, and their complete Report was delivered to me yesterday. The Committee will understand that in the circumstances I can make no statement as to the policy of the Government. I have had hardly time even to skim through their Report, but the Committee may be assured that we shall approach this matter on bold and broad lines.

:The hon. Member had better wait and see. The Conservative party, at any rate of the present day, is not afraid of new ideas or new ideals, and we shall approach this matter free from prejudice and with the sole idea of producing electricity as cheaply as we possibly can. In conclusion, I make this appeal to the Committee. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may have views of electrical development on the lines of nationalisation. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) may have different ideas, and we may have others. But I ask the Committee, if and when we bring forward this scheme, to approach it from the national point of view, and to consider how best we can hammer out a scheme in Committee and on Report which will give us a cheap and general supply up and down the country. If that be done, I feel sure that we shall present to this country a weapon whereby it will be able more effectively to deal with the foreign competition which at present rests so hardly on it.

:The Minister of Transport rather expressed surprise that we should have asked for a discussion upon this Vote. He said it had not been discussed for several years, and he thought that that was a reason for not discussing it now. I should have thought it was a reason for doing just the opposite, that not having been discussed for three or four years it was about time that it was debated again. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the task which his Department supervised in connection with arterial and other roads was something upon which civilisation rested. Surely, if it has that importance, it is not too much to ask for one Thursday afternoon to discuss the supreme concern of civilisation in this land. We claimed our right as an Opposition to have a discussion of one day upon the question of electricity. The right hon. Gentleman gave about five minutes of his time to a statement on that all-important subject. He explained that it was something upon which the whole industrial future of this country depended, and that, in fact, whether we are to remain a leading commercial country or not would depend on what we did in this respect. I should have thought that he could have told us a little more upon something which he regarded as so vital to the trade and industry and life of this country. He gave us a very glowing panegyric on the motor omnibus, and he waxed very lyrical on the courtly manners of the policeman. But I should have thought that he might have given a little more time to a thing upon which the whole trade of the country depends.

We propose to discuss that subject. It is not a new subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that there have been Committees appointed. There have been endless Committees appointed on the subject. The information is quite adequate for any Government to form some idea as to what it proposes to do. I hope my hon. Friend who sits behind me will detail at greater length what we propose to submit to the Government on that subject. Before I come to one or two points upon it, I would like to say something about roads. As I understand it, out of the taxes upon motors, something like £16,600,000 was spent in improving the roads of this country and upon the making of new roads and the widening of old ones. That is a very important contribution to the arterial roads and the transport of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear out my statement that, as a result of a policy initiated by the 1909 Government, of which I was a member—in fact, I think I had the honour to introduce the legislation myself—the roads of this country, from being the second or third in Europe, have become the best, not only in Europe, but in the world. I think that that will be admitted even by those who are acquainted with French roads, which up to that time were far and away the best roads anywhere. At the present time there are no roads in the world comparable with the roads of this country. Undoubtedly that is due to the expenditure in the last 14 or 15 years, as a result of the new impost which was put on in 1909, and of the Road Board which was constituted by an Act of Parliament which I had the honour of proposing and piloting through the House.

The right hon. Gentleman was very severe on roads. He said that they were hideous. I do not agree in the least. There is nothing more beautiful than a road lined with trees. A new road is like a new house. I think a new house is rather ugly until the shrubs begin to grow. There is nothing more beautiful than the roads of France lined with beautiful trees from one end to the other. If the right hon. Gentleman will see that the roads of this country are not merely made objects of convenience to the public, but also objects of art—I hope he will not confine his artistic taste merely to the bridges—he will do something to earn our gratitude.

:I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has passed its Second Reading in this House, and the Committee stage, a Bill which deals with the planting of trees along the road side.

:I am very glad to hear it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make full use of the powers with which I have no doubt the House will equip him. With regard to roads the right hon. Gentleman said that there were contributions from local authorities and contributions from the State. I would like to know what use he has made of the Road Improvement and Development Act powers with regard to contributions from landowners. Under that Act there are powers given to secure contributions towards all this expenditure from the betterment which results to the land as a result of these arterial roads. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken in order to secure contributions from the owners, the value of whose land has been improved as the result of these great arterial roads? A minute or two ago an hon. Friend gave me two illustrations which I will mention. One was an illustration used by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in a speech recently, in which he said that as a result of one road which he knew the value of the land along that road had gone up from £40 or £50 to £300 an acre. Another illustration was that of an arterial road, I believe, that from Manchester to Liverpool. There the value of the land has gone up to £800 an acre.

:The values have gone up. I am taking the figure of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Mac-Laren). Values have gone up in anticipation, and, as is very well known, if a road is projected in a given district it is not necessary to wait until the road is made for the value to go up. According to my hon. Friend who has given me this, figure there is now a value of £800 an acre in the case mentioned, but as my right hon. Friend is not very satisfied upon that illustration, and he does not think that this value has been created, I am quite willing to rest my case upon the other illustration. The whole point is that if there is a road in any district in this Kingdom which has put up the value from an agricultural value to £800 an acre, that in itself is a case for putting into operation an Act of Parliament which enables those who are responsible for these roads to insist upon a contribution. It is very unfair that the whole burden should be placed upon the taxes of this country, that contributions should be asked from local authorities, and that no contribution should be levied upon people whose values are put up without any subscription of any sort or kind from them towards the construction of those roads. I ask the Minister, when these roads are being made, to remember that he has those powers. It was in 1921 that the first steps were taken in the making of these great arterial roads; it was then that the first unemployment arrangements were made.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the officials of his Department are considering the possibility of putting into operation the Betterment Clauses of that Act with a view to securing contribution? from those whose land appreciates in value as a result of this enormous expenditure by the State. Owners very often charge a very large sum of money for the land itself, a value which is very often in excess of the agricultural value. There are very few cases where the land is bought on the basis of the agricultural value. If the Minister will take the trouble to see what he is paying for this land—very often poor land which is not worth £10 an acre from the agricultural point of view, and which would remain at £10 per acre if the roads were not made—he will find that what I am stating is correct. Enormous values are paid for the land required. In addition to that, the making of the road appreciates the value of the land on both sides of it. The right hon. Gentleman has powers under the Act to insist upon contributions by way of betterment, and I wish to know whether his Department have gone into that matter with a view of seeing that these contributions are levied and that the whole burden does not fall upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer of this country, both of whom are already being crushed by taxation.

5.0 P.M.

There is another point to be considered. There is no doubt at all that arterial roads are vital to the solution of most of the evils of congested areas. Anybody who has studied congested areas knows that people are not living there because they do not prefer to live in more salubrious and pleasant surroundings. However hideous roads may be, they are not as hideous as some congested streets. It may be said, "You have a beautiful garden suburb, and it is only 10 miles away from your work." But it takes the residents an hour or a couple of hours to get there. The solution of the housing problem in these areas is the making of great wide arterial roads that will enable people to get to their work in 20 minutes or half an hour. You cannot do that if your means are circumscribed by the £16,000,000 at the disposal of the State. You ought to say, "If the value of property is enhanced as the result of this expenditure, then the State is entitled to take its levy upon that value in order to enable the community to make these arterial roads." The Minister of Transport has the power in the Act mentioned, and all that he has to do is to see that the provision is put into operation. I think it would be effective. If not, and if he comes to the House of Commons and says so, I have not the slightest doubt that the provision will be made even more efficient. I think the powers already provided are adequate for the purpose. I, therefore, press upon the right hon. Gentleman an investigation into that matter, and I should like to ask him whether he is looking into it at all, and whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to seeing that the Statutes of the Realm, which are there with full powers to enable him to increase his revenue by legitimate means, are carried into effective operation.

With regard to the subject, electrical development, I only want to say a. few words, because my hon. Friend proposes to put the whole of the case. I was profoundly disappointed with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement in this House, in July of last year, upon this subject. He then initiated, I think, a series of conversations with local authorities. I am now only quoting from what was said in the Press, but I am not sure my right hon. Friend did not say so in the House of Commons. At any rate, I have seen the statement made. I should like to know whether the present Government have proceeded with those conversations. The right hon. Gentleman had taken steps with a view to securing the co-operation of the local authorities in the laying down of national cables for linking up these great stations. What steps have been taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite? He said he has not read some of the reports. Does that mean that the steps initiated by the right hon. Gentleman have been dropped, that they have not been proceeded with, or that the Government have failed to secure the cooperation of the municipal authorities? We really ought to know what the position is at the present moment. What the position was when the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer left office I do not know. He had only two or three months in which to conduct the negotiations after the statement was made, and everybody knows it is a slow process, especially where you have to deal with vested interests, even of a municipal authority. You can put a price upon every other vested interest— it is sometimes very heavy—but the price of human vanity is prohibitive, and if you have a chairman, an engineer and a clerk all engaged in the conducting of one sort of little business upon which they make reports every year, the reports appearing in the Press, it is their own particular child. Then when a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister of Transport proposes to take their baby away from them, it is without price so far as they are concerned, and, therefore, they object very much. It has its good side no doubt, but, like everything else, it has its bad side.

At any rate, we would like to know what progress has been made with the negotiations. Has the right hon. Gentleman dropped them? Because they were proceeding, unless I am mistaken, when the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer left office. He had not given them up as a bad job, and, therefore, somebody must have taken them up, or dropped them. Which did the right hon. Gentleman do? He is not quite sure, I can see. What has happened? Perhaps, if he will look in the pigeon holes of his Department, he will find out what really happened on that subject, because I think the House ought to know before concluding this discussion whether any steps are to be taken, or whether the right hon. Gentleman has simply set up another Committee, in addition to the innumerable Committees which have been appointed, and he is going to consider the subject when he has proper leisure. I agree he has not had time in the course of the last 24 hours to think the matter over and consult his colleagues, who are worried with other tasks, because, as he himself said, the Conservative Government are not afraid of the new ideas, and some of the new ideas during the last few weeks have occupied their time. They have introduced into their ranks gentlemen full of new and very explosive ideas, and so many ideas that I do not think there is any time for anybody else to have his ideas examined at all.

Therefore, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, before we conclude, whether these new ideas, of which the party are not afraid, but which they have had no time to consider yet, are ideas that appeal to him, and whether he sees any hope in them, because we want him to switch on his electric light, if he does not mind, before this Debate closes, and let us know exactly what he thinks about the prospects. He said what is perfectly true, that upon the development of electricity depends, very largely, the industrial prosperity of this country. I dare say we may be exaggerating the value of electricity. I see there has been an important discussion among owners of gas undertakings in the last few days, in which they said there is nothing like gas. I do not say that electricity is the last word in power, but there is no doubt at all that it is the experience of all the industries in this country that it is impossible to make the best of your resources without a fuller development of electricity than you have at the present moment. That does not mean that you are going to get rid of the use of coal. But when you have to use coal, and a very long distance from the point at which it is raised, when you have very high costs of transport, undoubtedly it is a much more valuable method of transmitting the power that is in coal that you should put it on to your cables, rather than carry it in your trucks and carts at enormous expense. That is the experience of every country, and we would really like to know what are the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject.

There are other countries, who are our competitors, and who are becoming every day more formidable as competitors, who, during the last four years, have been devoting great thought, great energy, and great skill to the development of electricity. France has developed her power, I believe, four and a-half times, so that by 1957 she will have saved 20,000,000 tons in coal—a very serious factor for this country, undoubtedly. Germany is doing the same thing. Germany has multiplied her power in kilowatt hours three and a-half times, which means in the machinery she has for the creation of electric power, she has, by means of improving the interchange, made the best use of it, so that she is able to use her machinery by day as well as night. Italy is a marvel in that respect, and it is a very formidable factor, because it means that Italy is developing factories for the turning out of goods which formerly were bought in this country. But what are we doing here? The right hon. Gentleman said that they were doing their best within the restricted powers they have. I am not complaining of the Electricity Commissioners in that respect. I agree the powers are insufficient, but we would like to know what the Government are going to do about that, because the last Report of the Electricity Commissioners makes it as clear as any Commissioners can make any idea they have in their minds, that they feel that without compulsory powers they can go no further. One would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do about that.

Take agriculture. I am dependent upon the Press for my information, but there it was indicated that the Government had some great idea about cables, which, I think, was the idea of my right hon. Friend, and that they were proposing to proceed with the laying of these cables. From the point of view of the rural districts that is perfectly vital. We are the only country where there is no systematic effort being made to bring electricity to the aid of agriculture. Take France. The progress in France has been very remarkable indeed. In 1911, there were 3,000 communes out of 38,000 that had electricity at their disposal. In 1913, the number went up to 4,000. In 1919, there were 7,000, showing that, even during the War, the French were able to extend their electric system to 3,000 more communes. The last year we had a report on the subject there were 10,000 to which electricity had been extended. What does that mean? Twenty-one millions of population, who before the War had not the use of electricity, have had it brought within reach of them by means of the efforts, very largely, of the French Government to get this interchange by cables and otherwise, and also to use such natural powers as the French have for the purpose of producing electricity. That is real progress. In Denmark, which is a purely agricultural country, three-fifths of the farms have electricity brought to their doors, and they are using it, as everybody knows, not merely for lighting purposes, but for the purposes of farming. It diminishes the cost; it increases the produce. I am told they get more eggs, and, of course, they milk the cows by electricity.

At a conference held last year at Wembley, there was a series of very striking addresses delivered by great engineers and experts, not merely from our Dominions and this country, but from almost every part of the world. A large number of them dwelt on the importance, from the point of view of agriculture, of extending electricity. One very important expert put it as high as this. He said that if it were done, it would really double the produce. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing? Our trade is bad— nobody can deny that. It has been bad for five years. Every country in the world is engaged busily in developing its electrical energy, and making the best use of its coal. Coal, I cannot deal with, but electricity depends on what the right hon. Gentleman does. Agriculture is hard-pressed, and all the right hon. Gentleman will say is, "I have two committees; they have just reported." [HON. MEMBERS: "One! "] Is there only one? I really thought at least he had two. He has only one committee to offer, and they have reported, but he does not even know whether the Report is fit for publication. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would publish it, and in words which I have heard before, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Wait and see." That is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. He does not even know whether the House of Commons is to have an opportunity of examining this document, presented by experts to whom he pins his faith, and dealing with a problem upon which he says the future of British industry depends. This is very cold comfort for our trade and industry when new burdens are being imposed upon them. The Government have considered very carefully the burdens, and they have come to a conclusion upon that matter. They have not waited for the reports of committees, but have decided to impose the burdens. What they have not decided to do is to offer any help.

:I feel I must dissociate myself from the opening observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in which he referred to a remark made by the Minister of Transport that this is the second occasion since the constitution of the Ministry of Transport that the Vote has been discussed in the House of Commons. I hardly think it lies with the right hon. Gentleman to make any criticism of that fact, because his party were entitled to ask for a discussion on the Ministry of Transport Vote at any time during the last three or four Sessions. I am very glad, however, that this Vote has been selected for discussion this afternoon, because I think the questions of transport and the supply of electrical current are two of the most important that could engage the attention of Parliament. I believe that at this Box I have previously expressed the opinion that a great deal of what we have done in recent years with the object of alleviating unemployment has been very much in the nature of pouring water into a bottomless tank, and has made very little impression. I do not think anything we may do in the way of road improvement, or of making new roads, can absorb any very large proportion of the unemployed. The Minister told us what it was proposed to do during the present year, and he mentioned what appeared to be very large sums to be devoted to the improvement of roads and new construction. He said these works would employ a substantial number of men during the coming winter, and although I am—as I am sure is every Member of the House—anxious to find employment wherever employment can be found for either a small or a large number of men, my interest in this question of road development is much wider than that, because I believe it is absolutely essential, in view of the revolution in methods of transport, that we should take what the right hon. Gentleman has described as a long view in this matter.

We were told by the Minister of Transport a few days ago that the number of motor vehicles in this country was increasing by about 20 per cent. every year, so that in five years' time, at that rate, we shall have double the number that we have to-day. I think it very likely that the increase will move at an accelerated pace, and instead of 20 per cent. it may be 30 per cent. two or three years hence. In America there is one motor vehicle to every seven of the population, and in this country there is one to every 42 of the population. So that if we had in this country the same proportion of motor vehicles to population which they have in the United States, we should have six times the number that we have now. What vision does that raise before our minds? Look at the state of many of our roads to-day—not merely the streets of our large and busy industrial centres, but the country roads. The inter-communicating roads between the industrial towns, especially in the North of England, in places like the West Riding of Yorkshire to-day show a constant succession of transport vehicles. If this volume of traffic is to be doubled, or trebled, or increased seven times, these roads will be utterly incapable of dealing with that traffic.

That is the vision which I want the Government to have in mind. I want them to take a long view on that question. The right hon. Gentleman said that some part of the Road Fund was to be devoted this year to the improvement of roads in the Highlands of Scotland. When I was in office I had submitted to me by the Ministry of Transport, a scheme which was estimated to cost £2,000,000 for the improvement of roads in the Western Highlands, and also in the Eastern parts of Scotland. But I very much doubt, in view of the more urgent needs of the larger and more densely populated centres, whether it is wise to spend any very large sum of money on the West Coast of Scotland, and in improving the road say, from Blair Atholl to Inverness. I do not know if the Minister expects to spend the sum I have just mentioned, but I really do not think that it is as urgent as the requirements in other respects.

I want to impress upon the Minister the importance of looking to the certainties of the immediate future, especially this continued increase in motor traffic on the roads and of making preparations to lay new roads or improve existing roads, not to serve the possibilities of the next half-dozen years, but to serve the possibilities of the next 50 years. I believe I made a suggestion in a previous speech to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was kind enough to refer, that my idea was a series of great trunk roads from London, running right down to Penzance, up to Edinburgh and Glasgow, away to Bristol, and right through to Carmarthen. I know it is desirable in road construction to take off awkward corners and so on, but I never saw very much use in doubling the width of a main road for five or 10 miles, and leaving it narrow before and behind that stretch, thus creating a bottle neck. I think the explanation of that practice is to be found in the fact mentioned by the Minister that these improvements are being carried out by the county councils, and not by the Government. He mentioned the number of county councils now engaged in improving the main roads. That is not taking the long view.

:The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the county councils and the local authorities are those in whom the care of the roads is vested. I only come in as a generous donor from the Road Fund.

:That is the old idea, but new situations require new methods. It may have been all right in the past for the local authority to be responsible for the roads, but roads are now becoming more national in character, and we have to face the question of whether the responsibility of the chief main roads of the country should not be transferred from the county councils, and placed upon the nation. It is only by the nation having control of these roads that they can take a national view.

:May I intervene to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the main roads should no longer be a charge upon the county councils as at present?

:I made no proposal at all. I am simply offering a suggestion. I think this is a matter which the Government will have to take into consideration. As a matter of fact, when we were in office last year we had a proposal for relieving local councils in regard to the improvement of certain main roads, the State undertaking to bear the costs of these improvements, provided the county councils would undertake that their expenditure on roads should not be correspondingly diminished—that is to say, that whatever they saved by what we undertook, should be spent on the improvement of other roads in their area. May I say a word about the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in regard to the enhanced value of land which results from the improvement of roads. There was a provision in the Roads Act, empowering the road authority to buy abutting land on each side of a road, to a depth of 200 yards. I was in the House of Commons when that was passed, and I thought then, and I think still, that it was one of the most admirable provisions ever incorporated in an Act of Parliament. I wonder to what extent that power is being exercised. The right hon. Gentleman's demands for some share of the betterment would only leave to those responsible for making the roads a certain proportion, but if the land were taken over on each side of the new roads to a depth of 200 yards, I venture to say that the increment value which it would give to that land would be far more than sufficient to pay the entire cost of the roads. That is a provision which, I think, ought to be taken advantage of to a much greater extent than it has been in the past.

May I just say a word or two about railways? The Minister of Transport devoted the earlier part of his speech to railways, and he mentioned that he is informed by the railway companies that they propose to spend about £9,000,000 this year upon repairs and reconstruction. I gathered from his reply to an interjection made by one of my hon. Friends behind me that no part of this is really new construction work. It seems to me that £9,000,000 is not very much for the railway companies of this country to spend in a year upon reconstruction and repairs. They have a capital of nearly £2,000,000,000, and surely £8,750,000 a year spent upon repairs and improvements to their undertakings for companies with such a colossal capital is insignificant to a degree.

I am very much disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give a more satisfactory reply to the request that was made for information in regard to the electrification of the railways. We were given to understand that one or two of the railways, the old North Eastern Railway and the Great Western Railway, gave to the Government something in the nature of a pledge that they would undertake very extensive electrification of their systems. The North Eastern, we were told, would electrify their line from Darlington to York, but nothing has been done. We had several interviews when we were in office, but they told us they had gone very carefully into the matter, and that they did not think it would pay. I think, myself, that the trouble was due to the conservatism of the old officials of those lines. They had been brought up in the steam age, and they had, I suppose, got too old to absorb new ideas and anything in the way of working a new system. The Minister of Transport stated that if the railways were nationalised, you might do this, but, he said, supposing it was a failure, the taxpayers would have to bear the loss. Certainly; of course they would. If it were a success, they would gain the advantage But who is paying the loss now? It is the taxpayers who are paying the loss now. Who can calculate the loss to the travelling public in the delays caused by congestion on the railways for 30 miles round London? It must be colossal, and the electrification of the railways would do a vast amount to relieve that congestion. So much for railways and roads.

Now I come to say a few words about electricity. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend who preceded me as to the importance of the relation between this question and the improvement of industry. We can only restore British industry to prosperity by reducing the cost of production. I had some figures taken out for me last year, in regard to the price of British exports and the price of British imports, and whereas British exports were 90 per cent. above pre-War figures, the price of imports was only 50 per cent. These figures seem to lead to the conclusion that, for some reason or other, our Continental competitors are producing much more cheaply than we are in this country. I think that this question of electrical development, which undoubtedly has advanced much more rapidly in recent years, and has attained abroad a far larger proportion than it has in this country, is one of the contributing factors to the cheaper production in the countries on the Continent which are our chief commercial competitors.

We, I believe, by electrical development, could produce cheap power, and cheap power would be a very great aid to cheap production. I wish that the employing class and the great industrialists of this country would look more in that and similar directions for cheapening production, rather than always keeping their eyes upon the wages question, because low wages do not give cheap production, but the very opposite, and if there is one economic fact more firmly established than any other, it is that economy in wages is no economy, that high wages mean cheap production. You might very temporarily have an advantage from low wages, but it is not permanent. You are using up your human material, and in a very short time you will have to pay for it. This is one of the directions in which I think we can look with hope for a cheapening of the cost of production. It is said that this country is much behind other countries in the matter of electrical development. They have certain advantages which we are denied in this country. They can, for instance, utilise cheap water power. We have not got that advantage. I think that in the production of electrical energy this country will always have to be a coal-fire system, but that means that we shall have to concentrate it in very large generating stations, and these large generating stations will have to be intercommunicating. That will lessen the cost, and it will be able to regulate the load. If one station was overtaxed at a particular time, and another station happened to be undertaxed, by transmission they would be able to get over that difficulty.

That was one of the matters which we had under consideration last year, when we set up a Committee and asked a man who is considered to be one of the greatest electrical experts in this country to go into this question of the standardisation of frequency. He was to interview the municipalities and the power companies, and his report was expected to be ready by about the beginning of last October. I believe that that report was presented to our successors, and I repeat the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs as to what has become of that report upon the standardisation of frequency. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not hear the question."]

:He made no reference to it this afternoon. It appears that they ignored this report altogether, and set up another Committee. There was no need to set up another Committee, because the matters dealt with in the report to which I have referred were quite sufficient for basing immediate action. We had not been in office any longer than the present Government have been in office, and the only thing the right hon. Gentleman can tell us to-day is that he has got a report of a Committee after six months of office. I venture to say that, if we had remained in office, we should have had a much more satisfactory statement to make to the House of Commons long before this date.

:We will wait and see what the report of your Committee says, and then we can judge whether its recommendations are on better lines than the lines on which we proposed to proceed. We cannot deal with a question like this, we cannot get a great scheme of electrical development in this country, unless we are prepared to spend money on it. It is going to be a very costly thing. My right hon. Friend referred to what France has done in recent years. France has been doing that at a time when she could not pay her debts to us, and, therefore, if France can do that, and Germany has been doing it—there has been wonderful electrical development in Germany since the War— we cannot afford to lag behind in this very important matter. If we do, it means that we cannot hope for a revival of trade. We have got to take the long view in this matter, as in the question of roads, and it will cost millions. I would not hesitate to approve a scheme, at almost whatever expense, provided I was perfectly sure that we were going to get value for the money we expended.

This is a matter about which we cannot afford to be pettifogging or to tinker with, and when the Government do bring forward their proposals, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, for myself at any rate and I think for my party, that we shall receive them in the spirit in which he asked that they should be considered by the House. We will not attempt to make it a party question. If the proposals of the Government are calculated to be a benefit to trade and to do something to restore industry, we will give them a welcome. We will criticise them for the purpose of trying to improve them, but we will give them all the help that we can to carry them into effect. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Conservative party has now an open mind for the reception of new ideas, and I interpreted that to mean that the Government are not prepared to exclude altogether the idea of the nationalisation of electrical undertakings. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It is bound to come. I have sufficient faith in the absolute certainty of the triumph of the principles of public ownership and public control of essential social services and great industrial undertakings which have a monopoly, that I am prepared to wait.

My confidence is such that I would not hesitate even to spend public money in improving the undertakings which are still in the hands of private companies, knowing full well that the time will very quickly come when we shall buy out those private companies, and then what assistance they have received from the State will be taken into consideration in estimating the price. A large number of questions have been asked the Minister of Transport; but there is just one other thing I should like to ask, and that is how is the Severn barrage scheme going on? I do not know, but, at any rate, if it is going forward as an engineering proposition, and ends successfully, it will be the biggest thing in this line that has ever been done in the world. It will certainly give this country what is so urgently needed, an abundant supply of electrical power at a very cheap rate.

:I am sure that every Member of the Committee will share the view, whatever opinion he may hold, that this Debate reveals the possibility of a valuable discussion. I desire on the present occasion to speak, not because of any idea I harbour that I shall be able to contribute very largely to what has already been said, but because of some remarks of previous speakers, and because of my desire, in the further discussion, that, if possible, we should arrive at reasoned and valuable conclusions. I do not wish on the present occasion to enter into some of the more controversial topics in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Snowden) who has just sat down has engaged. His view, that all the social services, including the railways and electrical schemes, must in the end be nationalised, is not very well supported by the experience of those who in other countries are at this very moment reverting from national systems in order to get greater efficiency and greater achievement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Italy, Australia, America and elsewhere. It would be just as easy, and perhaps just as appropriate, to bring a cheer from my side by saying that these things will never happen, as for the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a cheer from his side by saying that these things are bound to happen. Accordingly, I leave that side of the argument out. But I entirely agree with him that there are not two more important topics to be considered by the people of this country at the present time than those of transport and power.

Cheap transport is of the essence of success in business. One of the things from which industry is at present suffering most grievously is the very high freight rates which are imposed upon every ton of coal and other commodities which are being carried over the railway systems of the country. I do not at all agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the railway companies are very dilatory in considering the advantages that might be derived from the use of electricity. I happen to know one of the great railways of this country very intimately from the inside, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that railway that it is true, as I believe it to be true of other great railways in this country, that at the present time they are striving in every way possible to discover means by which they can reduce their costs of transport. There is not a single one of them that is not assiduously trying, day after day, to estimate whether they can make a better system of transport by the use of electrical power. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of my own personal knowledge that though electricity may not be in process of adoption so rapidly as he would desire, it is a fallacy to suppose that on every occasion it is possible to get cheaper transport by the use of electrical power than by the present use of steam. There are many lines in this country which are much more advantageously served to-day by steam than by any known process of electricity. These are things that those responsible for the conduct of the railways are bound to consider, and it would be absurd for them to embark upon a scheme which would cost more money, and cause higher charges for the goods they carry, in order simply to be lauded to the skies . in the House of Commons, or elsewhere, as people who are prepared to adopt new ideas. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that from a practical point of view that consideration must in the end rule.

The railways at the present time are suffering to a degree which I do not think the public realise from the great extension of the arterial roads which have been described this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He made one of those bright and alluring speeches which appeal so much to our imagination and stimulate it. In the course of it he referred to the betterment of the land in the vicinity of these great roadways at the present time. But I would ask the House of Commons to remember, with regard to the railways, that they are almost the biggest ratepayers in most of these districts through which the railways pass and have to subscribe to the upkeep of these very roads which are provided for their competitors in transport, for nothing. Accordingly the railway authorities are deterred and hampered so far as their position is concerned by the cheaper means which are being provided at the public expense, to the very people who are filching away their traffic from them by means of that motor transport which has become so popular in recent times.

While I can see very great merit in this scheme for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was responsible in 1909 whereby at the same time that the authorities decide to expend money on the road it is arranged that they should be able to take the land at the side of the road, if the right hon. Gentleman pursues the subject of trying to put special rates upon land which is supposed to be bettered, then I would give a reply which is familiar to most of us, that we have got to take into consideration, on the other side, also the poor people who, by means of the diversion of traffic, have been left in a less advantageous and a more difficult position than before.

:I should like to devote a few minutes, if the Committee will allow me, to a consideration of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He is an enthusiastic advocate of some forward movement in this country in connection with electric matters. I am glad he came here this afternoon again to try to excite and interest the House of Commons in what, after all, is one of the most important topics which we have to consider. I agree with those who say, like the Minister of Transport, that upon the foundation we build in the immediate future depends the prosperity which we hope to achieve in this country. I have been one of those who, I frankly admit it, have talked in very round enthusiastic language about electrical development, and I am also afraid, much more out of hope than from actual knowledge. My right hon. Friend referred to a great conference of experts who came together at the exhibition at Wembley last year. I was honoured by being asked to preside at one of their conferences, in which I took a little part. My study of this matter has convinced me that we have talked a little bit wildly of what can be immediately achieved by the development of electrical schemes. I remember a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who pictured an England electrified by some new plan, with every village lit by electricity, which also turns the wheels in the mills, and every factory is to be supplied with a means of energy which at the present time it does not possess. I should like, however, to ask my right hon. Friend opposite whether he has any practical plan for bringing that situation about?

:I should like to see it. One of the criticisms which has been urged against us has been the peculiar conditions under which we are. We started wrongly when we commenced to develop the electrical system of this country. We allowed many of the little municipalities of the country to get control. My right hon. Friend opposite this afternoon argued that the system was not very scientific, and in many cases was very expensive. Side by side with these installations because of the dear-ness of the supply of electricity, there have also grown up in private establishments many equipments for the production of electricity. We have the employer who can get electricity more cheaply by means of his surplus machinery than he can obtain a like supply from the municipality in his own district. The result is that to-day you have got a lot of installations producing electricity with great economic waste.

:Is it not true to say that in the north the electricity supply is cheaper than that of the great north eastern power companies?

:I have no doubt the local patriotism of the two hon. Gentlemen who have interrupted me is perfectly justified by the experience of their particular locality. The north-eastern part of England has been known as by far and away the most advanced in the production of electricity of any district in our country, and round and about Newcastle-on-Tyne you can get electricity, I think, to-day more cheaply than in any other part of the Island. At least that was true up to quite recently. I do not know if it is still true, but I can give roughly the result, and here are the figures. Whereas the great bulk of the installations in this country of the class I have described have been using from six to seven lbs. of coal to produce one unit of energy, and still are doing so, the best installations to-day have been able to get the quantity down to about l½lb. of coal; at least, the large installation which the King opened the other day is likely to be capable of producing a unit of energy on that supply of coal.

:The right hon. Gentleman's statement is correct, but it does not coincide with his previous statement that private enterprise in industry started making its own electric power because of the high cost of municipal electric power. In a municipal installation there is the cost of distribution, of spreading it all over the whole of the municipality, whereas the distribution costs in a works are infinitesimal in comparison.

:The hon. Gentleman is mistaking my point at the particular moment. I said that private installations had grown up because, in many instances, they could get their electricity more cheaply than the municipality could supply it. I agree at once, of course, that their costs of distribution are nothing as compared with the cost to a municipality. That, however, does not affect the argument which I am on now. What I am pointing out is that the great bulk—I think I am not exaggerating when I say the great bulk—of the installations in this country at the present time are most wasteful in the use of coal, and that if we had a better-designed system we should be able to supply electricity at a far cheaper rate than these various installations are doing to-day.

So far as I can see, the practical problem before us is to find some scheme by which we can unite all our various energies. May I say, in passing, that there have been many suggestions with regard to great installations for producing electrical energy close to coalpits, upon the basis of making a coke out of your coal by a process of retorting under a low temperature carbonisation system, extracting oil and sulphate of ammonia, and getting gas with which to drive dynamos for the purpose of producing electrical energy. That is a scheme in which I have taken considerable interest, and I hope it is going to reach a great success at some not remote future. But I think we have to acknowledge that, so far as scientific experiment has gone, the cheapest way still in which to produce electricity in this country is by the use of raw coal. I do not think we have got further than that. As to the great hopes which emanate from the other processes, I do not think they are yet in sight of immediate realisation. Accordingly, we have still to go upon the basis that we must use raw coal for the production of electricity. I think it is obvious, however, that some system must be devised by which we shall have large central stations. I am not very much in favour, so far as I know the subject, of the great super-station which some people have recommended, but we want some larger central stations which will supply energy in bulk to many stations which are to-day producing, making those stations thereafter distributing centres instead of producing centres. They might be linked up in some fashion, and in that way we should not only achieve a greater economy of production, but by using the stations together upon a unified system, we should be able to get a higher load factor, and consequently cheaper production.

It is not any use our going now, to-day, into details as to what would be the best means of achieving our object. I for one do not feel that I am at the moment sufficiently informed to contribute usefully to any discussion on that topic. I think, if I may venture to say so, both my right hon. Friends who have spoken this afternoon were a little unfair to the Government and the Minister of Transport in saying that he did not require any committee and that he ought to have given his opinion at once, and been ready to put some great scheme in operation at a much earlier period. The very matters to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred made it impossible for him to do that. We have got these separate stations throughout the country, and we have got the vanity of the municipalities and the small district committees which have been empowered to have electricity stations—we shall have to get over those somehow. As it appears to me, the question for this House and for the country is to find some system by which we can get rid of our present waste and at the same time take these people over in a way which will induce them to work with the Government in the best possible fashion. Already, voluntarily, there has been such a linking up in the West of Scotland as I have been envisaging One of the producing centres has made terms with the other producing stations in the district, and has taken over their business, has extended its own equipment, and now uses those producing centres simply as distributing agencies supplying energy to them in bulk. If we can arrive at some concerted plan of that kind it is our best line of progress.

I confess that if I had been the Minister I should not have felt justified in going forward simply upon a superficial view of my own. I do not know whether I am right or wrong; I am only making tentative suggestions to the Committee; but three men have been selected to report on this matter who have great business ability and much power of imagination. Lord Weir is, I should suppose, one of the most skilful executive officers in dealing with a big organisation, and he is also one of the most progressive of the business men in this country. He is not going to leave matters standing still, or follow old conservative methods. I think the Committee which was selected, consisting of Lord Weir, Lord Forres and Sir Hard-man Lever, could not have been improved in so far as the capacity of its members to give advice to the Government on this point is concerned. I think the Government took the right line. I look forward with great hope to the report of these distinguished men of business to the distinguished men of business, and, for myself, I shall feel more confident in acting upon the opinion of those gentlemen than I ever could have done in advancing solely upon the strength of a sporadic discussion of these very difficult, very intricate, very complex matters in the House of Commons.

:I beg to move, "That Item A [ Salaries, wages, and allowances ] be reduced by £100."

We have heard, as usual, a very interesting and a very able speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), and I am very glad that he switched the discussion back to electricity. I was immensely interested, also, in the discourse of the Minister of Transport, which covered a great deal of ground, ranging over distances as wide apart as Scotland and London, and covered the traffic problem, railways and a hundred and one subjects. As regards the administration of London traffic, I remember the Act being forced through this House late at night, or, rather, early one morning, because of the urgency of the question, and because of the fact that there was supposed to be a wonderful scheme for righting the whole traffic problem of London. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman ever wanders about the streets of London. If he does, I think he will have to admit that the congestion is just as bad; it takes just as long to get along the streets, the place is just as much overcrowded, and there is just as much "straphanging." We are very much in the same position as we were, except that we have a little more justification for the existence of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

:When I am making a tremendous effort to deal with this problem, the very first person to criticise me is the hon. Gentleman.

:Yes, and I am quite unrepentant. If the right hon. Gentleman will leave this House and go to any traffic centre he will see queues waiting for the miserable right of "straphanging" in our overcrowded omnibuses. I say there are not enough conveniences for the general public. Let the right hon. Gentleman divert the ordinary private motor car used for pleasure purposes from the crowded roads, and when he has done that he can talk about decreasing the number of motor omnibuses which are engaged in carrying people from their work to their homes every night, and back again in the morning.

In moving my Amendment, I am going to confine myself entirely to the problems of electricity. I hoped when the right hon. Gentleman opened the discussion that he would have given us some real idea of the work of his Department, at any rate, have hinted what the policy of the Government is. Every Minister, on whatever side of the House he may now be sitting, who has dealt with the question of unemployment has invariably gone through a list of road schemes, relief schemes, export credit schemes and then ended up by stating that the one solution, the one hope for really restoring British trade and increasing the number of people at work, was a gigantic electricity scheme. It was very appropriate that the right hon. Gentleman should use it merely as a peroration, keep it for a well-chosen word at the end. That was characteristic, typical, and I doubt whether during the next few months this new scheme is going to carry us very much forward in the direction of establishing electricity undertakings on such a scale as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated. We are to have another Committee, or rather we have got another Committee. If any subject has been inquired into thoroughly during the last 10 years, surely it is the question of electricity. There have been many Committees. I have sat on Committees. There was the Coal Conservation Committee, which produced a clear, concise statement of the whole position in reference to electricity. There was the Advisory Committee on Reconstruction, which dealt with electricity, and also produced a very full Report. There is the Report of the Electrical Trades Committee, which I recommend to the study of the right hon. Gentleman. It goes into the whole thing from every point of view. And then there is the Board of Trade Committee, known as the Williamson Committee—he is now Lord Forres, and has been added to the new Com- mittee presided over by Lord Weir. Lord Weir, apparently, is going to be a sort of fairy godmother to everyone. He is to provide us with houses, he is to provide us with electricity. I hope he may prove a magician. As a matter of fact, under the Act of 1920, Commissions were set up. As far as I can make out these Electricity Commissioners are the only real justification for the existence of the Ministry of Transport. They are a very costly luxury; they cost something like £40,000 a year, though if they are going to do their work it will be cheap at the price. They are able and competent men, and are composed of two engineers and two able administrators. These people have been inquiring for the last five years, giving all their time to it, and they are quite as competent to deal with this problem as a Committee sitting only for a few months at the most They have given their views on the engineering aspect in the Report of the Electricity Commissioners, and this is what they say: introduce a Bill dealing with this question, it was thrown out under the influance of the Whips opposite by an overwhelming majority composed of my hon. Friends opposite, who were so satisfied with the present position that they were not even willing to allow my Bill to be printed. I know there was one exception, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport knows this subject and has studied it for many years, and anybody who has heard him make speeches on electricity knows that he has a very wide knowledge of this subject, and he supported my Bill. The Government as a whole and hon. Members opposite threw that Bill out, therefore we must presume that they did not think any substantial change in the law was necessary. I would like to point out the enormous loss to the country of the present system of organisation. I have referred to various reports, but perhaps the Electrical Trades Committee put the thing most concisely. They say: advantage of the water supply is not so much greater than a system based upon a coal supply. The Board of Trade appointed a Committee in 1918 to consider the question of electric power supply, and they report as follows:

It is claimed that they will be able to supply electricity in bulk at a rate so cheap that people will be forced to buy it from a single-power station like Barking or from the North-East Power Company in the north of England and other big schemes already organised by financial interests. All that sounds very attractive, and I have heard it put forward by several engineers, who have suggested that we need not interfere with existing stations because the super-power stations will be able to supply us cheaply, and they will be able to force the hands of the old-fashioned smaller local authorities and companies. Even if that scheme is carried out I have my doubts as to whether it will be quite so successful as some people seem to think. Local authorities are always very suspicious, and so are companies, as to putting themselves in the hands of a monopoly. We saw that when the scheme was before the House, when not only a strong case was made out, but they contended that it would interfere with the rights and privileges of the various local authorities in the district and interfere with their independence, and they did not want the supply to be in the hands of a private monopoly. I think it is a dangerous thing to put our industries in the hands of any private monopoly unless it is well controlled under the supervision of the State. We have had experiments of that kind in the case of the water supply of London, and in the end we had to take over the water companies although they were well managed and efficient, the reason being that they did not give us the supply we wanted.

We all remember what was said about the dock companies before the Port of London Authority was formed, and it was found necessary in the end that a public authority should take over the management and control of the docks. Our difficulties are there as has already been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead. When we originally started the supply of electricity in this country it was assumed that the local government areas would have a right to supply electricity, and it was contended that it was their duty to provide electric light. It was found, however, impossible at that time to send power over a great distance and the unit adopted therefore, was a small one. That is the weakness of our present position, and that is what the Act of 1919 attempted to overcome. It provided electricity areas and set up 16 large areas in different parts of the country and electricity authorities representing all the interests concerned. On this point the Williamson Committee reported: and in answer to a question I asked only this afternoon, the Minister had to admit that, although there had been 16 districts denned by the Electricity Commissioners, only one electricity authority had actually come into existence.

I do think we have made out a case against the Ministry of Transport that has to be answered. Their Commismissioners are not satisfied with the present position; they are not functioning; they are not doing their work. If the Government are satisfied that their powers are sufficient, we are entitled to know what their policy is. If they are not, they are certainly seriously jeopardising the industrial future of the country. Just as, in the past, trade went where there was cheap water, and then where there was cheap coal, now it is going where there is cheap electricity. Other countries have, as has been shown this afternoon, taken this problem in hand with imagination and courage, not only in Europe, not only in France and Italy, where millions have been spent, but even in our Dominions beyond the seas. New Zealand, which is a very small country, with a population of only a million and a quarter, is spending millions on large generating scheme; one district alone is spending over £1,000,000 on a single power station. Some of the money which was raised on the London money market the other day by the New Zealand Government is to be spent on the development of electricity. Why is it that we stand still and appoint more Committees? We have had enough committees; it is time the Government took action; and, unless we can be satisfied that they mean business, and not more committees and more talk, I shall press my Amendment.

:I would like to say, to start with, that I was very pleased this afternoon to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) say that there has been a great deal of wild talk, not only lately but in the past, on the subject of electrical development; and I have noticed this afternoon in this connection that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and the last speaker, have very considerably tempered the views they would have expressed, probably, two or three years ago on the great benefits that may be achieved by electrical development. It is not possible at this stage, without the Government having given us some indication as to their policy, to go into any detailed criticism of electrical development. I think the Government are quite right in not committing themselves at this stage; rather should they feel their way very gently through this very difficult subject. There has been a great deal of wild talk upon it, and it has got into a wrong perspective in the public eye. The reasons for this are not far to seek. First of all, there have been great developments in electrical science, particularly on the side of radio-electricity. It is a subject which easily seizes the public imagination, and latterly, during the last few years, it has been a plank in the political platform, more or less, of each of the three parties. It is not difficult to see that there must have been a great deal of exaggeration as to what could or could not be done in regard to electrical development.

Generally, dealing with the proposals as one learns of them through the newspapers, I would like to offer a few comments which I think, with very great respect to the House, may be useful by way of just damping down some of the wild, burning enthusiasm of which we have heard so much. With regard to linking up, this may be very desirable, and would probably be useful in case of breakdown of a superstation, or in case of one station producing much more cheaply than another; but that is a proposition which, surely, can be left to private enterprise. If that linking up is not a commercial and economic possibility, why should the State shoulder the burden of it? Furthermore, remarks have been made as to unemployment. I fail to gather any figures or any indication, even in the more or less extravagant suggestions that have been made during the past few months, but it does not require a great deal of consideration to see that even the spending of the £50,000,000 which is talked of will benefit very materially in reducing the number of unemployed people. Obviously, there would be an absorption of the unemployed during the expenditure of that amount— during the time that wiring, transmission lines and stations are being reorganised; and it might in a smaller degree, when these reorganisations have taken place, be, with the linking up, the means of producing electricity a little more cheaply to industry.

The cost of energy to industry, however, is only a fractional portion of its total costs. I understand that in the shipbuilding and engineering industry the cost of energy—the cost of fuel and prime movers—amounts to approximately 2 per cent. of the production costs. Even if that were given to them free of charge, it would not make very much material difference in the state of industry that we have to-day. As regards the northeast coast, for instance, it has been stated to-day in this Chamber that electricity is being produced in that district probably more cheaply than anywhere else in the country; but it has not been possible in that district even to alleviate the prevailing distress in the shipbuilding and engineering industry. Again, with regard to unemployment, there may be other factors. We all agree that it is very desirable to have a supply of light, heat and power in this country, but it is not strictly correct to say that that can only be produced by electricity. There are other agencies for producing that power which are apt to be lost sight of, and I do not think it would be out of place to refer for a few moments to the sister industry, the gas industry.

The gas industry is three times the size of the electrical industry to-day. To give a popular illustration, His Majesty the King this week opened a large super-station at Barking, but I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the present production of that super-station at Barking, in heat units, is only equivalent to the annual extension made by London's largest gas undertaking. That gives an idea of the size of the industry. There are three times the number of men employed in the . gas industry, and even the coke produced by the gas industry is more than equivalent to the total electric units produced throughout the whole country. I will not refer to that any more, but would merely say that there are other agencies—

:When you make your gas, and put it into your gas-holder at your station, you know the price of production. What is the price per therm for distributing that gas as against the price per therm for distributing electric current?

:The two are not comparable without going into the whole of the figures, but the consumer is the court of appeal in the end. If consumers will buy it when they have the option between the two, they are the people to judge which is the cheaper and more economical. Personally, I am not concerned with that at the moment, but am merely concerned with the unfairness of talking about light and heat and energy as if there were only one factor in regard to the production of that light and heat and energy in the country to-day. There is another factor. Before I leave that, I would point out that in all cases the gas industry has brought itself to its present state of success, not by asking favours, but by working, by being self-reliant and independent, and by bringing about its own salvation, and it does strike me as very unfair that such subsidies should be talked of—though? admit they are only talked of generally to-day; there is no definite proposal for, I will not say bolstering up, but developing a rival industry at the expense of another industry which is covering the same field.

With regard to the long transmission lines of mains for conveying current, if those are not a fair economic proposition to-day that can be taken over by private enterprise, are they a fair proposition for the State to take over instead? Surely, the problem is one of transport of coal versus cost of transmission of electricity. Foreign countries have been quoted as showing that electricity would be cheaper, and I will endeavour to make a comparison between this country and the countries which have been referred to. Strangely enough, the countries which have the largest consumption in electric units per head of the population are the countries which have latent natural forms of energy in the form of waterfalls or other water power. In Switzerland, for instance, approximately 700 units are consumed per head of the population. In Canada, Norway and the United States, it is a little less. This high level is maintained where these natural resources exist, but France, Germany and this country are practically on one level. I have here the figures for these three countries, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the consumption in France is 147 units per head of the population, in Germany 141, and in the United Kingdom 139. These three countries are comparable for the simple reason that their prime mover energy is in the form of coal, and not of water power. Therefore, you cannot judge a nation's activities by its consumption of electricity, and it is very unfair to take that form of comparison.

It has by no means been proved that the super-station is the cheapest means of producing electricity. There are stations in this country to-day which can produce electricity more cheaply than, the cheapest super-station, and developments are taking place from time to time in that direction. It seems to be rather a pity that it has leaked out that the Government are prepared to support the advice of certain electrical engineers who, apparently, have arrogated to themselves all the knowledge of this subject, that the only way of dealing with super-station production is by shovelling more coal under boilers. They have not even consulted a source of information designed and available in the national interest. I refer to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which was inaugurated in 1917. The terms of reference of the Fuel Research Board of that Department read: it is possible and available, of utilising either gas or electricity in place of coal, and it also shows there are special uses for each of the commodities and room for both in the ordinary commercial and domestic life of the country. If it is proposed at some later stage to make some form of subsidy to the electrical industry, it is only fair to assume that other industries should be enabled to have similar advantages. Take, for instance, the coal industry, shipbuilding and engineering, and the gas industry can equally claim State aid, which are probably just as necessary to the life of the nation and could, I think, without much difficulty, employ a larger number of men in the course of their reconstruction.

Why has electricity been selected for this? Surely, it can put its own house in order. They are not in any way financially embarrassed. If we are to believe in what we have always believed, and to practise it, private enterprise should be able to rescue that industry if it is in a backward state, and it will and can do it, but there is no reason why State aid should be introduced for political purposes in this or any other industry. As far as I can gather, there is no financial embarrassment in the electricity industry. Out of 194 companies, in 1923–24, the average dividend on the ordinary capital was 7.33 per cent. Further than that, the London companies pay dividends up to 15 per cent., and the average is, aproximately, 13 per cent. That is very commendable, and they are to be congratulated for managing their undertaking on these lines, but what I want to show is that there is no financial instability. It is not a dying industry, in any shape or form, and it should be capable of putting its own house in order. If the scheme is to put up unremunerative expenditure, I do not think the State ought to bear it. If it is remunerative, they can very well afford it themselves. One is, therefore, forced to one of two conclusions. The first is, that big dividends have been, and are being paid, at the expense of modernising the plant, and fearing keen competition in the future they come to the State for assistance. I do not believe that is the correct explanation. I believe this is a very live industry, and it can put itself right. What I believe is nearer the truth is that favouritism is sought at the expense of the State because a group of persons have fostered proposals for reasons which are as economically unsound as they are obscure. I am sure the House and the country will await the Bill which has been promised with keen interest. Meanwhile, I hope the Government will have due regard to the definite fact that the only source of power in this country is raw coal, and national interests demand that the best use be made of this asset without the special pampering of any one section in a competitive industry, and in order that we may have an ample supply of light, heat and power at an economic price at the service of the community.

:I do not intend to follow the hon. Member in his disquisition on the gas industry. I was very much impressed by his eloquence, but having to live in an area where there is gas and no electricity, I take a very great deal of converting on the point. I want to deal rather with things as they are than what others have dealt with, things as they might be and things as they have been. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) would have been an excellent one just before the Act of 1919 was passed. It dealt almost wholly with problems relating to the passing of that Act. I want to deal with the difficulties in carrying out the Electricity Acts as we have them. I cannot deal with the policy of the Government because we have not had any policy yet. I imagine we are going to get it in a later speech, or possibly when these reports come through, but I think hon. Members in all parts of the House are entitled to say that for the 1919 Act we have not got very much to show yet, and everyone knows that the reason of that is the mutilation of that Act in the House of Lords, and I hope before the Debate ends we shall know whether the Government is prepared to go forward and take compulsory powers. We have for five or six years been trying to get London electricity on a sound basis. We had taunts from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others about the petty parochialism of local authorities. Of course, that exists. There is also the petty selfishness of companies. One ought to look the facts fairly in the face. For the last six years I have been endeavour- ing to keep the London authorities working together to try to make the best of this Act, such as it is. We are having a very difficult time because there are those petty parochialisms even in London, and I have no doubt much more in the Provinces. We have urged local authorities to act in the interests of the whole of London, and I think they have done so very well up to now, but the long delay has proved extremely trying.

I do not want to deal with this subject, but there is a matter I must refer to, because it is going to have a very grievous effect on settling the electricity question in London and in unsettling the minds of local authorities. We have been informed all through the negotiations that we had with the Electricity Commissioners, that the Electricity Commissioners are in the position of Judges, and they decide perfectly impartially on technical grounds as to what they should do for this or that company or municipality. That is absolutely right. So they ought to, and I hope they always do. But it is very unfortunate, under these circumstances, that where we have a body set up to deal with varying interests, we find one of these Electricity Commissioners ceasing to be a Commissioner and becoming closely associated, as a director, with a company. I am not going to make any charge at all against that Commissioner. Ho doubt he is acting throughout as Commissioner absolutely impartially, but what is the effect on the minds of people in London, whom we have been trying to persuade all the way through that they are going to get a square deal. Supposing you had been in litigation before a Judge in the High Court in a suit involving millions of pounds Supposing judgment was given for one side or the other, and then you found the Judge resigning and joining the board of one of the companies which were in litigation. I fancy the matter would be raised on the Floor of the House. I raise this point, not with the desire of attacking any individual, but to say that it is a matter, in the interest of public administration, which ought not to occur-In the Civil Service we have a very high standard, but there have been in the public service from time to time incidents of this sort which are very disturbing. Not long ago we had a Governor of Iraq who resigned his office to become the manager of an enormous oil company with interests there. On various occasions you have had people in high office in the Army or Navy joining armament firms. To-day we have this case of a man who has been in the position of dealing as a Judge between various interests in the electricity world resigning his office and going into association with one of the parties. I hope the Minister will be able to make a statement that in future wherever these posts are offered there will be a condition that those accepting them shall not go into private commercial business in the same line where they have had to act as Judges. I do not want to make any more of the point, but I hope we shall have some re-assurance because it is very difficult to try to get some unity among local authorities in this matter. Local authorities are said to be very suspicious. They are rightly suspcious very often, and I want to see a great London scheme come forward, and this is one of those questions which is going to make it extraordinarily difficult to get the authorities in London to work together.

I should like to say a word or two on the main subject. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) that occasionally people paint electricity prospects too brightly, but I think this country is lagging behind, and that is not due to the particular Minister who is in office now, or to his immediate predecessor, or any predecessor. It is simply because we have not at present got the powers in the hands of the Government to do this matter on a large scale. It will be suggested by some that it should be left to private enterprise. We can take an example of what the feeling is in a country where private enterprise, I suppose, has gone further and is more unrestrained than any other in the world, and that is the United States. I was reading a report this week on Pennsylvania, where they have been going into this question of power and where they have realised that an enormous power such as electricity must not be left unrestrained. I was surprised to find that the United States business man was a good deal ahead in his appreciation of his interests than the average British business man. It seems to me that our British business men have the herd instinct too much. They always think that anyone who is engaged in making a profit is, therefore, their friend. If our British manufacturers were wise, they would see to it that the control of prime movers was in the hands of the public authority which is going to give them the best service at the lowest possible cost. They would see that transport was in the hands of these who would give it at the lowest price.

7.0 P.M.

Let me give one example from the electricity industry. In Stepney, we raised our money very cheaply on the whole over a period of years. We have paid off 28 per cent. of our capital. We can therefore give a very low price. I glance through the electricity companies, and find that most of them have watered their capital. I take one London company, and find that they have watered their capital to the extent of 50 per cent. If you do not watch it, you are going to have this industry clogged with a vast amount of watered capital, exactly as your railways have always been clogged with watered capital. If your railways had been run in such a way that they had to pay off a certain amount of their capital every year—you call it the capital of a company, though they call it a debt in the case of a municipality— your transport problem, from the point of view of cost, would not exist Instead, you have your railway companies run very wastefully. To a large extent their capital has been raised for things that anyone else would have paid for out of revenue. The result is that you have a clogged system. Our manufacturers— after all it is our manufacturers we are considering when we think of our foreign trade—would be wise not to let the herd instinct run away with them and think they must listen to everyone who wants to make a profit. as against the public interest. The public interest in electricity is not only that of the manufacturer but of the ordinary domestic consumer as well. I hope the Minister will tell us what is being done in the way of research for getting cheaper and better appliances for the domestic consumer. You have at present electrical appliances so costly that only the wealthy can afford them, and you have electricity not brought to the homes of the people, so that you have so small a demand that it is not worth while for the manufacturers to go in for mass pro- duction. You have to cut that vicious circle somewhere. I want to see the Minister taking a hand at getting the manufacturers together, so that they will co-operate with the municipalities and the most advanced companies which are beginning to cater for the domestic load. I want to know whether the Government will assist in that way? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) declined to enter into any controversy on the question of public and private control. I think you have to have a very large body to control a very large area for your main line transmission. For the ordinary distribution you can have it through the local authority, but I certainly say that for large scale production and main line transmission you must have an authority of national or semi-national scale if you are going to get efficiency and economy.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT
(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)

:I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee) with very great interest. I appreciate very much his views with regard to the future of electricity in this country. I did somewhat question his remarks about the retiring Commissioner. I do think, although I see the gist of his point is in no way personal, and transcended this particular gentleman, he is a little unfair, because in those very complicated negotiations which are nearly through in regard to London, it must, I think, be admitted that we should have a judicial decision on the vast capital which was involved, and that during and after the agreement there was never a shifting of the price of shares in those companies up or down.

:I did not suggest for a moment that there had been anything on this side or the other. I pointed out the disturbance which necessarily comes to people's minds where almost everybody puts everything down to some little cause or other.

:I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not intend to be personal. I will remind him that the successor to the Commissioner who is retiring is a gentleman very distinguished in the management of municipal enterprises, and I hope nobody interested in a private company will bring up a charge and say we have no less than two members of the Commission who have been interested in municipalities rather than in private companies.

:Is there not a difference between someone who goes from a municipality and one who serves the State in an official capacity and then goes back to private enterprise?

:Before I come to deal with electricity, I want to answer one or two questions which were put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He asked us whether we were taking advantage of the Act which enabled us to buy land at the side of any of the roads that we were making in order to sell later and get a profit. That was a proposition that always appealed to me very much. I had a vision of paying for all our roads in that way. We have done a certain amount of that. We consult the Valuation Department, and in some cases we have bought land, but it is a very difficult thing. Land does not always go up. It sometimes goes down. When we buy a person's land we do, in reckoning the price, take into account the betterment of his remaining property, and accordingly that is put against the price we pay. One other question was raised by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on traffic. I forgive him for having one more dig at us to-day with regard to the state of London traffic. He ridiculed the Traffic Act of the late Government. We are suffering to-day under singular disability. Unfortunately, when we wanted to show an improvement, Waterloo Bridge goes and collapses. That is very unfortunate, but if it had not been for the Ministry to-day, not only would Waterloo Bridge be closed, but Blackfriars Bridge would be closed also and the Strand would be "up." It is only through the action of the Ministry that Blackfriars Bridge is open to-day and the Strand is not pulled up for repairs. Surely that is a little advantage. I wonder what the state of London would be if it had not been for the Traffic Act? Another point with regard to the speech of the hon. Member fr South-West Bethnal Green. He takes what he sees in the Press, exaggerates it, says it is our scheme, then knocks it down and blames us. I can assure him that what he has seen in the Press with regard to electricity schemes is very inaccurate.

I come to electricity. So far the Debate has been concerned with that chiefly. As the Committee knows of all Ministries we are the Ministry positively charged with electricity. It is a very grave responsibility. One expects live wires. I find myself to-night in a singularly unfortunate position, because although I should like to say a lot with regard to the future developments our hands are tied. The Minister has explained the position with regard to the Weir Report, and it would be out of order to talk about future legislation in connection with a Vote of this kind. I cannot even adumbrate what that Committee has thought fit to recommend. All I can do is to repeat what the Minister said, which is that the Report is now in the hands of the Government, and that they will consider it, and if they approve of it, they are going to introduce legislation very quickly. One word with regard to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry). He came here as an honest Member of Parliament in favour of gas. Our Department is concerned with electricity and our duty is to confine ourselves to that up to a certain point. It may be that there are conflicting interests which will go against development of electricity later on in considering high policy. From the point of view of the Department we have to see whether we can produce cheaper energy in this country by organisation. That is what we have done. He must not think that there are those schemes which he sees in the Press and subsidies and that sort of thing. He should wait for the Report.

:I am not prepared to say. There may be an enormous gas subsidy. I was glad to hear to-day expressions from both sides of the Committee as to the desirability of not exaggerating what electricity could do for the people. That is detrimental. I also would like to start by disabusing hon. Members of two fallacies which seem to exist in people's minds. One of them is that you cannot have cheaper electricity without water power. One hears one's friends say, "Of course, this country is badly situated in regard to electricity." Let me give this example. Switzerland uses nothing but water and pays twice as much for its current as we in the northeast of England do. There is no country in the world better situated for the generation of electricity than this country. All that we want to do is to organise it in the right manner. Another word with regard to super-stations. There have been ideas spread abroad that you have only to build a super-station and you are bound to get cheaper electricity, and that we can supply the whole of England with 16 super-stations. A super-station is a very desirable thing, but you must have the load. If the station is to take over the load, then you must build extensive transmission lines, and very soon the capital involved in making the lines to where the load is being used will cost so much money as to reduce the advantage which you get from the economy of the super-stations. The area which interests this country more than any other is the industrial area included between Glasgow, Edinburgh, London and Bristol. That is the area that I wish to consider to-night, although, as I say, I cannot adumbrate anything with regard to the Weir Report, because there are recommendations as to what should be done. I think to-night perhaps it might be of advantage to some if I could talk with regard to electricity and to what is agreed in all countries as to the technical side along which we should endeavour to advance.

I want to divide the problem into two parts, that of generation and that of distribution. When we talk about electricity, there is always one leit motif running through the discussion, that of the "load factor." One hears the costs of electricity quoted from every quarter of the House. The cost of electricity is wrapped up with the load factor, consequently it is necessary for us to understand what the load factor actually means. It is the ratio of units produced to the amount of units that could be produced if the plant was running continuously. For the generation of electricity you must pay for two things; you have to pay for your fixed charges, depreciation, interest, wages and all that sort of thing, and you have to pay for running costs. The first is a fixed charge. The second charge is proportional to the units generated. Consequently, the more units you generate, the cost of the fixed charges are spread over a bigger amount of units. You have to get as many units used from the actual amount of plant you have got. That is trying to get a "big load factor," and that, automatically, reduces the price of current. If you can increase your load factor, say, from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., you have, automatically, diminished the charges for current by 25 per cent. If you can increase your load factor from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent., you automatically reduce your cost of current by 50 per cent. That is why it is important always to bear in mind the load factor, and also to realise how important it is to get as big a load factor as possible.

Now I want to talk about inter-connection between power stations, which is practically accepted as the correct practice throughout the world. As we shall be hearing more about this subject, I want it to be thoroughly understood what are the advantages of inter-connection. First of all, you save capital expenditure. If you are inter-connected, you can instal large units, which are cheaper per unit installed than small. There is this very important point to be remembered, that an electrical undertaking is not allowed to break down; consequently you must have a lot of spare plant. If you are interconnected with another plant it enables you to reduce the amount of spare plant. We are paying to-day for electricity on the basis, amongst other things, of interest on capital. Sixty-eight per cent. of the generating plant in this country to-day is spare plant that is not being used. It is obvious, therefore, that if some of the money spent on spare plant could have been invested in inter-connection, it would have been very much better for electrical development and for the community.

Let me turn to the operating side, always assuming the advantages of interconnection. If you inter-connect, you have this advantage, that you can put your station more where you like than if you are not inter-connected. You can have regard for the suitability of site. In a big station to-day, one of the most important things is not only to get coal cheaply—by getting coal cheaply I mean so that you can get it by water—but that you must have very great cooling facilities. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that a big power station to-day consumes 500,000,000 gallons of water per day. Of course, it goes back again into the river; but you must have that water supply available. It passes through the station and is raised in temperature 12 degrees. That is a very difficult thing to get.

There is another advantage that we shall see in London in operation shortly. You can use a larger unit if you are interconnected, and that gives you a more economical consumption of coal. It also means that you can use your most efficient station to carry your base load, running your efficient station on a very high load factor, and using your less efficient station on the spot to carry the peak load. That is the most economical way of running a district. If you are inter-connected, you are able to put into the general network which connects station with station those things which to-day are being wasted in this country. There are such things as waste heat. There is an enormous amount of power going to waste in this country. At the pithead in turning coal into coke the amount of gas wasted is enormous. That could be put into use if a general network of lines were available to absorb power. There is also the question of water power and the erection of hydro-electric stations. It is very difficult to spend money representing the very high capital outlay which is essential to the making of a hydro-electric station if you have not got the load quite handy. Unfortunately, London and Niagara are not near each other. If you have interconnection, it is possible to use the whole of the output from the station more or less continuously and not only during the period of local demand. It may interest hon. Members to know that at least 265,000 kilowatts could be obtained from water power in this country. On the basis of a consumption of 500 units per head, in 1940—we hope it will be before that—the water power in this country could take one-tenth of the whole load in the Kingdom. That is a considerable amount, but at the present time that water power is not harnessed.

Something was said earlier in the Debate with regard to the Severn Barrage. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had to put up with a certain amount of chaff because he had been slow in regard to the development of this scheme. He was perfectly right to proceed cautiously. It is one of those things which you cannot rush, because in connection with a great river like that, what will happen if you put up a barrier is unknown. It is a matter which requires very careful expert consideration. A preliminary investigation of a, very minor kind has taken place and, curiously enough, it does confirm the opinion of Sir John Snell, who said that this scheme ought to go on. Although you cannot hurry in a matter of this kind, because it involves a very big capital loss if it goes wrong, we do hope one of these days to get 200,000 kilowatts continuous supply out of that scheme.

In inter-connectian you pass a line through parts of England where otherwise there would not be a source of supply to tap. The development will be particularly interesting, because it is very likely that the rural load would be different from the urban load. Once you get a diversity of load you are automatically increasing your load factor if you interconnect. Consequently, it will be extremely interesting to see whether the rural areas really take advantage of electricity. If they take advantage of it and if they get a different load curve to what is used in the town, then we have great prospects of getting that high load factor without which cheap electricity is impossible.

A word with regard to the standardisation of frequency. We have been subjected to a certain amount of criticism on this point. The late Government investigated the question of standardisation of frequency and the Report has come in. There are, the Committee knows, difficulties in the way of standardisation of frequency. First of all, there is a very big capital sum required to bring it about. Secondly, there is the inconvenience which no doubt you are put to in the change over. It would involve three or four years, but it could be done without very great disorganisation. Unless one looks upon standardisation of frequency coupled with inter-connection it seems to me that standardisation of frequency alone is not of very great value. I admit that if you do not standardise your frequency you are forever limiting certain areas. You are putting fences round certain areas which will forever debar them from any connection with other areas.

Certain areas have been investigated. The Northern area of Glasgow has been investigated, and the Midlands are now being investigated. We have particulars of the cost and so forth, but we cannot explain our policy to the House on that one subject, because if you take that one subject without wrapping it up with the question of inter-connection you are not really dealing with the problem as a whole; you are dealing with it by patchwork. While we realise the importance of the development of electricity from the point of view of the. question of unemployment, we want to deal with it by taking as far reaching a view as possible and seeing bow far we can anticipate future conditions. It would be wrong to ask us now what is our system in regard to standardisation until we can give particulars of the whole scheme.

:When does the hon. Member think that the Government will be in a position to state to the House what is their policy? How long will it take to examine the Report and make a statement to the House?

:The reading of long electrical reports is a difficult matter. The Report has now arrived and is in the hands of the Prime Minister, tout I do not think the Cabinet have seen it yet. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I how long a Cabinet takes to digest electrical reports. Our idea is this, as the Prime Minister stated in a public speech, that if the Report is one that the Government can approve, legislation will follow very quickly. I have said earlier how important it is to increase your load factor. Now we come to distribution, an equally important point as generation. There is not the educational effort going on in this country to spread the use of electricity which you find in the United States. We are rather over-impressed with the technical side of electricity. In America the most highly-paid official in an electrical company is not the engineer but the sales manager. His is the most important side of the work, and that is quite right, because it is only through pushing the sales that you can keep your load factor high and get good returns. With regard to the consumption of electrical current, only 15 per cent. of the power generated in this country is used for domestic consumption.

The question of pushing the sale of appliances of various kinds in the homes is not carried out in this country. Here we take the current to the house, and then we leave it for the man to carry on and get the light. They have gone a great deal ahead of that in America. They look after the whole thing. They see that the electric iron and other appliances are working and that you are using your current. They are pushing it the whole time. They give you "service." That is done to some extent in some parts of this country. In West Ham, for instance, they know a great deal more about electricity than they do in the West End. That is the sort of thing which should go on throughout the country. I may give a curious example with regard to domestic consumption in America. Naturally the peak load of domestic consumption occurs in the winter when the days are short and there grew up another peak load in the summer, and finally the consumption of electricity as a whole in the height of the summer was greater than in the height of the winter. In this country that is hard to understand, but it is due to ice-making machines and fans, and I only hope that the weather here will cause us to have that same experience.

A word about compulsory power. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) chaffs me because I voted for the principle of compulsory power. I voted for it, not because I really thought it would get any further but because I thought it was an expression of agreement as to what is called the segregation of generation. Unfortunately that Bill was spoiled by being sent up to the House of Lords too late in the Session. I cannot blame the House of Lords, when they had vast electric Bills to be considered in two days, for going on strike. I blame the right hon. Gentleman for not re-introducing the compulsory powers in the next Session. Things would have been different had he done this. Times have changed, and I do not think that one can pretend that what was right four years ago is necessarily right to-day. All the interests have grown, and part of the difficulty in connection with electricity is that every big expansion makes it increasingly more difficult to reorganise this industry. But any body of men who are asked to consider electricity as a whole would look upon the question of compulsory power or not as almost basic to the subject, and, consequently, the Committee may rest assured this aspect of the question has been dealt with satisfactorily. My own idea is that a solution which will give similar advantages has been devised.

I forgot to refer to one point with regard to the standardisation of frequency. I pointed out that the consumption of electricity in this country is nearly 20 per cent. higher every year. Every year we go along makes it increasingly difficult to get a comprehensive co-ordination scheme. On the question of standardisation alone every year it becomes more and more difficult. In the big industrial districts abroad, where standardisation differs, they have found it impossible now to do anything. There are some advantages in being backward in development. In 1940, when the consumption will be, as we hope, up to 500 units per head, we shall have had installed in this country four times the generating plant that exists to-day, and now is a good time to view with vision and with imagination the reorganisation of the whole distribution of electricity in this country. I started my remarks by saying that I had to make a speech with nothing to say. This is not the first speech that has ever been delivered like that, and I do not suppose it will be the last. But I apologise to the Committee for not being able to give them the policy of the Government. But they will appreciate that we cannot do so. I only hope that what is adumbrated in the Report will be looked upon with favour by the powers that be, and that later on I shall have the opportunity of explaining the scheme to the House.

:I am sure that everybody in all parts of the Committee will agree, whatever opinion we have of the legislation about to be introduced with regard to electricity, that at any rate it is well to have the advantage of those who are to introduce it having a first-class knowledge of the subject, such as has been shown by the speaker who has just sat down. Before I deal with electricity, I would like to refer to a remark made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to water power as that was a subject on which I intended to speak. But may I for a moment divert to a remark made earlier in the Debate by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that there had been put to him during his tenure of office by the Minister of Transport a proposal that there should be spent a sum of £2,000,000 on the Western Highlands of Scotland, and I am sure that the present Minister of Transport will take note of the fact that his predecessor was prepared to spend another £2,000,000 for the development of motor roads throughout that part of the country. I know that the Glasgow to Inverness road is likely to get considerable grants from the Ministry shortly.

Reference was made to great motor roads, heavily made roads, being provided throughout England and I suppose Scotland, too, for the purpose of carrying heavy goods traffic. Personally, I do not think that public roads are likely to get any great part of the very heavy goods traffic. The conveyance of goods by motor is not a paying proposition outside a radius of 40 or 50 miles unless they are particularly light goods, such as could easily be put into motor wagons and taken from the place of manufacture to their ultimate destination. On the other hand, roads such as have been adumbrated, and are under consideration at this moment, for the Highlands are very necessary, because while the goods traffic may not, to the extent that some people imagine, be carried on public roads—I believe that the railways will still continue to carry the vast bulk of the goods traffic of the country—yet the public roads will undoubtedly reduce the amount of passenger traffic on railways and the motor roads are, and ought to be, constructed for passenger traffic mainly if they are to go into the country districts, unless they are within 30 or 40 miles of the great industrial areas. I might point out, therefore, to the Minister of Transport that he should follow the intention of his predecessor to develop the Western Highland roads.

The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said that motors were increasing in this country at the rate of about 20 per cent. per annum, and that possibly this might go on at an accelerated curve, and that the number of motors might be doubled in four or five years. If that is so, it is all the more necessary to make these roads now, so that the vast agglomeration of people in places like Glasgow should have an exit to the country districts, and we should thus help to keep people in our own country rather than have them flying abroad as they generally do to France and Switzerland, and see parts of their country which great numbers of them have not seen at all. I know myself that in my own county it is only during an electioneering campaign that I have been able to see many of the places, because many of the roads are so bad that they are impossible and the public could not use them. I trust, therefore, that the Ministry of Transport will hasten to deal with that problem as generously as possible.

I would like now to revert to what I wished to say about electricity, which was in reference to water power. Reference has been made to what has been done during the last few Sessions in regard to water power, and in particular to two big schemes in Scotland, one at Fort William, which is to be used for the production of 70,000 continuous horsepower to be used for making aluminium, because it has been done by the British Aluminium Company, and the other for the production of 56,000 continuous horse-power, which is known as the Grampians scheme, where the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is developing power, or intends, I understand, to develop power, because he got an Act of Parliament passed through this House last Session, for a great number of stations on the Southern side of the Grampians. But in that case it is not for one product alone, such as the British Aluminium Company will use their power for, but for replacing the coal stations at the various places which the company to which the hon. Member belongs controls on the Southern side of the Grampians. These two great schemes are two main schemes which have been also advocated by the Board of Trade Water Power Resources Committee.

In addition to these, there is a great number of minor schemes, but not altogether minor in the sense of being negligible, because some of them have, as is shown in the list of the Water Power Board, quite large possible horse-powers at their disposal. These stations, although the Water Board Committee looked at them and very roughly estimated what each station might cost, are in an entirely different position from the two big power stations which are being erected. They are different in this respect, that in the case of the two big stations strong companies have stood at the back and have had money to devote to investigation as to where best they could find power for themselves—huge corporations with millions of capital— but in the case of the smaller powers two sets of companies will probably have to be established to deal with each, one a power company to develop the power, and the other a manufacturing company to purchase the power. I would like the Minister to take power to himself to investigate these schemes fully, to prepare detailed plans and have estimates prepared, so that this information might be at the disposal of the public generally. At present nobody has sufficient cash to investigate, as a power company, these smaller schemes.

The manufacturers who might like to go to the North of Scotland and get excellent sites and deep water for easy sea transport, cannot go there, because they do not know at what cost they are to get the power. An impasse has occurred, as far as these smaller stations are concerned. That could be easily overcome if the Minister would have all these schemes investigated and detailed plans and specifications prepared if necessary. Then power companies could come along and say, "This is a suitable place," when a manufacturer was ready to co-operate with them and to erect a factory on the site. There are from 10 to 12 of these schemes. I hope that the Minister will find it possible, when he comes to deal with the proposed legislation, and if there is a subsidy of any kind in connection with the proposed legislation, to provide that a small portion shall be devoted to these stations. We ought to tell private enterprise where power can be got and got cheaply. If the Minister will do that, it will be a great advantage to the country generally, and to that part of the country which I represent in particular.

:I would like, first of all, to say that the Debate has dealt with the technical side of this question, which would have been more appropriate when the Bill dealing with it was before the House. What we have really desired to get from the Minister of Transport to-day was something in the nature of the statement which has actually been made that the Ministry was facing the question with vigour and imagination. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Ministry was charged with the duty of supplying electricity. In any case he was charged with that kind of electricity that did illuminate his speech, for we gained from him at least one thing which made this discussion quite worth while. It was the admission that there is no country in the world that is better situated than our own for the production of electricity upon an adequate and cheap scale, and he rather laid the bogey that we were unable to do this in competition with other nations that had a greater facility in water power. The real point is that we have an advantage in that we are small in area: we have the great advantage of near coalfields, and there are not the vast distances over which the electric power has to be transmitted. If that can be kept in mind we shall probably be willing to go a little faster than many people have advised this afternoon.

What I specially desired to say was a general word in regard to the broad fact of the situation in which this nation finds itself. The state of trade that exists now is ominous and serious almost beyond description. It would appear that we are content to drift slowly towards a kind of paralysis, without having the moral courage to take great issues in hand. It manifests itself in this way— that we are selling less and less and importing enormously more than we have ever imported before. The unemployment which results has, at least, the effect that it is gradually reducing the technical capacity of those who are unemployed. It has been stated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we can regain our trade only if the cost of production is reduced. How is the cost of production to be reduced? The chief way, the immediate way, the easy way, is the suggestion that you should cut down wages on the one hand and extend the hours of labour on the other. But it is not the countries that are working for low wages that are our greatest competitors and our greatest danger at the present time. We are likely to suffer more from the competition, say, of the United States, where wages, are high and where conditions are better than our own. Indeed, in many ways the American people have, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, left us Handing in the matter of doing our own business.

There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. We hear a great deal about the possible recovery of markets. But I desire this point to be remembered —that if ever we do recover those markets, we shall not have the old easy domination of them which we have experienced in the past. Competition will be keener than it has ever been, and I am not sure that our capacities are such as will enable us to meet that new condition. Yet, in spite of that, we are superbly placed geographically, and ought to be able, if the proper facilities are placed at our disposal, to hold our own in the markets of the world. That is, therefore, the justification for the urgent plea that we make, that the fullest possible development of electricity should be undertaken, and undertaken with the least possible delay. We cannot continue to follow the old ways of 50 years ago, and we have to apply to this problem that imagination which was spoken of by the Parliamentary Secretary, and apply a certain moral courage as well, in order to meet the situation. We have, I believe, a very great opportunity before us of making a real new start, if we can get this electricity system developed quickly and on right lines. We do not pretend to say how large super-stations should be, or how small. What we do plead for, however, is that there should be a certain amount of control over them. We should like public ownership and control, but at any rate there should be sufficient control over them to see that the opportunities for development are exploited. Science has given to us this enormous new power for our use. If our capacity to use it is equal to our need, we may begin a new era of trade development and a new period of hope.

:I wish to call the attention of the Minister and of the Committee to one branch of the adminis- tration of the Road Fund which directly affects every rural district. The rural roads, the rural district councils, are not getting a fair share of the Road Fund, and the burden put upon local ratepayers is becoming quite intolerable. In opening this Debate the right hon. Gentleman referred to the 18th century, when roads were the only means of communication. At that time and onward the whole of the upkeep and cost of the roads had been borne by the rural ratepayers of the parishes through which the roads ran. In those days, when the traffic was sparse and was mainly from the localities, that system worked perfectly fairly and well. But with the introduction of motor transport through traffic and long-distance traffic increased enormously, with the result that the roads had to be kept to a very much higher standard, and so kept, not for the benefit of the people who live in the localities, but for the benefit of those who live in the large towns, and who, by means of heavy, fast-moving wagons, send their goods to various parts of the country, and who use our roads, and very properly use the roads, for excursions by chars-a-banc which convey the inhabitants of the towns to the more beautiful parts of the country.

8.0 P.M.

The people who live in the country districts never suggested that a proper proportion of the cost of the roads is not to be borne by them, but they took, and they take, the view that the excess cost of the higher quality of roads required, the cost of the wear and tear of the roads caused by this greatly increased traffic, should not be borne by them. The House of Commons recognised some time ago that there would be considerably increased traffic, and, under the Roads Act, they provided for a taxation of motor cars, which I do not suggest is not heavy, and that the net revenue of those motor taxes should be paid to a fund which should be used for three purposes. That Fund is directly under the charge of the Minister who is responsible for it. He has to use the moneys contributed by the motor car taxes for three purposes: first for maintenance of the roads, secondly for improvement of the roads, and, thirdly, for new construction, and the only limitation provided in these powers is that he should not exceed one-third of his revenue for new construction.

These revenues have increased steadily and rapidly. In the last three years they have increased from £14,000,000 to £15,500,000 and to £17,000,000. This year the Estimate is for £17,800,000, and deducting some statutory charges that come in front, he has a net revenue of something just under £17,000,000 to use.

In carrying out his duties, the Minister and his advisers have laid down this principle, and administered the fund on this principle. They have inspected, or had a sort of census of the roads, and have divided the roads into first and second-class roads, the rest being called unclassified roads. The first-class contains entirely main roads which are repairable by the counties, and he gives 50 per cent, of the cost of the upkeep and maintenance of those main roads out of the Road Fund to the county councils. The second-class road is the road not quite up to a main road. It almost always is repairable by the rural district council, but not in quite all cases. He contributes out of the Road; Fund to the upkeep of those roads 25 per cent., but for the upkeep—and by that I mean maintenance—of the other roads in our rural districts he gives absolutely nothing and that, I am going to urge, is absolutely unjust, and is causing this intolerable burden. It is only recently that we have discovered that none of this money has been given to maintain rural roads. I would mention, at this point, that there are, roughly, about 140,000 miles of highways in the country repairable by the inhabitants, of which, I think, 38,000 are under Classes I and II, and the really rural roads, with which I am chiefly concerned, are about 100,000 miles, although, perhaps, some may make it a little more. This is no new question, because in 1923 we discussed the question, and the House passed this resolution. classified or unclassified, repairable by the inhabitants at large, should receive some share of this fund. I ask the Minister why that has not been done. I will now tell the Committee what, in fact, is being done. The Road Board is chiefly concerned, from our point of view, with the main roads, and it has rightly been declared they are the best in the world. The Minister, or rather his assistant, who is responsible to him, is also using a great deal of money to improve the condition of certain of the best second-class roads, with a view to getting these roads up to concert pitch, and getting them taken over by the county councils as main roads. I put it to this Committee that that is not a fair distribution and fair administration of these funds when the result is that there is nothing, practically, but a very small sum left out of the fund at his disposal. We were led to believe that even this small sum of £1,250,000, or whatever it was a year, was to be used for rural roads, and that it was to be used for maintenance. It has in fact been used for the purpose of taking off corners, making widenings here and there and for reconstruction, but in no case has it ever been used for what is called maintenance and upkeep.

:It all depends on what you call maintenance and upkeep. It is very difficult to enter into technical terms here, but money has been spent on improvements.

:The Minister, I am afraid, is bound down by his own language. He said quite recently, in answer to the hon. Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage):

"As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, it is only the roads included in Class I and Class II which are the subject of grants from the Road Fund in respect of maintenance expenditure, as distinguished from expenditure on larger improvements."

That is the very point I am making. He said again, in answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders):

"No contributions have been made from the Road Fund towards the ordinary maintenance, as distinguished from improvements, of any roads not included either in Class I or Class II."

On two occasions he stated that. Sir Henry Maybury, his chief officer in his Department, came to a meeting of the Agricultural Committee and said the same thing.

:It all depends on what you call improvements. My idea of improvements is, obviously, different from my hon. and learned Friend's.

:I put it in another way. The result of this administration is that no less than 171 different rural district councils throughout England and Wales have never received a single penny from this Road Fund and these taxes—a position that is absolutely indefensible. I said a short time ago that the position was becoming intolerable to the ratepayers in our rural districts. In my own county, in East Sussex, the cost of main roads alone, to say nothing of rural roads, and the cost of main roads after receipt of the 50 per cent, from the Minister, has more than doubled, and the rate has gone up from 11d. to Is. 11d. The rural roads, of course, have gone up very much more, because they get no assistance, but I have not got that figure. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, in one Rural District Council the vote for load maintenance has gone up from Is. 6d. to 6s., and in another the rate from 1s. to 3s. 4d. I think I am within the mark in saying that these rates have increased from 1s. to 3s, in the £ in most rural villages during the last few years, and the great increase has been in recent years. A rate of 6s. in the £ on the inhabitants of our villages, on the farmhouses, on the workmen's houses and on the other houses in our villages is intolerable. In the East Riding Rural District, I know at least 3s. 6d. of the 6s. is due to the use of the roads by people who are not ratepayers in that particular district. It is not part of my business here to argue whether those who use these heavy vehicles, or heavy chars-a-banc, which do the damage should pay for the cost of the roads in the same way as you pay for a railway ticket. Anyone who pays for a railway ticket pays for the cost of maintaining the railway and also for the signalling.

There is one other point I will make. I will not accept an answer from the Prime Minister that he has no money. That would be the easy way out of it. He said that he boasted of his finance, in that he was paying for new construction out of the revenues that he receives. I know the Minister is with me, and he would like to do what I am asking him to do, but it is the Treasury of which he is afraid. He has got the Treasury to face— But this Fund has been appropriated for roads, and it has to be administered fairly. I say without fear of contradiction that it is good finance to borrow the money for capital construction, and only charge against the yearly revenue the interest on the money, with the sinking fund necessary to pay it off in the fixed number of years that experts say is the right time to employ. I say it is bad finance to use yearly taxes to construct new roads, and I say it is unfair finance to take from an old gentleman of 70 or 80 his yearly tax on his motor car in the South of England, and use it for spending on the capital cost of a highway being made for motor-car users in the North of Scotland. What I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to adopt a scheme— and I put this plan to the then Minister When Mr. Bonar Law was Chancellor of the Exchequer—under which money should be borrowed for the construction of new roads, and that this fund should be charged with interest and sinking fund, as a charge on the yearly taxes that he is receiving. That would set free a considerable amount of money, and bring about a more fair distribution. I ask the Minister to tell us to-night that he will carry out the distribution of this Fund more fairly and squarely, as between the various sections of the roads in this country. I am not speaking on my own behalf alone in this matter. At the last Election in every rural Division but one, a Member was returned who sits on this side of the House. There are, perhaps, two or three Divisions which might be claimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but those Divisions are really urban in character, and I will not quarrel about two or three. At any rate, on the committee of which I am chairman we have from 150 to 159 members, and we regard the question of these injustices to the ratepayers in our rural districts as one which must be dealt with. These injustices must cease. I know the Minister in his heart would like to do what I ask, but I am bound to warn the Government that we are determined to have these injustices put right, and, in saying that, I express the practically unanimous view of the Members representing rural constituencies.

:It is not my intention to follow the argument of the last speaker, although I think it can be said that, in case the Minister should be disposed to respond to the hon. and learned Member's appeal, whatever may be felt by the other parts of the community, the farming element would greet that response with pleasure. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to another phase of the road problem in this country. In opening his remarks the Minister said that transport was the basic industry of civilisation, and he went on to congratulate the local authorities on the wonderfully efficient methods employed in collecting the Road Fund. He told us that a colossal sum of money had been collected at the excessively small expense of, I believe, 2¾ per cent. Those congratulations to certain local authorities seem to differ very much from the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards other local authorities who are entitled at least to equal treatment from him, and in some respects to much more consideration than they have been receiving for a long period. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to the spirit of opposition to the Ministry of Transport, which is abroad among local authorities arising out of the Ministry's action in regard to appeals to them against refusals of local licensing authorities to issue licences for unnecessary omnibus services. That spirit was manifested at a recent conference in London of representatives of the municipal tramway authorities in this country. The licensing of motor omnibuses is regulated by Acts of 1847 and 1899, and until 1920, whenever any dispute rose, appeals were made to Quarter Sessions or the High Court. Unless it could be shown that the licensing authority had not acted in a judicial manner or had been influenced by improper considerations, their decisions were upheld. The Roads Act of 1920 did not change the licensing procedure, but it did make a change in the tribunal which dealt with cases in dispute. The Section of the 1920 Act which has caused irritation, reads as follows:

"Where upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Transport from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he thinks fit, and such order shall be binding upon the licensing authority."

The next paragraph is the most important:

"An order made by the Minister under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to appeal to any Court, and shall, on the application of the Minister, be enforceable by writ of mandamus."

The right hon. Gentleman in his early remarks, referring to a real autocrat, mentioned the President of the United States. If this is not the power of an autocrat, I do not know what autocracy means. Notwithstanding the local knowledge of the people who are charged with the duty of making and repairing roads, and controlling traffic in their several districts, if the licensing authority refuses to grant unnecessary omnibus licences, the right hon. Gentleman can overset the local authority and compel the licences to be granted, and against his decision there is no appeal. The right hon. Gentleman said his duty was not a pleasant one, but that the appeals must be heard, and I think he expressed some pleasure that in a large number of cases amicable agreements had been arrived at. The report for 1921–22 shows that the Minister received 80 appeals, and in the following year the number was 50. In 1923–24 he received 78 appeals. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many disputes arose which went to the quarter sessions between 1847 and 1920—that is, during a period of 73 years?

:I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not do so if he could, because of the infinitesimal number of appeals during that period.

:That may be so. That only goes to show that the problem with which the tramway authorities are confronted to-day was not contemplated when the 1920 Act was passed. It was not really understood when the provision I have mentioned Was placed in the Act. Previous experience would have prevented the House of Commons from giving this autocratic power to any Minister, and removing the judicial procedure which had operated previously. Therefore, I suggest that the Ministry, in removing the judicial part of the proceedings under which a fair and honest trial could be given, have adopted a system of diplomacy, and they have brought to bear upon local authorities such influence as almost to compel them, even against their own better judgment, to grant licences where licences were unnecessary. In point of fact, when inspectors are sent down to the districts to deal with some of these disputes, one feels, on reading through the reports, in one or two oases at all events, that the inspector, instead of being an inspector from the Ministry of Transport, has actually been a witness on the part of the omnibus proprietors.

:I must ask the hon. Gentleman to substantiate that statement, as it is a very serious charge to bring against an officer of my Department.

:Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Tod morden case, and if he will read more of the reports, he will find that that comment is by no means out of place in the general experience of the local authorities who are not only responsible for the well being of the transport of their own people, but who have expended some £71,000,000 and who pay 55,000 people weekly wages. The fact that they had conferences in London to make these protests indicates that they are by no means satisfied with the treatment that they have been receiving very recently. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the question of London traffic, said very definitely that if they were going to decrease the congestion, they must curtail the number of omnibuses running in various parts of London, Does he mean to imply that he is going to have one law for London and another for the provinces I Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must know that, as compared with the roads in London, many of the roads in the provinces are much narrower, and lend themselves far less to a large volume of traffic than do the much wider streets of London. Therefore, I suggest that in these cases where local authorities have refused to grant licences, instead of the Minister having full power to impose his will upon the local authorities, that power should be taken from him and a judicial proceeding set up similar to that which obtained before 1920. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will always tell us that the number of agreements reached will justify him and his predecessor in their action, but will he— tell us how many of these so-called amicable agreements have been reached because the Minister has more or less intimated that if they fail to agree he should see that licences were granted over the heads of the licensing authorities?

In my own particular district, I can give him a typical example of the failure of this 1920 Act as we see it in operation. There are four small urban district authorities, which in 1912 realised the necessity for some means of transport in their district. They held private meetings, and finally they held a public meeting, and decided to co-operate for the purpose of having a light railway system to cover one of the South Yorkshire mining areas. They commenced to meet, and they put their machinery in motion to go through the normal procedure, which is not only lengthy but extremely costly, for the purpose of securing the necessary power. In the meantime, an omnibus company came in. They did not give the people a service, but merely put down two large omnibuses in order to give themselves a locus so that they could oppose this joint municipal scheme. They only gave a very small service, but their opposition cost four local urban district councils, where a penny rate in the biggest district would not bring in £200, as much as £16,000 or £17,000 in legal costs. Finally, however, the local authorities secured the power, and, in doing so, they had to secure the sanction of that Government Department which conducted the inquiry and which gave them permission to borrow the money. That was at the end of 1915, hut because of the War, although the powers were granted, they were prevented from borrowing their money at that time.

In the meantime, the omnibus company, which now knew that the local authorities had secured the power, increased the number of omnibuses on this particular route, and so it was that, although the service was no service at all and the price was excessive, the omnibus company dug themselves in and gave a semi-service in some districts, where it was a paying proposition, while the other part of the district got no service at all. In 1921, following the War, this power was renewed, and loan powers were granted, but, again because of hostility from this omnibus company, they were held up until 1924, when a third Government granted them power to borrow the money and permitted them to lay down their lines. What did this omnibus company do? In one district the omnibus company had eight omnibuses when the local authorities commenced to lay down their lines, but in 12 months' time, when the trams had actually commenced to run, where the company used to run eight omnibuses, they increased them to 133. In another district, where there were only eight omnibuses in 1922, they increased the number in 1925 to 126. In other parts of the area they increased them even more than that, and so at the week-ends we find this state of affairs, not in the West End of London, but in a mining area of South Yorkshire, that there are three or four omnibuses coming from different directions, but landing on to the very centre of this particular tramway system, timed for the same second, all running one after another.

I should imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is competition simply run mad, and not only so, but in some parts of the area it is perfectly well known that the omnibus service is redundant. It is not a paying proposition, but it is also making it impossible for the tramway undertaking to become a paying proposition. Therefore, one is bound to reach this conclusion, that the fact that the Government granted power to these local authorities on three different occasions, and, as recently as 1924, power to borrow money was also granted, laid on the Government Department at least a moral obligation to these local authorities, first of all, to secure them against any unfair competition, and, secondly, once the money had been borrowed and expended, to see that these authorities were not driven into the Bankruptcy Court. The Government Department tell us that inquiries are taking place; but it would be just as true to say that the Minister has refused to come to a decision, although he must have known, if he had examined the facts of the case, that the local authorities were correct in their contention, and that the omnibus companies ought never to have been permitted to continue a redundant service. The right hon. Gentleman begs them to meet and come to some sort of agreement. What, however, are the terms that the omnibus companies are prepared, to accept? They will only agree with the joint local authority so long as the authority will give them all they ask. I believe that at the first meeting they did try to secure some agreement, but the omnibus companies wanted the. tramway managers to increase the charges all over their area: they wanted to continue running as many omnibuses as hitherto. To talk about an amicable agreement with an omnibus company of that description is simply asking for the impossible. The thing is never likely to take place.

The weapon employed by the Minister himself is a miserable one. His use of it will not produce harmony between his Department and the local authorities; it is bound to continue to produce more irritation than has been produced up to this moment. I said earlier that the tramway undertakings of this country had been given power by various Governments to spend £71,000,000 to provide transport for their local people. They employ 55,000 workpeople, whose wages are regulated by Whitley Councils. Except for the London General Omnibus Company, and perhaps one or two other large firms, seldom do we find that an omnibus company pays the same rates or give the same conditions of labour as the tramway companies are bound to do. Therefore, we say, from the point of view of the money that the Government have given permission to be expended, from the point of view of the worker, and the point of view of the avoidance of friction between Ministers of State and the local authorities, this Section 24 of the Act of 1920 should be disposed of as quickly as possible.

The local authorities are the best judges of the transport needs of their respective areas. They are always swift to respond to a public demand. They have annual elections. If they fail to meet the needs of their district in three years every member of the council can be turned out of office. On the other hand, in the case of a private company what do they care for a public appeal? When do they respond to the public need? Only when they think it is going to supply them with the biggest possible dividend. This is not a question of municipalisation against private enterprise. It is a question of fairness, justice and equity for the local people. If the local people do not know the needs of their own district and when unnecessary danger is being run, well, I am certain that no inspector, who only comes into a district and examines it perhaps for two or three days, and then goes away, after hearing certain evidence, and issues a report, is as competent to know the needs of the district as the people who live there.

Then I want to submit to the Committee that in very few instances in any part of the country do we find an omnibus company prepared to give a real service for the workpeople who have to travel to work very early in the morning. The tramway companies have to provide this service, very often at a loss. The tramway undertakings are also called upon to pay a large proportion of the road expenses. They have to pay from one-half to two-thirds of the cost of the maintenance of the roads, and so much of the road around. On the other hand, the omnibus people pay £70 in the provinces and £84 in London, and that is the end of their obligation. They have not to appeal to Parliament for powers to run. They have not got to wait for nine or ten months before they can make a start. If they buy an omnibus they can start to-morrow morning, whether an omnibus is necessary or not, for they know if the Minister is appealed to he will supersede the local authority.

My submission is that if the local authorities do not know when there is an adequate service in their district the Minister of Transport cannot tell them. At least we might expect this; that after all the other disadvantages to which the local authorities are subjected, they should be given the credit of knowing what the needs are of their own districts. I want to suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should condescend to do more for the local authorities in regard to the matters put forward than he has done up to the present moment.

Local authorities throughout the country who have been compelled to purchase poor tramway undertakings when it was found that the service was not good, will not be compelled in future years to purchase out these omnibus undertakings when vested interests have been created against the better judgment of the local people. For these various reasons, I hope the Minister of Transport will reconsider his attitude, and will not retain for himself those autocratic powers which the Act has given him, but will, at least, allow the various appeals to have a judicial settlement, with fairness and equity all round.

:The last speaker has given, I think, a very good answer to his own case. The necessary powers put into the hands of the Minister of Transport should be taken from him because the Minister of Transport has superseded the local authority! Who is the local authority? They are the gentlemen who run the tramways. The hon. Member has spoken about equity and justice, but he wants the local authorities to do justice in their own cause which no man has ever yet been able to do.

:May I correct the hon. and learned Gentleman? I did not say that the local authorities ought to be the judges in their own cause, but that when disputes arise they should be settled at Quarter Sessions, or in the High Court, as was done prior to the 1920 Act.

:The hon. Gentleman is not aware that when cases went to the High Court they went, not on their merits, but on points of law. The whole difference now is that with this particular Section of the Act you are able to consider the merits of the case. If you desired justice you have to go a distance for it. You never get justice from your neighbour. Local people are the last people in the world to decide who are the right persons to run the tramways. If they have invested their money they will not tolerate any opposition. They say: "Here is a man with an omnibus, he is a stranger, let us heave a brick at him." That is the attitude towards any competition. I have never in my life heard such intolerent speeches as those of the little local Bumbles in these municipal boroughs. They said, "We have £70,000,000,000 of capital invested, and we must not lose"

:Seventy millions of capital invested, and they said, " We must not have these modern omnibuses. We admit "—it practically came to that —" that we are running an obsolescent system which, if left to the due course of science and nature, is bound to die a natural, economic death. We do not care what happens to the convenience of the public. That does not matter. We must not be found to be in the wrong." They knew perfectly well that if they were a private enterprise and tried to carry on obsolete tramways and light railways —plant of that kind—they would die a natural death, as men in private enterprise do when they do not keep up to date. But they are municipalities, they are corporations, and they must not die; and they want to be not only in the position of entrepreneurs, people who engage in enterprise, but they want to sit in a quasi-judicial position to decide whether they are giving an adequate service or not. Nobody else is to come into their district. Did Members ever hear a more Gilbertian position. And yet we are talking here about equity and justice and fairness. We should get equity and justice and fairness from the Ministry of Transport, who would send down a perfectly independent and skilled man, who would go into a town and in a few days would easily tell whether a licence ought to be withheld. The proper way is to take away from these local authorities the power of having anything to do with licensing. The body which is running the tramways has no right to interfere in the question of licences. It would prejudge. It could not give a fair decision. It is bound to give a corrupt, biassed, and selfish decision. Therefore I sincerely trust that this power which is called autocratic, because it differs from the opinions of hon. Members on the other side will be retained. It is called autocratic and tyrannical, but it is only consistent with justice that an outside man should come in to decide questions of this kind, and I think that view will be sternly upheld by every man who wishes to have purity of administration in this country.

If we had had motor transport on the roads away back in the 'thirties, which the railways prevented, we would never have had the congestion of population as it is to-day, and half of the railways in this country would never have been built. And yet an hon. Member has told us about an area which is so benighted, mediæval and so far away behind the times—in the Middle Ages—that in the year 1925 it starts to build light railways. Any place like that deserves all the punishment it gets. It ought to be run over by all the motor omnibuses in a row. These little, parochial, parish pump people who have not the sense to see that they are engaging in a ridiculous and antiquated enterprise deserve all they get, and I heartily wish they may go into liquidation.

An hon. Member finds fault with the omnibuses. He says there are too many omnibuses. Of course there are. That is the natural law of competition, and of the survival of the fittest, instead of the support of the antiquated, mediæval and the privileged. There was one question touched upon by the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). I think it is only one more point in the whole universe of ideas on which I am not likely to take the same point of view as the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, one of the numerous leaders of the Liberal party. He spoke of London transport, and asked whether the London Traffic Act had made it any better, and he taunted the Minister of Transport. I do not taunt either the Minister of Transport or the London Traffic Act. They succeeded to what we call in the law a damnosa hereditas, that is, a nasty mess. The London Traffic Act was a concoction which was pushed through this House by a joint alliance of a great combine of capital on the one hand and a great combine of labour on the other. They "pulled the wool over the eyes" of Members of the House of Commons, and we got this Act, and the Minister of Transport is doing his best to make a job of it. He will never make a job of it, because how can we regulate transport when we do not regulate the number of passengers, and say at what hour they are to leave their houses and to return? To say that you will regulate the traffic by regulating the number of omnibuses is perfectly ridiculous.

The congestion of transport was deliberately provoked by the combine crowding the streets with innumerable omnibuses because they wanted to make congestion. Then the chairman of the combine wept tears at the congestion which he and his company had caused. He was exactly in the same position as the cannibal youth who wept tears for being a poor orphan after he had eaten his parents. He caused the congestion and then he complained about it, and then we got the London Traffic Act run through the House and all sorts of Regulations made which will inevitably lead to monopoly. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), to his credit, refused to give a monopoly, and so this particular Bill was engineered to get a monopoly, and I defy the Minister of Transport to escape his fate, though I know he wants to act with the utmost fairness and justness about the scheduling of streets and the licensing of omnibuses. The member of the Transport Union who organised the strike which most harmoniously took place just before the London Traffic Act was rushed through Parliament says that every pirate omnibus should live and die on its own route. I saw the other day that a man had been summoned and fined because he had changed the route of his omnibus. Why should he not change his route, if the other was not paying? Cannot hon. Members see that he was going where the people were, and it is the duty of the omnibuses to go where the people are. Where the quarry is there will the eagles be gathered together, and so will omnibuses go where there are passengers. The London Traffic Act is deliberately framed to interfere with the law of supply and demand, which we get from on high, which is a necessary law, and of course that is bound to result in a worse mess, as we see. There is the case of Waterloo Bridge. It is all very well, this idea of rebuilding it, but I am assured by an eminent engineer that if you put sufficient weight on the piles it will sink down on to the top of the piles and the things will go washing down, and that it is not necessary to pull it down at all.

On the question of the distribution of electricity, I want to touch on a point that has not been referred to by anybody in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that to get a big enough load for the output of station is one of the main things in cheapening production. That is essential. It is the same with every business. If you can get a maximum turnover and can keep all the plant going, you can make a profit, but if the business is working below its capacity, if it be only 10 per cent below, you are probably making a loss. I would ask the Minister of Transport to consider the suggestion which I put forward about a couple of years ago, and for which I got support from many eminent engineers, and that is that the development of electricity should proceed parri passu with the electrification of our railways; either the railways should produce their own electricity, or take it from the power companies and so provide the necessary load for those companies. The mains should pass along the railway lines. You would have your way-leaves all ready. There would be no necessity to get Parliamentary powers. The railways pass through every district in the United Kingdom, and pass near every hamlet and farmhouse. It would be worth the while of many of the railways to run electrically if they were not run as railways alone, but had distribution powers along their route.

According to the statement of an eminent American engineer, an electrified railway is three times more capable of taking transport, three times more efficient than a steam railway. An electric locomotive is never in the repair shed. It lasts for years, whereas a steam locomotive is always in and out of the shed, and for shunting and working in goods yards it is five to six times more efficient to use electricity than steam. That ought to be seriously taken into consideration right away, and there should be a heavy loadline for getting cheap electricity.

I was very much amused to hear what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the expenditure on transport in the Highlands, because if there is one place which requires transport facilities where it would pay the country to provide them, it certainly is the Highlands. The Highlands should be the playground of the people of this country, because there is no finer place, and if you had great roads running through the Highlands and the Western Highlands, then we should have more people visiting there. At present all this is in the hands of an extraordinary monopoly, and the people are penalised to such an extent that it is almost impossible for them to get about. It is true that there is a very big postal subsidy paid for the Highlands, but I hope the Minister of Transport will take this matter into consideration, and realise that steamers for the Islands are just as necessary as roads for the people on the mainland. After the Napoleonic Wars, and even during the earlier wars of the so-called revolution in 1745, the military were used largely for making roads, and I think after the late War it would have paid us to have kept a large part of the Army mobilised and have used it for providing better accommodation by roads, for that would have been highly profitable, and woul3 have considerably reduced the number of unemployed.

:The hon. Gentleman will remember that the so-called Slough Transport Company was one of the crooked pieces of business that the Government indulged in, and they sold all the plant there to private enterprise.

:If you could not take all those things and put them at the bottom of the sea it would certainly have been better to have used them in order to develop road transport. The celebrated Crinan Canal has been taken over by the Government, but the charges are still very high for fishermen putting in their boats, and I do hope that the Government in regard to such charges will go back to something like the pre-War standard. All these heavy charges are now being visited on the shoulders of those who use that canal. All the products of that district and all the raw material has got to go through the Crinan Canal, and at present it is very much overcharged. This is the high road for passengers and surely it is a very short-sighted policy to charge such very high rates. I believe a Committee is being set up to deal with the whole question and we hope to get a report from it very soon.

9.0 P.M.

The roads in the Highlands are used by motorists from all parts of the world, particularly those roads leading up to the Pass of Glencoe, which is associated, not only with the clan of my own name, but also with the clan bearing the name of the Leader of the Opposition. A great deal more requires to be done because, in some areas, a penny rate will yield only about £200, and yet we have roads in Scotland used by scores of motor cars bringing people to view the beauties of the Highlands, and, therefore, there is need for a form of nationalisation of the roads. That is one Communistic enterprise with which we are in sympathy. Make as many roads as you can, but do not put all the expenditure on the local authorities, because that only impoverishes them, and makes it impossible for them to supply (those they want to attract with roads suitable for the needs of the travelling public.

:In addressing the House for the first time, I ask for that indulgence which is so freely given to a new Member. I wish to put in a plea to the Minister of Transport on behalf of the rural districts. There is a feeling among rural authorities that they are not getting a sufficient grant from what is now a very considerable Fund. In 1919 the Road Fund amounted to £1,600,000, but to-day we have been told that the Fund amounts to £16,700,000, and is used for three purposes. In the first place, it is used for the construction of new roads; secondly, for the maintenance of Class I and Class II roads; and thirdly, it is for the improvement of certain roads in rural districts. What I want to put to the Minister of Transport is that I do not think it right that about one-third of this Fund should go towards making entirely new roads in this country. I am one of those who believe that if new roads be required, and I admit that they are, they should be paid for by loan, and made by capital expenditure, and not out of the annual income of this Fund, towards which all the motorists of this country contribute. If that were so, it would leave a considerable proportion of the Fund over, which, to my mind, should go towards the relief of unclassified roads in rural areas.

The second point I wish to make is that during the last two years about £3,750,000 has been allotted for the improvement of roads in rural areas, and, owing to these improvements, about 550 miles a year, I believe, are classified as either Class 1 or Class 2 roads, and a considerable portion of this money is expended on grants to the unemployed. I think that that is a very excellent object, but in some of the rural districts, especially in a part of the Division which I have the honour to represent, there is a great feeling among the agricultural community that skilled agricultural workers, when they are very badly wanted in that industry, are being taken, through the medium of the Employment Exchanges, by means of the money which the Minister of Transport has given in grants for improvement purposes. I would instance the improvements which have been made on the Gunthorpe Bridge, which is just outside my Division. I have had many representations from farmers around that district that it is almost impossible for them to keep their land cultivated, because so many of their skilled men are taken for the improvement of this bridge.

:Now I come to the next point, which is the question of the maintenance of roads. Of the 150,000 miles of roads in England and Wales, over 80 per cent. get no grant at all from the Ministry of Transport, that is to say, only 30,000 miles get any grant at all, and one generally finds that those districts which are the poorest, have the most scattered population, and the largest mileage in their rural areas, are the districts which are suffering so severely at the present time. The rates, as the Committee will fully appreciate, have been doubled as regards expenditure on roads as compared with 1914. In my own county of Leicester, the county council rate for general purposes—which, of course, includes chiefly roadmaking— has gone up from 1s. 7¼d. in 1914 to 4s. 7½d. to-day, while the net expenditure in this particular county on the roads has gone up from £43,000 in 1914 to £130,000 to-day. Therefore, my submission is that these rural areas cannot afford the enormous drain which is made on their resources for the upkeep of roads. I quite agree that this Fund was primarily started by the payments of motorists towards making new roads, but I venture to say that the larger proportion of motorists to-day would far sooner see this money expended on keeping the present roads in a good state of repair than on making a large number of roads to fashionable seaside resorts.

I would submit to the Minister of Transport that he could quite easily make a flat rate of so much per mile for all rural roads. I noticed, from a question asked in the House the other day, that a grant of £10 a mile for rural unclassified roads in this country would cost only £1,250,000, and I think that, although that is not very much, it would be of very great assistance to those who are under such enormous expenditure to-day. In my county we appreciate that besides motors there is horse traffic. I think the Committee will agree that the Division which I have the honour to represent is not unknown in connection with horses, and I submit that, when the Minister of Transport is making grants for the improvement of roads, he should lay down, as one of the stipulations of those grants, that at least the roads should be made passable for horses, whether they be in farmers' carts, or hunters, or whatever else they may be. I would appeal to the Minister to consider really seriously the desperate condition of these rural roads, and ask him whether in the future he will do something to give us relief.

:I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on his exceedingly interesting speech. I do not propose to follow him in his quest for assistance for rural roads, nor do I propose to follow the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) in his amusing ramifications from the Napoleonic Wars to the Crinan Canal, except that I did want to throw out a thought for hi3 consideration, and that is, that when next he indulges in soliloquies as to the terrible effect of the London Traffic Combine, and at the same time couples with them a spirited defence of the omnibus owners in the Provinces, he might make some investigation as to the number of these provincial omnibus companies that are really subsidiary companies to the London Traffic Combine. I commend that line of study to him.

I listened attentively this afternoon to a very admirable survey of the work of his Department from the Minister of Transport. I ventured, while he was speaking, to interrupt him with regard to the question whether any of the proposed new expenditure of the railway companies was going to be for electrification, and to the disappointment, I think, of the whole Committee, he replied that, as far as he was aware, the railway companies did not propose during the ensuing 12 months to spend any money on electrification. In putting that question, I had in my mind, as the Parlia- mentary Secretary probably knows, the fact that at least one railway company, the London and North Eastern Railway Company, have made what amounts to almost a definite promise for some years past to electrify their northern suburban line, but we are still waiting for them to begin to do it. I should like to thank the Minister for the promise he has made to have an investigation into the possibilities of more tubes being driven underground. I have very little sympathy with the view which, I think, was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, that all a man with an omnibus has to do, if he is not making a living on one route, is to dodge on to another one, then go back to the original one, and run about in that way. That is a form of competition which my hon. Friends here would probably describe as competition run mad. I think the ultimate solution, so far as anything can be said to be a solution, of the congestion of London traffic, can only lie in getting many of the millions of London's working population to travel to and from their employment underground.

May I direct the attention of the Committee for a few moments to one phase of this problem which has not been touched upon in the Debate so far? The Minister pointed out that the Road Fund for this year would amount, roughly, to £17,000,000, and, as far as one can ascertain, the total annual expenditure upon the roads in this country of all kinds will amount to somewhere about £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. I think that is the approximate figure. The point I want to put to the Committee, and in particular to the Minister of Transport, is this: Are the Ministry of Transport satisfied that they are getting full value for this enormous amount of money? I want to raise the question, because I do not think it has ever been raised in the House before, as to whether the country is getting full value for the amount of money that is being spent, and also as to whether the Minister of Transport is sure that an unduly large share of the Road Fund is not finding its way into the pockets of those who toil not, neither do they spin, namely, the shareholders of road construction companies and dealers in road construction materials? It seems to me quite an important point that, if £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of public money is going to be spent every year, the public and the Minister responsible should take every precaution to see that the public are getting full value for their money, and that a considerable proportion of that money is not going, not into expenditure on roads at all, but into the pockets of the shareholders of these large companies. I have just taken three at random, which I should like to give the Committee. The first is the Dunstable Portland Cement Company, for whom the Government has recently guaranteed a loan of £100,000 under the Trade Facilities Act. The last prospectus issued by the company said:

An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?

:I am not discussing the question of why not at present except from this point of view, that I am concerned as to whether a very large sum of public money is going to be spent on the roads, and I am concerned that an unduly large share of it is not being spent on roads, but on dividends for shareholders. The second case I was going to give is the Limmer and Trinidad Lake Asphalte Company. In 1916–17 the profits made by this company were a mere 7½ per cent. In 1918 they went up to 10 per cent., in 1919 15 per cent., in 1920 17½ per cent., in 1921 15 per cent. plus a bonus of 10 per cent., in 1922 22½ per cent., and in 1923 the chairman, at the annual meeting, in a glowing speech, announced that they had made a record profit of £107,000 on a capital of £500,000. The interesting reflection occurs to me that for the last week or two we have heard until we are almost sick and tired of hearing from the other side, and from our own as well, stories of the terrible trade depression the country is passing through and the terrible struggle people are having to keep their businesses going. Here is an instance of a company, getting its business almost exclusively from public funds, on a capital of £500,000 making a profit of £107,000.

:I can enlighten the hon. Member if he. wants to pursue the subject further. There is another point. There are several companies in this country who are not prepared to bow the knee to the big construction companies, and steps are being taken to deprive them of the necessary materials to enable them to tender for certain contracts. I want to give one more, and that is the well-known firm called Tarmac Limited. I read this paragraph in a newspaper recently:

I should like to make two suggestions, neither of which will probably be acceptable to the Government, but I make them for what they are worth. The first is that the Minister should encourage local authorities to get this work done by direct labour wherever possible. The second is that he should use the powers given him in the new Bill which will become law in the ordinary course of events in a few weeks—the Roads Improvement Bill—to make experiments not only into the quality and durability of the material, not only, as some hon. Members opposite were keen to get him to do in Committee, to inquire whether British material could be used on every possible occasion, but also to make inquiries whether the prices charged are justifiable. I am not pretending to any kind of financial knowledge but as an ordinary layman one cannot but be struck with the way in which these large road construction and road material companies are gradually consolidating their forces and interlocking with each other and forming what I think is getting dangerously near a huge combine in road material. I have given as evidence three cases—one could have given 30 almost as easily—of what I think everyone will admit are very large amounts of money which are being taken out of the Road Fund, not in order to improve the roads at all but to go into the pockets of the shareholders of these gigantic concerns, and I should like the Minister to give his attention to the matter. As the fund is a growing fund the evil is a growing evil and it requires the closest and most scrupulous investigation to see how far the public are being defrauded by these huge combinations and what steps can be taken to put a stop to it.

:If I may be permitted to make a general remark on the progress of the Debate, I should like to say that in my opinion the Minister and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who so ably assists him may account themselves fortunate that the attack which is being made on their fortress is being dissipated over a number of subjects, because on each and all of them there is so much to be said in evidence of the inactivities of the Department and so little to be said to support any material assistance which they give to the people of the country that it would be a splendid thing if we could have two days to debate each and every one of the subjects which have been started to-day. I never cease to wonder at the almost daily paradox which is displayed to the House on the other side. We had it to-day in the form of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who got up and, with a vigour which was more characteristic of those benches, trounced and denounced the Minister of Trans- port; said that he refused to take this and that answer, and he must insist that this and that thing should be done. We have heard that almost daily from the other side, but I notice the Minister never took any notice of the speech, because he knew when the Division was taken the hon. and learned Member would follow behind him into the Government Lobby. There was a more remarkable paradox in the case of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). When we were debating the case of the private omnibus owners who were being kicked off the street, the hon. Member was to be found on our side. We were a very email band and it was in the small hours of the morning. We were greatly comforted by the fact that the hon. and learned Member was as emphatic in his denunciation of the Ministry of Transport as we were. I formed the opinion to-day that the Minister had been saying something very persuasive to him, because he opened his speech with a panegyric and defended them most ably against attacks from this side.

I will touch on another subject. If anyone expects the Debate on the subject which I shall deal with to be in any way scintillating or bright, he will be disappointed, but I think it is perhaps better to warn them of this beforehand, and then no Member will be able to say, "In that time I could usefully have taken a little dinner." I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the work which is being carried on and the work which is not being carried on by the Railway Rates Tribunal. In the Act of 1921, which empowered the railway companies of this country to amalgamate into four groups, it was also provided that the public should be protected against the effects of the limited competition by a tribunal which was to be set up under the Act, and be able to decide whether the fares and the facilities provided by the companies were fair or inadequate. The tribunal was set up, but we found that they postponed year after year and month after month the establishment of the appointed day. The scheme contemplated the 1st January, 1923, as the appointed day under which the function of that tribunal were to be fully taken on. It is now May, 1925, and not only has the tribunal made practically no progress in its work, but it seems as if they are not going to make any progress. There are those not very familiar with these particular subjects. I do not think I should have been interested except that three years ago I took sufficient interest to write a small book on it, and when I went to the library and asked if that book was there, I found, to my disgust and dismay, that they had not got it. When I further inquired why he had not got it, he added insult to injury by saying that nobody had asked for it. I commend that book to the notice of some hon. Members on this side.

This is indeed a vastly important matter, because owing to the fact that the appointed day is being postponed from year to year by the Railway Rates Tribunal, the railway companies are deriving all the benefits of amalgamation and the public are not getting protected against the elimination of competition. There are no disadvantages to the companies in the postponement of the appointed day, and there are a large number of disadvantages to the public because the Tribunal had not only no control over the charges but until the appointed day is established they have no control over season tickets and very little control over the fares charged to passengers at all. I think the Committee will agree that that is an important matter. I am going to read, for the Minister's benefit, Section 22 of the Act of 1921, which imposes an obligation upon him to intervene before this Tribunal to see that the public is propertly treated by the railway companies: other things, to appoint 24 additional members of that tribunal if he thinks those already on it are inadequate to carry out the duties assigned to it. The tribunal is also responsible to the House of Commons under Sections 31 and 32, which direct the tribunal to settle the standard charges by January, 1923, if possible. The Ministry of Transport has permitted them—I admit it is within his power to do so—to postpone that date until it seems indefinitely postponed, and the public are never going to get the benefit of the safeguarding provisions of the Railway Act, 1921. That is not the full tale of the manifold omissions of the right hon. Gentleman. He is empowered to take measures to secure the standardisation of railway wagons and also to take measures to improve the types of railway wagons. If I may borrow a phrase from Question Time, I should like to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are aware that on the Continent and in the United States practically all the railway wagons carrying minerals carry from 20 to 40 tons. In this country they carry only from 10 to 20 tons.

That is a very serious matter and I put it forward as a suggestion which might be examined by the right hon. Gentleman that he should take steps to ensure that these companies, which were paid such large sums as compensation and have proved so reluctant to expend these sums in the improvement of their stations and rolling stock, should examine the possibility of spending some of this vast reserve in increasing the capacity of trucks from 10 and 20 to 20 and 40 tons. If we can only reduce the cost of transport of coal by 2d. per ton, that amount is frequently sufficient to secure that export orders which would otherwise have gone to some foreign country will come to this country. There is not likely to be any disorganisation in the railway lines if that course were taken. I find on inquiry that 95 per cent. of the coal traffic of this country is carried in lots of more than 20 tons, and I think that being the general principle that those small wagons are a wasteful method of transporting our minerals. Anyone who has been abroad and comes back and sees those little things on our railways, they look like toys. Toys they are when we come to compare them with other railways, and very expensive toys, too. I want also to ask whether he proposes to take any steps to eliminate the wasteful system of private wagons for the conveyance of minerals in this country. Practically the whole mineral trade of this country, coal and other forms of minerals, is carried in private wagons. That system results in the most complete disorganisation of the lines; a most disgraceful waste in the conveyance of these wagons back empty one way, and their being left for months far away from the pit head, while all the time coal is waiting to be shipped from the pit head. I put that suggestion forward so that the Parliamentary Secretary can add it to his notes, which must be very copious by now. I should think it will require about three hours to answer the criticisms which have been made. As there are other hon. Members who wish to criticise the Ministry of Transport—I do not think there have ever been so many Members getting up simultaneously with the object of addressing the House—I will bring my remarks to a close.

No less than £250,000,000 a year is spent in transport charges in this country. Our transport system is comparable to the great industry of agriculture and the coal industry as the basis of our economic system. I think the transport system can be justly described as the third great pillar of the economic fabric of this country. What is the Ministry of Transport doing to live up to the high responsibilities which have been imposed upon it? We listened to the Minister to-day to what was supposed to be a survey of the duties which lie in front of him. I listened, as did the whole of the Committee, hoping we should hear something about the electrification of the railways, or about the making of new trunk roads, or about a new tube to the East End of London, which is as badly needed as anything. We expected we should hear something like that, but instead we found that his æsthetic eye was taken up with wayside advertisements, ancient bridges, and the decoration of roads in order to make them look a little more beautiful, as they are in France. In the spare time which he can afford, after making an æstethic study of the transport needs of this country, he turns round and kicks the poor private omnibus owners from the streets of London, without giving them any notice. All these things warrant strong criticism, and I only wish I could have made it stronger. The people of this country are, I believe, unaware of the responsible duties which are attached to the Ministry of Transport. If they ever wake up to find out what those duties are, and how they are being carried out, they will make short shrift of the Ministry of Transport.

:In view of the remarks just made by the hon. and gallant Member, I wish particularly to congratulate the Minister of Transport on his efforts to make our new arterial roads as attractive as possible, and particularly for the efforts he is putting forward to see that the beauties of our old roads and old bridges are preserved when those old roads and old bridges are being altered to enable them to cope with modern traffic. I would like to make a few suggestions for consideration by the Minister of Transport. In the first place, I would refer to the desirability that when our new arterial roads are being constructed we should purchase a strip of land on either side of the road. The Minister of Transport has power to obtain a strip of land of 220 yards on each side of the road, and I hope he will tell us, when he replies to the Debate, why these powers are not being exercised. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and other hon. Members will agree that the country, through the Road Fund, should have the benefit which is produced by the increase in the value of the land due to these new roads being constructed.

:The Minister of Transport may take the view that it would not do for him to tie up the Fund at his disposal in this particular way. All I suggest is, that when these roads are being laid out, this extra land should be purchased and that immediately the roads have been constructed the land at the side of the roads should be resold to the highest bidder, with suitable restrictions. If that were done it would make an enormous difference to the cost of the roads.

:It is very necessary that power be taken as soon as possible to prescribe building lines on our first-class and second-class roads. I do not know whether it is realised, but I suppose it is realised by most hon. Members, that road transport is only in its infancy at the present time. In America there is one motor vehicle to every seven of the population, while in this country there is one motor vehicle to every 34 of the population. So that when the time comes that all working men are capitalists — that is what we on this side of the House desire— and they have motor cars, even if the population of this country does not increase, and our development is equal to the development in America, there will be five times as many motor cars on our roads as there are at the present time. It will be very necessary then to reconstruct our roads, and it is most desirable that we shall not then have to face the cost of demolishing houses that are built too near the roadside. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir Douglas Newton) has, I believe, recently introduced a Bill on that subject, and I hope it will receive the sympathetic support of the Minister of Transport. A further point is the question of speed limit and the police. On the whole, the present arrangements are being carried out satisfactorily.

:I do not think that matter arises on the Estimate for the Ministry of Transport.

:I am sorry I am not permitted to pursue that argument. Another point is the question of the tarring of our roads. Recently, it has been the experience of a good many motorists that in putting down tar on our roads the whole of the road has been covered, and no part of the road left free for traffic. When the tar is spread, it is necessary for the tarring process to be followed as quickly as possible by what is called the gritting process, that is, the spreading of some grit material over the tar. There was a case the other day in Fitzjohn Avenue, where the tar had been spread right across the road, and a good many motorists were crawling along the side of the road, with their wheels in the gutter, trying to avoid the effect of the tar on their tyres. Then an old oar came along the road at a good speed, and sprayed the cars. Instructions should be given to see that the tarring operations are immediately followed by the spreading of the grit, and that there shall always be a space left along which cars can pass without damaging them. One further point. I was rather alarmed to read the Report of the London County Council in reference to the deficit on the tramway undertaking. It is stated that this undertaking shows a deficit on the current financial year of no less than £199,000, and they anticipate that there will be a net deficit amounting to £286,000 in the working of the tramways for the year 1924–25!

:May I ask if that figure is after the contributions for the upkeep of the roads and the interest and the sinking fund charges have been paid?

:I do not know whether it is a gross or a net figure. The point which I want to make is this, that the hope is expressed by the highway authorities that the Traffic Advisory Committee will be able to rearrange the provision of passenger transport according to the requirements of each district, and thus eliminate unnecessary competition. They say:

"Without such elimination it appears to us that no lasting remedy can be secured against the prevention or recurrence of the present position, and in our opinion it is the line along which relief can most legitimately and reasonably be hoped."

I hope that the Minister of Transport will be able to give us an. assurance that the Traffic Advisory Committee will not be used to bolster up any archaic form of locomotion. All these different forms of locomotion should be allowed to compete with one another. It would not do at all if the Committee committed itself to one type of road transport. Lastly, when the Minister of Transport comes to consider the provisions of the new Bill, which I understand he is to introduce shortly, I would like him to consider an anomaly in reference to the speed limit of commercial motor vehicles. It is necessary, all of us realise, for the cost of carriage in this country to be as low as possible, and it is most undesirable that artificial restrictions should be placed upon carriage, thus tending to increase prices. According to our present law if a vehicle unladen weighs not more than two tons it may haul a trailer at 20 miles an hour. If it weighs one ounce over two tons it is restricted to five miles an hour. That restriction, if carried out, would certainly increase the cost of transport very considerably indeed.

:I ask the indulgence of the Committee for making yet another change in the subject of debate against the Ministry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from the bench below the Gangway said that it was a mistake to dissipate the forces of the Opposition in not concentrating an attack upon one subject, but as he himself went away from the subject under discussion, and as other Members have been granted the opportunity of introducing new matters into the Debate, I may be perhaps forgiven for following their example. Let the serious nature of the subject be my excuse. I have had occasion to question the Minister of Transport upon the great increase in the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents that have occurred all over the country, and more especially in London. Up to the present I have had no satisfaction at the hands of the Minister of Transport. The serious nature of the position is fully borne out by the figures supplied by the Ministry itself, and I need only refer to the returns of the past two years to convince the Committee that my intervention in the Debate is not without good cause.

For the year ending December, 1923, the number of fatal accidents in the metropolitan area was 668. That is 668 deaths as the result of what I consider to be the negligence of the Ministry of Transport or the Home Office in not taking systematic steps to prevent this great toll of human life. In addition to the fatal accidents, in 1923 there were 31,001 non-fatal accidents in the police area of London. When we come to the figures for 1924 we find that a very serious increase has taken place. In 1923 the number was 668 and in 1924 the number was 844, an increase of 176, and during that period no effort apparently was made by the Ministry of Transport to bring about any measures likely to reduce the number of fatal and other accidents which were tending to increase during that period. The number of non-fatal accidents in 1924 in London was 35,909, an increase of 4,908. One would have thought that the attention of the Ministry having been called to the increase which had taken place so recently, during the past 12 months, they would have at least set the London Traffic Advisory Committee to work to see what steps might be taken to bring about a reduction in the number of accidents. I put a question to the Minister only a short time ago. His answer was to the effect that the Traffic Advisory Committee were considering proposals for a better regulation of the traffic, and he thought that when those proposals had been put into operation in all probability there would be a reduction in the number of accidents.

We have had a few proposals put forward for the better regulation of the traffic, but I fail to understand how any proposals designed for the purpose of facilitating the traffic and reducing the amount of obstruction to the traffic is going in any way to tend to reduce the number of accidents caused by vehicles in London. If you are going to speed up the traffic, if you are going to reduce the congestion, in all probability the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, will increase, and while I have no objection to the congestion being reduced and would welcome any proposals that will speed up traffic through the highways of London, yet, in the absence of any measures for the purpose of preventing this rapid increase in the number of accidents, I would deplore any proposals for speeding up the traffic if they are to add to the toll of human life and injury. In view of the fact that the Ministry has given no indication that the Traffic Advisory Committee is giving serious consideration to this important matter, I shall expect the Minister of Transport to say what he has in his mind with a view of reducing this appalling toll of human life.

I put it to him that, if he has appointed a Committee for the special purpose of advising him on London transport, surely not the least important item for consideration should be consideration of the fate of men, women and children in London and other big towns. The percentage of accidents in London is far higher than in any other town in the kingdom. There must be a reason for this. I expect the Minister to find out why that should be. Day after day we hear of children and of men and women being struck down without warning, merely because there is no systematic regulation laid down, not merely to obviate the congestion of traffic, but to promote the safety of pedestrians in the street. I appeal to the Minister, even though he may not be able to give a satisfactory answer to my complaint to-night—I do not expect it—in view of the seriousness of the problem, to try to persuade his Advisory Committee to take such steps as they may think advisable and necessary to bring about a reduction, and so prevent this serious toll upon the human life of the Metropolis.

10.0 P.M.

:During this Debate references have been made to the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, and as a member of that Committee I would like to point out what the Committee has done in a comparatively short time, and the tasks which are before it. We came into existence at the end of last year, so that we have had practically five months of life. Even the most optimistic Members of this House can hardly expect us to have exercised a magician's wand over the tangle of London traffic in so short a time. But we have achieved something. We have made a very considerable first step, and I would like to tell the Committee what we have done. In the first place, we have succeeded in stabilising London traffic. We have settled that the traffic which was existing on 1st January of this year shall be the standard, and from that point we can now begin what may be comparatively slow progress in reform. We have stabilised the number of omnibuses in the main streets of London, and that task has been no easy task. The officials of the Ministry and of Scotland Yard have shown the most wonderful tact, patience and skill in dealing with the cases of many men who, perhaps ill-advisedly, entered into commitments for omnibuses when the Minister's Order came into existence. These men have been found new routes, and, with the exception of a very few of them, they are now satisfied, and are earning livelihoods on routes which, apart from our stabilisation, would not have come into existence at all.

Let me say a word about the trams. Hon. Members on this side of the House have expressed some doubt as to whether we should continue the trams. Let me say frankly at once that I think it is the opinion of the Advisory Committee that the tramway services of London are a vital necessity for the traffic of London. I would further remind the Committee that the Act of Parliament was passed because of a very definite undertaking that was given to the tramway system of London. It will be remembered that as a consequence of the disastrous strike of last year the then Prime Minister gave a definite undertaking that he would introduce a Traffic Bill in order to give those great operators the protection to which they were entitled if they would agree to give increased wages to the men on strike. Figures have been given about the losses of the London trams during last year. Those figures, serious as they are, do not quite represent the full story. The London County Council trams have lost in the past year, not £199,000, but £557,000. They have been allowed, and I think rightly allowed, by the Treasury to suspend their sinking fund, which amounts to £290,000 a year for three years, and that brings their loss down to about £200,000. The tramways associated with the London General Omnibus Company have lost £250,000 and the trams associated with West Ham and Ilford have lost £58,000. Yet we want to keep them on, and I will tell the Committee why.

These great tramway undertakings, relying on the pledge of the late Prime Minister, have been conducting this terrible struggle during the past year. If they can be assured of that protection which they were guaranteed, these trams will not only cease to make losses, but should be, if possible, financial successes. What do we propose to do on the advisory committee? The Minister, I am sure, will allow me to say that he has given notice that he proposes to restrict, or rather to stabilise, the omnibuses working on tramway routes. The cutthroat and unlimited competition which has been going on, in our opinion, has to come to an end. I venture to say that these great tramway systems which, believe me, are absolutely vital at the peak hour of the day and night to carry great masses of men and women, are vital in the problem of London traffic. We have, further, come to this important consideration, that there will have to be further restrictions with trams, omnibuses and electric trains, and we propose, under the aegis of the Minister, to invite these great operators to come together in a conference, and agree to what extent that restriction should take place.

Those are some of the problems we have achieved. May I allude to one or two problems we have got in our minds? We believe that the problem which lies ahead of us is to try and do something to reduce unnecessary traffic operators in the slack hours of the day, and something to facilitate the traffic facilities at the peak hours of the day. For that purpose it will be necessary, in our opinion, to form other kinds of traffic. Further, I think the Minister will allow me to say it is our intention to inquire very closely into new tubes for the north and northeast, east and south-east of London. The Minister has recently set up a sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee which will meet almost immediately to consider these three new great tubes. We shall hold a public inquiry and take evidence, and so, I hope, at the peak hours of the day, we shall be able to supplement the buses and trams by this new method of traffic.

There are other things we have got in hand. We have got a great new tunnel under the Thames. We have a new tunnel under Piccadilly to relieve the tremendous cross-current of traffic. We have this question of the Haymarket, and the new road to the Docks. Those are some of the questions with which the Committee have been dealing for some considerable time. The charge has been brought against the Committee that in the five months it has done nothing. I venture to say we have not only done much, but we have great ideals in front of us. We are not working for any particular type of traffic. We are not working for trams, omnibuses or tubes, but we are working for one object, namely, an improved traffic service for London as a whole. We shall try and hold the balance even between these great bodies, and I am confident, when the time comes for us to give our annual report, we shall have the confidence of this House.

:The right hon. Gentleman must have had a fatiguing, but, at the same time, a comforting day up to the point when the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) made a determined, and, I might even say, a truculent speech in regard to one topic that has been brought before the House, about which I shall have to say a word or two in a moment. But, breaking through the general rule of switching violently from one subject to another, I must add a few words on the subject of London traffic. The right hon. Gentleman, and some of us on this side of the House, have already fought our battle—an early morning engagement —on the subject of the London Traffic Act, and we have lost, but I do want to say, in spite of the eulogy which has been passed on the work of the Advisory Committee by one of its members, in spite of the undoubted industry and ability which they show, in spite of the additional help which the right hon. Gentleman himself says he has had from the very efficient and courteous body of police, I still maintain that the London Traffic Act is a thoroughly bad Act, combining the worst features of Toryism and Socialistic legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman, during the course of his remarks, said that London was an extremely difficult town to deal with. Everybody will admit that, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry, and—I say it with the deepest humility and respect—even his Advisory Committee are dealing rather with the symptoms of the trouble than with the trouble itself. If London is a difficult town to deal with, it seems to me the vital question to get at is, what is the difficulty. The problem, as opposed to the difficulty, to be met, is the too great crowding of traffic on your streets, and in attacking that problem there are two possible courses of action. You can reduce the amount of traffic, or you can increase the amount of street, and I venture to say that, in spite of any ideal the Advisory Committee may have, or any achievements they may bring about, the right hon. Gentleman's Department has not yet got down to the root of the difficulty of London traffic, because the difficulty, as apart from the immediate problem, is that it is not a difficulty of administration. It is a physical difficulty. It is a difficulty of geography. It is a difficulty that arises from the meeting of different streets at certain points, each street bearing a great volume of traffic. The real way to meet that is to remove dangerous centres of that kind.

I am perfectly willing to give examples of what I mean. A great many Members of this House remember, as I do, Wych Street and Holywell Street, where the Kingsway improvement commences. If those old streets were still there, you would still have congestion of traffic at that point comparable to the worst points in London. I go further and say that the rebuilding of Oxford Circus on the exact site of the old one is nothing less than a civic crime, because, again, that is one of the points where you want wide, open spaces. I would remind the Committee that it has often been given in figures that the point in London where the greatest volume of traffic passes during the 24 hours is Hyde Park Corner, but, looking at that corner, no one would believe for a moment that that was the point where the greatest volume of traffic passes. It looks less congested because it is less congested. That is a simple proposition, and hon. Members who accept it so glibly must accept what follows from it. It is not congested because there are wide streets at that point. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who, in other parts of his remarks, referred to the necessity of taking a long view, that what is wanted is a deliberate policy of town-planning for London.

:The right hon. Gentleman is asking me a big question. He is also asking me to anticipate what I am going to suggest in one or two minutes. Later in his speech the Minister told us that the total capital sum paid on street construction in the past and contemplated in the future was a sum of £50,000,000 divided between the Road Fund and the local authorities. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one case which illustrates how the division of this sum is made. I take the project for the Mersey Tunnel. I believe the figures in that case are £2,500,000 from the Road Fund and a similar amount —less a certain sum which can be got by levying tolls—from the local authority. Although the expenditure is divided half and half, the methods of raising the money are very different in the two cases. The Ministry of Transport is going to provide this £2,500,000 for the Mersey Tunnel scheme out of the current Road Fund for the year, but the local authority will not provide the balance out of current rate. It will raise a loan just as a local authority does for any other public work.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee: What essential difference is there between raising money for an electricity undertaking and raising money for a transport or road undertaking? We have been told that transport and power are the two things upon which industry depends in the future. I suggest that the Minister should consider capitalizing a part of the annual revenues from the Road Fund in order to put in hand larger works of construction than he is able to undertake at present. The right hon. Gentleman said that his policy had been to anticipate works on account of unemployment, and I believe that the Road Fund at present has outstanding liabilities in excess of its income of £5,000,000, so that the policy of anticipating in order to provide employment is already being pursued. Although the subject before the House is the administration of the Ministry, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his immediate predecessors considered these questions without reference to the question of employment. I take the opportunity of saying how willing the right hon. Gentleman was to meet me in the one case I brought to his notice and, from my own experience in the one case of which I have knowledge in my own constituency, I know the enormous amount of employment which may be provided if a large number of road schemes are started.

The right hon. Gentleman very pertinently asked who is to provide the money. A suggestion has been made already in this Debate which I now reinforce, that a certain proportion—say £2,000,000 a year—from the Road Fund should be capitalised so as to get a sum of £30,000,000 or £35,000,000 which could be used for the wider planning of road improvement. That undoubtedly would largely increase employment. The right hon. Gentleman himself said it was proposed to do some of these things in the future, and it would be convenient to do them by loan. Surely, if there was ever a time when the Ministry would be justified in doing these things by loan, it is now when unemployment is so pressing. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider and adopt some scheme of that kind, and the suggestion which I made in my opening sentences is not so much out of the question as it may have appeared to be.

I take a great interest, as a new Member of this House, in noticing, whenever the question of roads comes up, the persistence and insistence of the representatives of the rural areas. I am not a representative of a rural area, but I sympathise with them, and I suggest to them that, if some such scheme as I have suggested were adopted, there would be more money available for the purposes which they have in view. I think I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman accurately when I say that he hopes that, out of the £16,700,000 for this year, £3,700,000 is for new construction and allied purposes, or what you might call capital purposes. He also said, in answer to a question a few days ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton-Brown), that to provide £10 per mile for all the unclassified roads would take a sum of £1,400,000. That sum, plus £2,000,000 a year, which, I suggest, should be capitalised, is still short of the £3,700,000 which the right hon. Gentleman is at present expending in new capital construction.

I want to say, too, that this suggestion is not a new one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has already referred to-day to a provision in the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act in regard to betterment, but in the same Act, in Section 13, there is already provision for the Road Board to borrow on the security of the Road Improvement Grant "for the purpose of meeting any expenditure," etc. This power, therefore, is already a power which the right hon. Gentleman has, and I suggest to him that he should carefully consider whether this would not achieve some of the things that we all have in view. I would also like, although this is, perhaps, not a fair question to ask without giving more notice, to have some information as to whether these provisions with regard to betterment have ever been used by the Ministry or are being used at present. The main roads, the Great Western Road and the new Dover Road, are admirable examples of the way in which public money granted by this House is handed directly over to the fortunate owners of the land which adjoins those new roads. I would like an answer to that, and I would also like to have the right hon. Gentleman's view with regard to the suggestion, which I and others have made, that some of these things should be done by loan, some of this new construction, and that a large measure of that work should be put in hand at once. I should like, finally, to say that, although we, on these benches appreciate the very able statement made by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, we are bound to express our disappointment that the Government could not say anything more definite with regard to their plans and ideas for electrical development.

:I was glad to hear the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Central Wands worth (Sir H. Jackson) to the effect that the new Advisory Committee which has been set up under the Ministry of Transport is beginning to operate. I understood, from what he said, that the number of motor omnibuses on the. streets of London has already been stabilised. As far as one can see of the traffic at the present time, the number during certain hours of the day appears to be rather excessive. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has stabilised the number of motor omnibuses in London, or is it merely an experiment which is being carried out at the present time? I do not agree altogether with my hon. Friend about the tramways. He has told us that £577,000 were lost last year by the London County Council on the tramways. It seems to me, however, that if you are going to boost up an uneconomic form of transport indefinitely you are going to run the ratepayers of London into a very large sum of money. I agree that you cannot scrap the tramways altogether, but I do think that we should watch very carefully indeed whether you are not spending too much money in trying to keep them going.

:Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the people of London are in need of these tramway facilities?

:I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the tubes. I think that is one of the most important things with which the Minister of Transport has to deal. If we brought more tubes into the centre of London we should be doing away with a good deal of the congestion which we find in the streets at the present time. I should like to say one or two words about that congestion. It seems to me that there is no proper organisation so far as the police are concerned in regulating the traffic in London. I do think that the Advisory Committee ought to look into this matter very carefully. Perhaps the Minister of Transport would consider sending some of the police to Paris to see how the traffic is regulated there.

:I can, perhaps, reassure my hon. and gallant Friend. When I asked a question of the Home Secretary the other day he said he would consider as to the Advisory Committee sending some police over to Paris. In Paris they have single direction roads, which, unlike the single direction roads in London—

:Exactly, and the traffic gets along. In Paris the traffic is allowed to proceed on both sides of the road.

:The Minister of Transport has just said that he has no control over the police in London.

:Surely, Mr. Hope, I am allowed to point out to the Minister of Transport what the Paris police are doing, having regard to the Advisory Committee that has been set up to consider the way the traffic should be controlled in London.

:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that the Advisory Committee should have a little expedition to Paris, that would be in order.

:I should like to suggest that, too. There are one or two points besides the traffic in London which I should like to mention. That is the question of the road surface. I have very often driven up to my constituency on the North Road, and the North Road in Huntingdonshire is a very dangerous road on a wet day. It is almost impossible to stop a car going at any speed on that stretch of the road. I understand the Minister of Transport has taken that into consideration, and that a "carpet" —I do not know whether that is the correct term—has been put down on the top of the road to make it a little less slippery, but at Stilton, on the North Road, that "carpet" is wearing away and the road is becoming very slippery indeed. The Minister proposes to spend a large amount of money on new road construction. I think he ought to experiment very carefully before giving us these big main roads, which after a time become extremely slippery, and very dangerous indeed for motor traffic.

Another question I would like to put to the Minister deals with danger signals. If one motors about a good deal, as I do, one sees motor-danger signals in the form of triangles in all sorts of places where they are not really necessary at all. II the Minister of Transport has the power to do it, he ought to consider the taking down of a lot of these triangles, because they are apt to mislead drivers. If one sees these triangles in places that are not in the least dangerous, when one comes to a place which is really dangerous, one is apt to think the triangle marks merely an ordinary turning or a carriage drive, and not go as carefully as one ought to.

I understand the Minister of Transport can decide whether or not a ten-mile limit shall be placed on a particular piece of road, and I ask him to consider the matter carefully before sanctioning these ten-mile limits. I would refer him to what happens at Sutton, where there is a ten-mile limn through which motor-cars are allowed by the police to go at 25 miles an hour without being prosecuted. If that is the case, if the police do not consider it dangerous to drive at 25 miles an hour through a ten-mile limit, I do not think the ten-mile limit is at all necessary.

:They do work a regular trap there, but it is not the trap I was caught in.

:Every Saturday and Sunday. The reason why accidents occur in motoring is not because people go at a high rate of speed, but because they drive carelessly. A lot of people drive carelessly, and that sort of thing ought to be put down. That is not what is regulated by having a 10-mile or 20-mile limit. I know the Minister disagrees with me, but I think that before he allows licences to drive motor cars to be issued, the driver should be subjected to a certain test.

:On a point of Order. Is not this a matter for the Home Office? I always understood that the issuing of licences and the prosecution of people for excessive speeds were in the hands of the Home Office.

:I cannot pronounce on the limits of the jurisdiction of different Government Departments which are being discussed.

:I thought I was in order as far as licences are concerned. I ask him to consider this point if he does in the future have thousands of motor drivers under him.

:I now remember that I obtained a licence for a humble Ford car from the local authority of my county. I imagine therefore it is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport.

:The local authority collects the money as agent for the Ministry of Transport. I wish we could stick to it, but we do not.

:I thought I had obtained some reputation for lucidity, but I feel to-night that I have lost it.

:I hope the right hon. Gentleman will furnish us with a Report of the Advisory Committee as soon as possible.

:I want to reinforce the plea which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I wish to draw attention to the extremely shabby way in which the local authorities of this country owning tramways and other public conveyances have been treated by the Minister of Transport since he accepted office. He has done one remarkable thing. He has united councils of all shades of opinion and belonging to all political parties of this country in unanimous condemnation of the unfair way in which they have been treated by the present Minister of Transport. Members of this House will recollect that a very short time ago I think every one of us was invited to a meeting to hear the views put forward by the Municipal Tramways' Association. Many hon. Members attended that meeting, and the result was that a deputation was appointed to see the Minister of Transport and bring before him the claims for equal justice between the local authorities and private enterprise which that meeting almost unanimously endorsed.

It was therefore a very great surprise both to the local authorities who are interested in this matter throughout the country and the Members of this House when we read in the "Times" of 15th April, before the deputation had been received by the Minister of Transport, the statement that a conference had been held at the Ministry of Transport at which had been laid down the official policy of the Ministry in regard to this matter. That statement of policy had been made by Sir Henry Maybury, and my astonishment was still more when I heard that the invitations to that conference were sent to members of the Press, and in a number of cases were received from the headquarters of the Conservative organisation. It seems to me an improper thing that the Press should be invited by the Press representative of the Conservative party to hear a statement of policy made by a civil servant, and it was more strange still that that conference should take place at a time when the matter was in a way sub judice, because the Minister knew that a deputation from this House was waiting to bring our views before him. In addition to that, the statement was made by Sir Henry Maybury—I quote from the "Yorkshire Observer":

:This statement is taken from a typewritten statement issued from the Ministry of Transport to representatives of the Press, and it can be produced; and it is upon this statement that the questions were asked. I have the copies here of the "Yorkshire Observer" for the 15th April, in which these are quoted, and I have the actual copy of the letter to the "Times," and letters which have passed between the Ministry of Transport and responsible public officials in this country. Then we find questions put down in the House of Commons by one of my hon. Friends, asking whether this is the view of the Ministry, and we are told that it is not the view of the Ministry. Local authorities at the present time really do not know where they stand in regard to a policy which has received so much publicity, partly owing to the activities of the Press representatives of the Conservative party, using the premises and the staff of the Ministry of Transport to outline a policy which is supposed to be the policy of the Ministry of Transport; and when we come to the House of Commons we are told that this policy, which has received great publicity, has never been completed. If there is no foundation for the story—

:The right hon. Gentleman's answer in the House of Commons says it is not his policy, but he did not contradict the Press statement.

:It is a most peculiar kind of contradiction. One finds a Press statement, and one finds an invitation has been sent out by political party officials, and at the same time every Tom, Dick and Harry who likes can buy a Ford van on the hire instalment system, and get a little boy in a peaked cap, or often not even that, to sit at the back, and run it only when, as the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) put it, the peak load is on. The people are left at all the ordinary hours of the day without any service. The local authorities come along and spend large sums of public money in enterprises which are of very great value to the people of their localities, but what public utility company, owned by private enterprise, would consent to put down its capital to have such an utter lack of protection as the corporations are receiving from the Minister of Transport at the present moment? The pirate is of no use at all. He does not pay decent wages, he does not run a regular service, he does not regard the public, he is not found on regular routes, he has no regular times, and he gives no uniform. I am not referring to the largely organised pirates that are to be found on the London streets; what I am talking about are the odd vans and buses that are found competing with the smaller local authorities running trams in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What have vans to do with it?"] If vans ply for hire, they are buses under the Act, and they compete with trams which would otherwise be carrying passengers in many country districts. I have travelled on them on many occasions My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) described how villages in his area have provided a tram service run by this kind of competition which has been entirely ruined, a loss of £300 a week being inflicted. Hon. Members say why do public authorities insist on running trams when trams are out of date? What happens where a public authority applies for permission to run omnibuses? They have an elaborate procedure. It costs them very large sums of money. Probably they could buy one or two omnibuses with the money they spend in costs. Directly wind goes round that the corporation is applying to the right hon. Gentleman for permission to run an omnibus service, down comes the pirate and runs one omnibus. When the thing is near completion the pirate puts on a dozen, and then comes ,to the comporation will a Bill for good-will, and for every pound he succeeds in wringing out of the ratepayers he has to thank the right hon. Gentleman.

:Several hon. Friends of mine who sit for rural constituencies have very rightly and naturally raised the question of rural roads. I will not weary the Committee with a re-hash of the two speeches I have made on this subject during the present Session, except to say that though it is perfectly true that I have not made any provision, nor have my predecessors, in connection with the maintenance of unclassified roads in rural areas, there has been made available for the rural areas no less than £5,000,000. Though not meeting all the wishes of my hon. Friends that has helped their rural bodies and their rural roads very considerably, because they have been relieved from doing certain things which they would have had to do in any case. I am extremely sympathetic to their wishes and demands. I have had the advantage only last week of conferring with a certain number of my hon. Friends who, I understand, represent the wishes of a far larger party. I have put forward the ideas that go through my mind as to how their desires might be met if money be available, and if the Government, having considered the matter, approve of these proposals. My hon. Friends will admit that in 10 days I could not possibly have reached any final decision, and I can only leave it at that— that they know what is in my mind and I know what is in their mind, and I will do my best to meet them as far as it is possible.

In the five minutes or so that are left to me, I wish to deal with a charge which has been brought against me by the hon. Members for Don Valley and for Gates-head (Mr. J. Beckett). They attacked me for the exercise of certain powers vested in me by Section 14 (3) of the Road Act, 1920. They advanced the plea that the local authority in licensing matters should be the sole judge in its own area, subject to an appeal to a higher Court on matters of law. That, undoubtedly, was the state of the law previously to 1916, but conditions are entirely different now, and were entirely different in 1920, from what they were previously to the Great War. Previously to the Great War, traffic was almost entirely local. It must then have been right and proper that a local authority should have had the sole control of licensing within its area. Now we have motor-omnibus services running 40 or 50 miles across country. It was considered intolerable by the Parliament of 1920 that any local authority should have an absolute veto on through traffic in its area and thereby prevent area "A" com- municating with area "C" because area "B" did not desire any through traffic. The carrying out of those duties must create a certain amount of friction. I have a statutory duty to carry out, and I am going to carry it out to the best of my will.

The real factor is not that hon. Members opposite are trying to preserve the independence of local authorities. They are using the local authorities as a stalking horse. Hon. Members opposite desire by means of municipal enterprises to cut out private enterprise altogether. That is the clear-cut issue. It is the bed-rock and the burden of the speeches of those two hon. Members and the Hon. Members behind them. They desire, under cover of local municipalities, to prevent the independent omnibus services from catering for the needs of the general public. What I am determined to do is to see that the needs of the general public shall come before any other consideration. My right hon. Friend the Member for White-chapel (Mr. Gosling) took up exactly the same position. He said, and said quite rightly, that he would not tolerate a condition whereby the travelling public coming from long distances outside a municipal area should be compelled to get out of their omnibuses at the municipal boundary and wait for half an hour or an hour, often without shelter, till the local omnibus or tramway chooses to pick them up and take them to the centre of the town. It seems to me you must take a large view of this case. I have always endeavoured legitimately to protect local tramway services by trying to ensure that inside the municipal area those outside omnibuses should charge higher fares in the area than the tram does. I have a duty to perform. The Committee may rest assured that while I am not going to favour either municipal enterprise or private enterprise, I am going to try to hold an even balance between the two. I am not going to allow private enterprise to be entirely elbowed out of those districts.

:I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the statement of the Minister that the primary motive of the party to which I belong is to eliminate private enterprise in favour of the municipalities. What we claim is that there should be absolute equality of treatment between the two. That is a far different matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has arranged for slightly higher fares being charged by the omnibuses over the trams. I suggest that in that arrangement the consumer, the travelling public, are fleeced. I know of one particular instance now in Birmingham, where the minimum fare allowed on the omnibuses is 4d., whereas for the same distance on the trams the fare is 2d. That charge of 4d. is made, and by arrangement 2d. is handed back to the corporation. Who pays there? The consumer. It is not fair to the consumer that this sort of arrangement should be allowed, because it means a higher fare.

It is very unwise for the Minister to say that it is our business to eliminate private enterprise in favour of the municipalities. What is it that we really want? At the present time, if a municipality is desirous of obtaining powers to run an omnibus service, it has to come to this House for powers. That is a notice to the enterprising private concern of their intention, and by the time the municipality receive the powers, the service is taken over by a private enterprise concern, and this eliminates the possibility of the municipality competing on equal terms Surely it is not unfair to argue that the tramway authorities should have absolutely equal rights with the private undertakings. I know of a case which happened during the War with regard to Bristol, where by a plebiscite the municipality were going to take over the tramways. With the knowledge of that, this particular company immediately flooded Bristol with omnibuses, so that when the time came to operate their decision the municipality allowed the Act which gave them their powers to expire, and that monopoly is still in operation in Bristol. I see the Minister's difficulty very clearly. If I were in his place, with the Act of 1920 to operate, I should be compelled to do the work that he is doing. Therefore, I have nothing to say on that point; but I do ask that legislation should be brought in—

:I plead that the municipalities should have equality of treatment with the private undertakings. I would suggest that the Minister might consider the question which arises where competition is now going on and where trade agreements are in existence, laying down wages and conditions for tramway workers nationally. The omnibuses enter into competition with the tramways, they work their people possibly 50 per cent. more hours for less wages, and they do not run a regular service. This not only jeopardises the interest of the municipality, which has to meet its loan charges and has to pay its debts as best it can, but the omnibuses, by skimming the cream off the service on race days, high days and holidays, Saturdays and Sundays, destroy the possibility of the development of the municipal undertaking. Surely it is not unfair for the municipal tramway undertakings to ask this House for fair treatment. I attended with both the deputations to which reference has been made. At the first deputation when the tramway case was heard there was practical unanimity that there should be equality. I attended the further meeting of the omnibus people, and there again there was practical unanimity on behalf of the omnibus proprietors' claim—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions [Money]

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for pensions for widows, orphans, and persons between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, and for the payment of contributions in respect thereof, and to amend the enactments relating to health and unemployment insurance and old age pensions, it is expedient that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—

Resolution read a Second time.

11.0 P.M.

:I beg to move in line 6, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "such" in line 9.

The Resolution proposes that the money may be paid into any account constituted by the Act, but paragraph ( a ) provides for a certain allocation of the money as between different years. This Amendment does not increase the charge necessarily which falls upon public funds. What it does is to leave the question open. The Government propose to limit the contribution for the ensuing year to £4,000,000, and in the next nine years the Resolution says: to the scheme would be held to be in order by the Chairman. The fact is that the Government is giving nothing this year. Nor does the scheme correspond in any way to the description given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of it as a tree to be used to shelter the casualties of industry.

For many reasons I am sorry to have to raise this subject at this hour of the night, when so many hon. Members are tired, but I think we should make the greatest mistake if we did not take every public opportunity of making it clear to the people that, so far from this being some benefit conferred by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government in a beneficent Budget, it is merely a scheme for providing pensions for widows and orphans out of contributions from the budgets of the families of the people. We know perfectly well that there is money available for giving pensions under a scheme that might worthily follow the insurance scheme of 1911—a scheme which hon. Members opposite denounced in the country, which they divided against on the Third Heading, and which their late leader, Mr. Bonar Law, said that he would repeal when he came into power. I can well recollect the cross-examination of Mr. Bonar Law by the present Earl of Oxford. The Earl of Oxford asked, "Will you repeal the Act when you come into power?" and Mr. Bonar Law replied, "Certainly." I remember the campaign that was organised by the present Secretary of State for War. There was even a league organised for the purpose of defeating the Act.

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine himself to the point as to the £4,000,000 not being paid in the ensuing year.

:Perhaps I have wandered rather wide, but the relevancy was that the money should come from the Exchequer. I think it is germane to the Resolution, which is the backbone of the Bill, as far as it has a backbone, to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have boasted of their long record in this matter, that this coping-stone of their edifice, because that was the exordium— perhaps I should say, the peroration of the speech of the hon. Gentleman in dealing with this matter—it is fair to remind them—

:It is fair to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this also is irrelevant, and out of Order.

:While bowing to your ruling, one is entitled, I submit, to examine the financial basis of the scheme, and to complain that it is totally inadequate. Whatever difference of opinion there may be on this side as to whether the scheme should be contributory or non-contributory, there is no difference of opinion as to the impossibility at this time of laying the burden on industry or those employed in industry. I want to ask this question: Is it a fact that under this scheme you are robbing an old man of 70 of his non-contributory pension? In the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening the Budget in reference to this matter, he said they hoped to put the pensioner of 70 on a contribution basis. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us plainly whether that is so or not. Is it a fact that when this Bill comes into force a boy of 16 who, we will say, begins to pay at the start, instead of being entitled to an old age pension, given by the State without contribution, will be paying contributions to enable him to have a pension at 70. If so, instead of this being a Bill for conferring pensions on widows and orphans, it is a Bill for making men and women contribute to pensions which they are going to provide for themselves, and, at the same time, is a Bill for depriving a man of 70 of a free old age pension. I would invite the hon. Gentleman, who has great energy and ability—to say nothing of his personal charm, which is appreciated in all parts of the House—to give a categorical answer to this question: Is this a Bill to deprive a man of 70 of the free old age pension given him by other Acts of Parliament? If the hon. Gentleman can find the time, or will have the courage, to defend the finance of the Bill, and explain what particular merit there is, I shall be extremely grateful.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not wish to add to the interrogations which have been put by my hon. and gallant Friend. I will merely say that I think the Government have every reason to be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having moved this Amendment which gives them an opportunity of making their pension scheme a tolerable and decent one.

:It seems to me that anyone who values the real contribution of the State to this so-called contributory pension scheme must support the Amendment, because the situation as it is presented by the Government is merely this—that so far as the younger persons entering the insurance scheme are concerned, the State does not pay any contribution whatever. Unlike other insurance schemes, by which for every sum contributed by the man or woman and the employer the State makes a definite contribution, this Bill in its existing form does not make any such contribution for the purposes of the pensions to be conferred. The only way the State comes in is, first, to give a contribution towards the pensions scheme for those persons who are already over 16 years of age, but it does not do that by putting down a lump sum and becoming responsible for the interest on that sum from year to year. We were told that the cost is something like 750 millions on behalf of those who have already reached the age of 16. If we were to pay the interest from year to year on that sum we should be paying 30 millions a year, but instead of doing that, this Bill proposes to postpone that payment, as far as the bulk of it is concerned, for a very large number of years. That seems to be not only an ungenerous method of dealing with a pensions scheme, but very bad finance. What we are really doing is incurring a liability of 750 millions and not meeting that today, or in any considerable amount for several years to come, but throwing a large sum on to remote posterity in order to meet it. For that reason I support the proposal to leave out the words in the hope that by next year or whenever the time comes, the Government will be prepared to put in a much larger sum to meet its liabilities. With regard to the question of taking away free pensions from those over 70 at present existing I believe it to be correct that there is no reference to this in the actual Bill with which we are concerned, but there is a reference to it in the actuary's report. On page 7 of that report it will be found definitely stated that those coming into the scheme in 1926 at the age of 16, contribute 20 per cent. to the old age pension at present received free. In addition to paying for all the benefits which the Bill confers, they pay a further 20 per cent. of the old age pension, which is at present free.

:How does the hon. Member make his argument relevant to the question as to whether or not there should be a definite sum of £4,000,000?

:The relevancy is, that, unless this Amendment is carried, and if the provision which is in the Resolution stands, and the State cannot contribute more than £4,000,000, then this scheme of making people pay for their own pensions apparently holds, and it is our contention that the right method is for the State to contribute a very different sum, a sum comparable with those sums which it contributes under other Acts. I hope the Amendment will receive the support of the House.

:I gladly rise in the endeavour to make, once again, a statement with reference to the proposal now before the House. The Amendment is in practically similar terms to the one which was rejected in Committee yesterday, because that Amendment, which was moved by an hon. Member opposite, endeavoured to stop the payment of the £4,000,000 at the end of the year 1927, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) seeks to make it such sums as Parliament may determine hereafter. I can only say that that would, of course, upset the whole of the financial arrangement outlined in the Bill and set forth in the Government scheme. It is part of the Government plan that the sums which the House will find mentioned in Table VI and in Col. 7 of the Report by the Government Actuary shall be equalised. It is true that for the first three years there is a surplus, but the net estimate of expenditure under the Bill other than expenditure in respect of Old Age Pensions, is only £2,500,000 in the fourth period, £4,500,000 in the next period, £6,000,000 in the further period, and so on, until the period 1945–6, when it reaches £20,000,000. So far as our proposals in this Resolution are concerned, it is suggested that the amounts should be equalised over the period of 10 years, but the hon. and gallant Member opposite wants us to leave the payments in future years to be such sums as Parliament may hereafter determine. I can only say that that is not in accordance with the plan which we have proposed, and we must ask the House to reject the Amendment. I am afraid no further argument on my part would make the issue any different from what it is. That is the suggestion that I venture to make having regard to the financial responsibility which ultimately will come under this proposal. I think the proposal is a fair one. The only other question that I wish to deal with is that of the old age pensioners. I had hoped yesterday that I had made it plain that, taking the two groups of old age pensioners, those who were 70, and in receipt of their old age pensions at the present time, that their position remains undisturbed, therefore—

:The only question before the House, I would remind the hon. Gentleman, is whether the total amount should be £4,000,000 "or such sum as Parliament may hereafter determine." The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order.

:I at once accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I may briefly say that the old age pensioner both now and in the future—

:I ask the House to reject the Amendment, and to adopt the proposal put forward in the Resolution.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 46.

Division No. 114.]

AYES.

[11.29 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Drewe, C.

King, Capt. Henry Douglas

Albery, Irving James

Eden, Captain Anthony

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Lamb, J. Q.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Loder, J. de V.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fermoy, Lord

Lougher, L.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Fielden, E. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Finburgh, S.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Barnett, Major Richard w.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macintyre, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Gates, Percy

McLean, Major A.

Brass, Captain W.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Macmillan, Captain H.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gee, Captain R.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Grant, J. A.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Gretton, Colonel John

Macquisten, F. A.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Caine, Gordon Hall

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Margesson, Capt. D.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Moore Sir Newton J.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Haslam, Henry C.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Hawke, John Anthony

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Christie, J. A.

Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Oakley, T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Penny, Frederick George

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Clarry, Reginald George

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Pielou, D. P.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Preston, William

Cope, Major William

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Radford, E. A.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Rarmsden, E.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Remer. J. R.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Huntingfield, Lord

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hurd, Percy A.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Ropner, Major L.

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

Jacob, A. E.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Jephcott, A. R.

Salmon, Major I.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Storry Deans, R.

Wells, S. R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Sandon, Lord

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Savery, S. S.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Wise, Sir Fredric

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Smithers, Waldron

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Warrender, Sir Victor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sitch, Charles H.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Broad, F. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Buchanan, G.

Kirkwood, D.

Stamford, T. W.

Charieton, H. C.

Mackinder, W.

Taylor, R. A.

Connolly, M.

Maxton, James

Vlant, S. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Naylor, T. E.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Forrest, W.

Faling, W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hardle, George D.

Ritson, J.

Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.

Harris, Percy A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Crawfurd.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

:The Amendment having been rejected, and as the original Motion is now being considered by the House, a suitable opportunity occurs for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Heath to conclude the brilliant periods which were interrupted by the ruling of the Chair. I want to know whether this a Bill for depriving any man over the age of 70, now or hereafter, of his non-contributory old age pension, conferred by the Act of 1908, and other Acts in the same series.

:That is a question which can be asked and answered on the Committee stage of the Bill. This is only an enabling Resolution.

:May I point out that during the Committee stage this point was dealt with, and I submit that it is the very essence of the Finance Bill that this is a question which can be properly answered on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution.

:This is a Resolution which merely provides a fund and, as I ruled yesterday, the machinery of the Bill cannot now be discussed.

:May I submit that this is not a question of machinery at all. If these pensions are to be taken away, then less money will be required; but if more pensions are to be maintained, then more money will be required. I submit that a simple answer to a question which is agitating many people outside this House would be in order on this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.