Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 250: debated on Monday 23 March 1931

House of Commons

Monday, March 23, 1931

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

Private Business

Liverpool University Bill [ Lords ],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

India

Indian Medical Department (Pensions)

asked the Secretary of State for India why, although the revised rates of pension were granted to all departmental officers of the Army in India in 1925, the Indian Medical Department was the only department to which revised pensions were granted in 1927, two years later; and whether he will remove this distinction by granting the revised pensions from the date of sanction to all Indian Medical Department officers who retired from 1925?

The pensions of departmental officers were reconstructed in 1925 on a basis of British rates which was inapplicable to the case of members of the Indian Medical Department, and there is no necessary connection between the two pension systems. When Indian Medical Department pensions were revised in 1927, the standing principle was applied that pension revisions cannot be made retrospective; and I should not feel justified in reversing that decision.

Prisoners

asked the Secretary of State for India whether all prisoners referred to in the recent Delhi agreement have now been released?

I am circulating the latest figures which in some cases are approximate only.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there have been any complaints as to delay in the release of prisoners in view of the fact that it is over a fortnight since the agreement was made?

I have not had any complaints.

Following are the figures:

Province.

Prisoners released.

Madras

1,405

Bombay

3,119

Bengal

1,747

United Provinces

4,223

Punjab

1,596

Bihar and Orissa

2,391

Central Provinces

809

Assam

213

North-West Frontier Province

502

Delhi

331

Coorg

18

Total

16,354

Federal Structure Committee (Constitution)

asked the Secretary of State for India what arrangements are being made for adequate representation of organised Indian labour on the reconstituted Federal Structure Committee?

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be such representation?

I said, in reply to the question, that I was in consultation upon this matter.

If organised labour is to be represented, should not unorganised labour be represented?

When these other claims are taken into consideration, will the claims of depressed classes also be considered?

Chemical Industry

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has yet been taken by the Government of India in regard to the publication of the report of the Indian tariff board on the chemical industry in India?

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 17th November.

Railway Education Rules

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the new state railway education rules, while providing for help being given to European children up to Junior Oxford standard, which suffices for their admission as workshop apprentices, do not provide for equal privileges being granted to Indian children; and whether he will give information in respect of the reason for this discrimination?

Military College, Dehra Dun

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of students passed out of the Prince of Wales' Royal Indian Military College at Dehra Dun in each year since the establishment of the college; and how many of these applied for entrance to Sandhurst and were admitted and were subsequently granted Kings' commissions in the Indian army?

I fear that my information on this subject is incomplete; but so far as it goes, at least 36 cadets from Dehra Dun have been admitted to Sandhurst since 1923, of whom 20 have been commissioned and 13 are still under instruction.

British Goods (Boycott and Export)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House if the boycott of British goods in India has ceased as a result of the signing of the agreement between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give the House as to the present position of the boycott of non-Indian goods in India; and whether any special relaxation of the boycott has been made so far as British goods are concerned?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information about the proposed export of stocks of British cloth held in Bombay and other parts of India to be sold out of India as part of the economic boycott?

asked the Secretary of State for India, whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the effect of the agreement, recently signed by His Excellency the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi, upon the boycott of British goods; and whether he has yet received a report upon Mr. Gandhi's proposals to re-export stocks of British goods already in India?

asked the Secretary of State for India what advantage has accrued to British traders from the cessation of the political boycott in India?

I have asked the Government of India to send me a full appreciation of the situation regarding the boycott and I will make the information available for the House as soon as I receive it. As to the proposed export of foreign cloth from India, a scheme has been agreed to between the Bombay mill-owners and Mr. Gandhi for the export of foreign cloth. Under this scheme an agency is to be formed with a capital of Rs.25 lakhs subscribed by Congress, mill-owners and the general public. The scheme contemplates that the agency will act as selling agents abroad for large dealers but will not accept any financial risk. In the case of small dealers the agency will purchase stocks at from 20 per cent. to 33 per cent. below market value and will sell abroad on its own account. The scheme applies only to yarn and cloth purchased before 1st June, 1930.

In view of the very grave condition of the trade in Lancashire, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Gandhi has any power to enforce the lifting of this boycott according to the agreement signed between himself and the Viceroy?

I think it would be better to be a little patient and see how trade progresses. The signs are not unfavourable at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman get this information by Wednesday in view of the Debate which will probably take place on that day? With regard to the re-export of stocks from India surely the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is a more vicious type of boycotting. Does it not mean that the stocks which are there will have no chance in India?

With regard to the first question, on hearing that the Debate was to take place on Wednesday, I telegraphed for the fullest information in order that it might be put before hon. Members. As regards the second question, really, when seen in its proper perspective, it is not so serious as the hon. Member seems to think.

May I ask whether the stocks to be exported are only British cloth or does it apply to Japanese and other foreign cloths?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he anticipates that this boycott is going to last after the signing of the agreement?

Have our people any say in it, or is it an absolutely Indian question? I hope that our people will interfere on the side of Lancashire.

I think hon. Members are drawing attention to a legitimate grievance, but I am afraid that they are overlooking the perceptible improvement which is taking place.

Import Duties (Cotton Goods)

asked the Secretary of State for India what representations he has made to the Indian Government with reference to the proposed new duties on imported cotton goods?

I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the question put on the 9th March by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

If the hon. Member wants to know what it means, perhaps he will refer to the answer to which I have directed his attention.

Does the Secretary of State think that it is right that Lancashire should be starved while the mill-owners of India grow rich?

North-West Frontier (Afridi Attack)

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the position as regards the Afridi attack on the Nowshera column; and whether the commander-in-chief is satisfied that he has enough troops to carry on the policy of road making and protect the frontier?

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further information with regard to the action outside Peshawar on 18th March; and if he can say how the wounded are progressing?

On the 18th March the Nowshera Brigade reconnoitred the Kandao Pass and the hills on the western edge of the Kajuri Plain in the ordinary course without meeting opposition. During its withdrawal, however, it was followed up by Afridi parties on both sides of the pass, particularly on the south where one party succeeded in occupying part of a picket position held by the 2nd/13th Frontier Force Rifles. One company of the battalion promptly counterattacked and re-occupied the ridge causing the Afridis to fall back. The Afridis are believed to have sustained numerous casualties. On our side I regret to state that Bombardier Thompson of the Royal Artillery and three Indian other ranks were killed; and that Captain d'Arcy of the Royal Artillery, two British and four Indian other ranks were wounded. The wounded are progressing satisfactorily. There is no question of the adequacy of the troops at the disposal of the commander-in-chief.

May I take it that this will not interfere with the policy of going on with the road?

Did the attack take place on treaty territory or on British territory, and can it be called an attack?

Riots, Mirzapur

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make a statement relating to the riots at Mirzapur on 14th March?

Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to call attention to the importance of influence being exercised if only to prevent agitation on the part of Indians and Moslems?

We are constantly endeavouring to assuage communal dissension.

Following is the statement:

Serious communal riots broke out at two villages in the Mirzapur district on the 14th and 16th of March. In the first case a mob of 300 Hindus attacked the Moslem community, killed seven persons out of a total Moslem population of eight and burnt down some property. In the second, firearms were used by the Hindus and four Muhammadans were killed and two wounded before the riot could be stopped by the police. On both occasions women and children were spared. The police have made 60 arrests, and since the 16th of March there has been no further trouble. An adequate police force is now on the spot, and no renewal of the disturbance is expected. The cause of these disturbances was a baseless rumour that a Muhammadan Zamindar had given cows flesh to a Hindu servant.

Prisoners (Meerut)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the restrictions on physical exercise for the Meerut prisoners, as the open space encircling the barrack in which they are confined is too small to allow of any free outdoor game, and this restriction of exercise was a factor in the recent illness of Philip Spratt and Muzaffar Ahmad; and whether, in view of the importance of exercise to prisoners who have been on trial for nearly two years, he will take steps to provide the same facilities for exercise as were at one time allowed them?

My information is that the suggestion as to the two cases of illness referred to is without foundation. My hon. Friend will remember that the privileges originally accorded to these prisoners were withdrawn in the light of their participation in the occurrences of August last.

In view of the fact that these men have been in prison for nearly two years, and have not yet been found guilty, may I ask that the utmost facilities should be given to these remand prisoners?

I can assure the hon. Member that I am anxious to go to the fullest possible limit.

China

Father C. Tierney

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement concerning the safety of Father C. Tierney, of the St. Columba's mission at Keinchang; and whether the murderers of the two missionaries have yet been apprehended?

His Majesty's Minister in China reported on Friday last that the Roman Catholic Mission at Hankow have received telegrams from their representatives in Kiangsi stating that it is feared, though the news is unconfirmed, that Father Tierney is dead. The representatives of the Mission also state that the Chinese Government have ordered the local magistrate to pay the full ransom demanded by the bandits. His Majesty's Minister is continuing to do everything in his power to effect the release of Father Tierney, if, as we earnestly trust, he is still alive, and my right hon. Friend is at present awaiting a further report. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that some further steps are necessary? I understand that two other women missionaries were murdered only last week.

I have no knowledge of two other women missionaries having been murdered last week. With regard to the subject of the question, my right hon. Friend has followed this case with great solicitude, and His Majesty's Minister is making every effort in his power to deal with the matter, as I have said in my answer.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to have some further assurance that proper care will be taken of life and property?

We are awaiting a further report of this particular case from hour to hour.

Navy (Training)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has been made with the Nationalist Government of China for the training of the Chinese navy; if any arrangement has been made for Chinese naval officers to train with the British fleets; and whether any payment is being made for these services?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to page 9 of the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Lord explanatory of the Navy Estimates, from which he will see that the answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the Chinese Nationalist Government are paying the actual cost to the British Government.

Russia

Arcos, Limited (Visas)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the employés of Arcos, Limited, hold diplomatic visas; how many people are included; and does the number show an increase or a decrease since Arcos, Limited, was permitted to recommence trading in this country?

No employé of Arcos is granted a diplomatic visa. The other parts of the question do not arise, as Arcos, Limited, has never ceased to operate in this country since its establishment as a British registered company in June, 1920.

Treaty of Dorpat

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the 1921 Treaty of Dorpat assured the Finnish inhabitants of Soviet Russia of complete cultural autonomy, and that Finland has protested against the deportation of numerous Finnish peasants to the northern forests of Russia as a breach of the treaty; whether the treaty was registered with the League of Nations; and whether Finland has approached this country or the League for support under Article 23?

The Treaty of Dorpat was concluded in October, 1920. A declaration attached to the treaty granted to the Finnish population in the Government of Petrograd the same rights and privileges as those granted, by Soviet law, to minority nationalities. With regard to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no information. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the fourth in the negative.

League of Nations

Officers Pensions

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can present a general outline of the scheme adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations for the provision of pensions for permanent officers of the League on a contributory basis?

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the pensions regulations for members of the secretariat adopted by the last Assembly of the League of Nations.

Does that statement show what funds have been appropriated, as the basis of this scheme, as available for pensions for permanent officers?

Yes, Sir; I think the hon. Member will find it all clearly set out. If there are any further particulars that he would like, I shall be glad to give him an answer if he will put down a further question.

Questions

Ministry of Pensions (Acton Office)

asked the Minister of Pensions how many Grade 2 clerks in the Acton office are being reverted to Grade 3; what is the reason for this reversion; and what will be the wage reduction involved?

I regret that notices of reversion to Grade 3 have had to be issued to Grade 2 male clerks and to 50 Grade 2 women clerks at Acton, to meet the position arising from decrease of work and improvement in the machinery of business. The wage reduction involved in the majority of cases is 12s. 9d. on a salary of 79s. 5d. a week for men, and 3s. 5d. on a salary of 53s. 3d. a week for women.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether any of the higher officials of the pension staff at Acton have been reverted or reduced in salary consequent on the alleged decrease of work in the Department?

Reduction in the number of superior posts has from time to time had to be effected. This in some cases has involved reduction in salary and reversion in rank, but, in the majority of instances, and more recently, it has been secured by the actual abolition of posts as they fell vacant.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that, if there is a case for a reduction of some 50 junior workers at Acton, owing to reduction of work, there must have been a similar case for reduction in the higher ranks?

As I stated in the last part of my answer, the reductions have been secured by the abolition of posts as they fell vacant.

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the proposal that all ex-service patients suffering in Scotland from neurasthenia should be transferred to England, he is prepared to reconsider the advisability of continuing hospital treatment of such patients in Scotland?

Hospital treatment for neurasthenia is of quite a special character, and, in their own interests, cases requiring treatment from all parts of the Kingdom are ordinarily accommodated, according to the nature of the case, in one or other of the Ministry hospitals especially staffed and equipped for dealing with various types of this disability. In view of the very small number of Scottish cases, it would not be practicable to institute a separate unit for this purpose in Scotland. There is, however, no hard-and-fast rule on the matter, and a case which could suitably be dealt with in one of the Ministry's Scottish institutions would be accommodated there.

Do I understand that, if I give the Minister the case of a Dundee man who testifies personally to having had wonders worked upon him by the doctor at Eden Hall, this man will be allowed to remain where he is receiving such satisfactory treatment?

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there are no doctors in Scotland who can deal with this disease?

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that every case is dealt with on its merits, if it is possible for a suitable institution to be found?

Trade and Commerce

British Industries Fair

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether a committee has yet been appointed, in pursuance of the recommendation in the Chelmsford report, to consider the question of the acquisition of a site and the erection of buildings in which the British Industries Fair may be held in future years?

I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject on the 9th March.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect to come to a decision on this important matter? Is he aware that it is some months now since this committee reported, and yet he has done nothing?

From information that I have just received, I rather hope that the difficulty which has been facing us has been surmounted, and that I shall be able to make an announcement within, perhaps, 10 days.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what proportion of umbrella covers and handles shown at the British Trades Exhibition were of English manufacture; and what precautions were taken to ensure that articles exposed for sale were of British origin?

All exhibitors at the British Industries Fair are required to sign an undertaking that they will not exhibit or solicit orders for goods other than those of their own manufacture, and every effort is made to ensure compliance with the regulations which state that "all goods to be eligible for exhibition must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire." I have no reason to suppose that any evasion of these regulations takes place; but I fear that the precise particulars asked for in the first part of the question are not available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that postcards were circulated from the exhibition bearing an official stamp of umbrellas with handles and covers of foreign manufacture, and is he aware that the umbrella purchased by the Queen herself was covered with foreign cloth?

I understand this question has been looked into and the terms on which exhibits were allowed have been complied with. I am now speaking generally and not of the specific case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

In view of the very serious conditions in Lancashire, will the hon. Gentleman see that advertisements of this sort are not given gratuitously to foreign manufacturers?

Export Credits

32, 33 and 34.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) with what country or countries the transactions were carried out which have resulted in £17,726 17s. being written off as advances irrecoverable;

(2) with what country the principal transactions were carried out which resulted in the sum of £11,817 15s. 5d. being written off as guarantee irrecoverable;

(3) in connection with which country the sum of £49,000 has had to be paid under guarantees in respect of bills drawn; and what proportion of this amount, if any, will be recoverable?

I regret that it is undesirable to state the names of the countries concerned. With regard to the sum of £49,000 mentioned in the last question, it is impossible at present to state what proportion will ultimately be recovered, but it is hoped that it will be a substantial amount.

Seeing that the Department of which the hon. Gentleman is the head bas lost all this public money, why should he seek to hush it up?

I understand that the names of the countries concerned were deliberately not put into the Appropriation Accounts and into the report of the Comptroller-General, and, therefore, it does not seem to me to be desirable that they should be stated in the House.

Are not these sums comparatively small in relation to the volume of trade that has been carried out?

South America (D'abernon Mission)

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any and, if so, what recommendations in the report of the D'Abernon Mission to South America have been given effect to; and what benefit to trade has accrued from this mission?

Effect has been given to the recommendations concerning official participation in the British Empire Exhibition at Buenos Aires: aviation matters, the reduction of cable rates, the extension of cultural education, methods of marketing and increased official representation. As regards the second part of the question, a distinct benefit has accrued to trade as a result of the Mission, in that the attention of British exporters has been focussed on the importance of the South American market.

Russia

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what effect the increase in premium now required by the Export Credits Department for Soviet risks has had upon the volume of business insured by that Department in connection with exports to Soviet Russia?

I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman on the 16th March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everyone else knows that there has been an increase in the premium except himself; and will he not say whether or not he thinks the increase in premium will add to the business dealt with?

I am afraid that I can add nothing, as I do not think it would be in the interests of the Department to make a statement on the matter.

How long is the hon. Gentleman going to continue hiding these matters?

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in the interests of British manufacturers and traders, he will consider publishing as a White Paper a summary of the Russian five-year plan, indicating the directions in which that plan is likely to lead to more intensive exporting from Soviet Russia to Great Britain?

No, Sir. Accurate assessment and check of the results of the five-year plan is a matter of the greatest difficulty. Moreover, statistical results of factory production in the Soviet Union do not form in themselves sufficiently complete data from which to draw inferences regarding the export plans of the union. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the official Soviet summary of the plan, entitled "The Soviet Union Looks Ahead," which was published in English last year.

Although there may be some difficulties in negotiating on these matters, does not the hon. Gentleman think it sufficiently important to pursue this question and get some tangible result?

We are getting all the information that we can, but at the present moment we do not think it is desirable to publish it.

Would it not be possible to issue a report like the very excellent economic report on Germany prepared by our Consul in Berlin, which was of great value to British business?

We are considering that point, and I gave an answer on it a few weeks ago in the House.

Is it not possible to give some information as to the results already manifested under the five-year plan?

I will look into the suggestion of the hon. Member, and, if he will give me his ideas more definitely, will see if I can give him an answer.

Does the success or non-success of the five-year plan bear any relation to the amount of credit given by this Government to Russia?

Scottish Woollen Industry

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent his Department is co-operating with the delegation on behalf of the Scottish woollen industry which is to conduct an investigation in European countries; and what is the purpose of the investigation, the places to be visited and the date of departure?

An officer of my Department will accompany the delegation. In addition, the commercial diplomatic and Consular officers in the centres visited will furnish every assistance. The purpose of the investigation is to establish close relations with the principal influences in the fashion world of the centres to be visited, namely, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Milan, Prague and Brussels. The delegation will leave London on 8th April.

Will this inquiry go into the question of how far tariffs in these countries are preventing the flow of British trade into them?

This is purely a trade investigation to see what can be done under present conditions.

Is it not very important that the question of tariffs should be investigated on the spot?

Is it not more important that the spinning of yarns should be looked into?

Exhibition, Buenos Aires

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state the number of English cotton spinners and manufacturers and associations of cotton spinners and manufacturers represented at the exhibition in Buenos Aires?

I am informed by the London management of the exhibition that the numbers are as follow:

Tariff Truce

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the present position in regard to the Tariff Truce Convention?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any further statement as to the tariff truce negotiations?

The Conference which assembled at Geneva last week to consider possible arrangements for putting into force the Commercial Convention of March, 1930, usually known as the Tariff Truce, placed on record that they were unable to agree upon a date for putting the Convention into force. They stated that in recording the above they did not intend to express any opinion as to the possibility of putting the Convention into force at a date after the 1st April, 1931. The negotiations for tariff reductions recently initiated which have formed the subject of a number of recent questions will continue in the case of all or most of the countries concerned.

In view of the failure of this Conference, and the fact that the Government have not been able to induce other Governments to reduce their tariffs, what steps do they intend to take to look after British trade?

I understand one or two questions are to be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to-morrow. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the statement that will be made then.

Is it not a fact that the present position is that, as the result of the interference of the President of the Board of Trade, the tariffs of several countries have been raised against us?

Persia

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recent decision of the Government of Persia to grant a monopoly of all the internal and external trade of Persia to the State, he will ascertain whether the new policy will include preferential treatment of countries which purchase Persian products; and how far British trade in Persia is affected under this law?

As I understand the position, there is no question of according preference in Persia to countries which purchase Persian products. His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires has been officially assured that no preferential treatment will be accorded to the detriment of any of the countries in commercial relations with Persia. He reported on 17th March that the regulations under the monopoly law had not yet been drawn up, and it is therefore too early to estimate their effect on British trade.

Am I to understand that in the case of our relations with Persia, we shall not be placed at a disadvantage compared with any other nation trading with that country?

That is what I understand, but it is difficult to know what the exact position is until we have received information as to the regulations.

May I put a question on the subject to the hon. Gentleman in a week's time?

Agriculture

Allotment Gardeners (Unemployment Insurance Benefit)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will circularise all county councils to make it clear that no men who cultivate allotments under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill will be deprived of their unemployment insurance benefit?

Circulars have already been issued to the allotment authorities by the Central Allotments Committee, calling attention to the point to which my hon. Friend refers. I am sending him a copy of the most recent Circular, from which he will see that special prominence is given to the fact that unemployment benefit will not be affected by the cultivation of an allotment garden. I hope that my hon. Friend's question and my answer will receive the greatest publicity.

Advisory Committee

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has recently consulted the Agricultural Advisory Committee on matters affecting his agricultural policy; and how often have they been called together in the last two years to advise the Ministry of Agriculture in respect to matters and questions submitted to them?

I find that the Committee has not met during the last four years. I propose to call a meeting in the near future with a view to making use of its experience.

This body was set up under the Corn Production Act to make recommendations in relation to matters affecting agriculture. What is the use of having a body like that if it is not used?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman might well address that question to my predecessor. I am trying to see what can now be done.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to consult it, will he consider whether he might not economise by doing away with it altogether?

I am making arrangements to call a meeting forthwith—certainly in a short time.

Arable Farming

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will introduce immediate measures to palliate the present economic distress in the arable areas?

The hon. Member is aware of the additional assistance recently provided for the sugar beet industry. I am not yet in a position to make any further announcement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many families in East Anglia on arable areas without any means of subsistence, due to the lack of an arable policy on the part of the Government?

Questions

Contributory Pensions Act

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the surpluses that have accumulated under the contributory insurance provisions of the National Health Insurance Act and the 1925 Widows' and Old Age Pensions Act, he will appoint a committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider the possibility of including more voluntary contributors with the eventual idea of establishing all-in insurance so as to offer better pensions at 70 years of age upon complete retirement from industry?

The funds accumulated under the National Health Insurance Acts constitute the necessary reserve to meet the estimated future liabilities of Approved Societies in respect of the benefits payable to their members. With regard to the funds accumulated under the Contributory Pensions Acts I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the reply to his question on the 5th instant, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, that these funds will be practically exhausted about 1946. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by appointing a committee as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Communist Activities

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a committee, on the lines of the Hamilton Fish Committee in America, to report on the activities of the Communist party in this country, and especially in regard to its relations and dealings with the Soviet Government of Russia?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to study the recommendations of the committee? In view of the fact that other countries are taking steps to protect themselves against Russian exports, will the Government take the same, or similar, steps to protect the workers of this country?

I have made it my business to look into this matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is no good to us.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the majority and minority reports of the Hamilton Fish Committee stated that the charges made were unfounded and the inquiry was unnecessary?

Post Office

Telephone Development

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has in contemplation schemes for telephone development so as to avoid contraction of employment and possible dismissals in that Department?

I am considering the whole question of the telephone system with a view to an accelerated rate of development.

Engineering Department

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that costing officials from the central office of the engineering department visit the various engineering districts and, with watch in hand, overlook men engaged on manual labour; and whether this is done in accordance with his instructions?

In order to construct an efficient costing system it is necessary to test the time taken over certain operations, and I see no objection to the practice referred to for the purpose. There is no question of testing the time taken by individual officers with a view to disciplinary action.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very irritating to the workers?

Telephone Wires (Swans)

asked the Post master-General if he can give the annual cost of making good the damage done to telephone wires over and near the River Thames by flying swans; whether any representations have been made to induce the Thames Conservancy Board to reduce the present number of swans; and whether attempts have been made to render the telephone wires more visible to such birds?

Information is not available, but I will have inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

Sub-Postmasters (Telephone Subscribers)

asked the Postmaster-General whether rural postmasters receive any financial reward in respect of increases in the number of telephone subscribers in their district?

The remuneration of sub-postmasters responsible for telephone exchanges is directly dependent on the number of subscribers, or alternatively upon the amount of traffic handled. The answer is therefore in the affirmative.

Questions

Richmond Park (Golf Courses)

asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state the cost of maintaining and staffing the public golf courses in Richmond Park and the revenue received from games?

The information in question is set out in detail in the return of Trading Accounts and Balance-Sheets of Trading and Commercial Services published annually. The cost of running the golf courses for the year ended 31st March, 1930, amounted to £7,921 and the gross revenue from all sources, including refreshments, was £10,667.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the length of time that people frequently have to wait to play a game on the public golf courses in Richmond Park; and whether, in view of the popularity of these courses, he will consider an extension of the facilities now provided?

The question of another golf course has been discussed and for various reasons rejected. I will, however, look into the matter again and communicate with my hon. Friend.

House of Commons (Lighting)

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of complaints from ladies dining in the Harcourt Rooms of the brilliance of the lighting; and whether he will consider as to the possibility of shading the lights so as to produce a less dazzling effect?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There are many parts of the House urgently needing better lighting, and, in these circumstances, and in view of the need for economy, I regret it is not possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable saving could be effected in the unnecessary candle-power at present used in the Harcourt Room, and will he consult the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and the lady Members of the House as to the suggestion made in the question?

I think that the ladies enjoy the dazzling light, which shows up their charms of dress, and beauty.

Is not the question of the acoustics of the Harcourt Room very much more important than the lighting?

Royal Mail Steam Packet Company

asked the Attorney-General whether, among the documents submitted to him in connection with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, he has yet received the report of the voting trustees; if not, whether he will press for its early issue; and whether he will, on receipt lay it as a White Paper for the guidance of the House in relation to action connected with the charter?

I have been asked to reply. The voting trustees are engaged, and must for a considerable time continue to be engaged, in the very important task of re-establishing on a sound commercial basis the affairs of the group of companies associated with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. The voting trustees in the course of their investigations keep the Government and all the financial interests concerned in touch from time to time as circumstances require, but I do not anticipate that any formal report will be prepared. Consequently the latter parts of the question do not arise.

Does not my hon. Friend think that it is advisable to ask for a formal report from these people on the matter, seeing that they have so much necessary information available?

Royal Navy (Timber Purchases)

61 and 62.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1), the comparative prices of the Canadian and Russian timber which was recently bought by his Department;

(2) the amount of Russian timber bought by the Admiralty during the period 1925 to 1930, and the reason for discontinuing these purchases?

The quantity asked for is 6,536 standards approximately. It would not be in the public interest to state the prices. As regards the question of policy, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 19th March (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 2147–48) to the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell).

Seeing that the Admiralty for the four years up to 1929 had been in the habit of buying Russian timber, can my hon. Friend state why they have discontinued?

That was set out in the answer of the 19th March to which I have referred my hon. Friend.

Is it a question of the Canadian timber being cheaper than the Russian? Canadian dumping.

Scotland (Furunculosis Committee)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state when the report of the Furunculosis Committee may be expected?

The interim report of the Furunculosis Committee, which contains a comprehensive survey of the position and the Committee's major proposals, was published by the Stationery Office in July last.

Unemployment

Road Schemes (Grants)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount actually expended, or the nearest estimate of it, on unclassified roads which since 1st June, 1929, have been approved for grant on the recommendation of the Unemployment Grants Committee?

Between 1st June, 1929, and 16th March, 1931, 1,037 schemes for work on unclassified roads of a total estimated cost of £8,441,000 have been approved for grant on the recommendation of the Unemployment Grants Committee. Of these schemes 903 of a total estimated cost of £7,774,000 have been completed or are in operation. The amount actually expended is estimated at approximately £4,500,000.

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures of the number of persons registered as unemployed; and how these numbers compare with other years since the War?

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not mind answering the first part of the question, and tell me whether these figures are the worst since the War?

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 3rd June, 1921, the total reached 2,580,429.

Following is the statement:

At 9th March, 1931, there were 2,691,737 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. The numbers on the registers at corresponding dates in each year since 1921 were as follow:

Coal Industry

Export Trade (Tyne)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the communications from the chairman of the docks committee of the Tyne Improvement Commission and other representative authorities as to the position of the coal situation on the Tyne in consequence of the partial breakdown of some of the operative provisions of the Coal Mines Act; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve the situation?

My attention has been called by the Tyne Improvement Commissioners to the reduction in coal exports from the Tyne in January and February, 1931, as compared with the corresponding months in 1930. I greatly regret this state of affairs, but I am unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion that it is due to the operation of the Coal Mines Act. In my opinion the primary cause is the decline in the foreign demand for coal consequent upon depression in trade.

Is the hon. Gentleman seized of the importance of this question and what it means to that part of the country; is he aware that during the three months from January up to the present date over 800,000 tons less coal were shipped from the Tyne; and is he aware that the Tyne is full of laid-up shipping?

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty of the position, and will he go to the Tyne and to Newcastle and make investigations there?

I am in consultation with the owners and exporters about the position, and it is clearly due to the depression in trade.

Does the hon. Gentleman not know that it is entirely due to the fact that coal cannot be got from the collieries to the Tyne that this deficiency exists?

No, Sir. That is not stating the position accurately. Indeed, in Durham there is an allocation in excess of the actual output.

Supplies

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that supplies of coal available to local merchants have become extremely low in Eastbourne, and that several of the smaller dealers are entirely without supplies; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to remedy the situation?

I am not aware of the shortage of coal to which the hon. Member refers, but the local merchants should experience no difficulty in obtaining supplies, if necessary, from the Scottish, Northumberland or Kent coalfields.

Can the hon. Gentleman offer any hope that the quota will be increased to the Midland district?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that has nothing to do with the question. If there is a scarcity in the Eastbourne district, and it is referred specifically to me, I shall endeavour to deal with it.

There is no difficulty about the cost of haulage, because the coal coming into Eastbourne and to South Coast towns and other ports is sea-borne.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same trouble obtains in Bournemouth, and can he tell us whether—

Questions

Child Adoption

asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the cases, of which particulars have been sent to him, with regard to the practice of certain persons of adopting babies in return for money, spending the money, and then applying for poor relief; and if he will inquire as to the extent of this practice, with a view to taking steps to put an end to it?

My right hon. Friend is making inquiries and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

Rates, Manchester

asked the Minister of Health whether he will cause an immediate announcement to be made with reference to the amounts fixed for the differential rate in the parishes of Northern Etchells, Northenden, and Baguley, as compared with the general rate for the city, under Section 42 (1) of the Manchester Extension Act, 1930?

My right hon. Friend's decision was communicated to the local authorities on the 12th of this month.

Can the hon. Lady say whether she has any power to compel the local authority to announce the decision?

I cannot imagine that such a decision will not be announced by the appropriate authority locally, but I have no objection to giving the hon. Member the information.

Rate Assessment Appeals

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation so that it may no longer be necessary for ratepayers wishing to appeal against the decision of a local assessment committee to deposit a lump sum?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Outside London no deposit is required. In London, the deposit of a lump sum is optional on the part of the appellant; he may, if he prefers, enter into a recognisance with sureties. The only function of my right hon. Friend is to approve orders submitted to him by the Justices in assessment sessions for the purpose of regulating appeal to the Justices under the relevant statute. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the Justices for their consideration.

Housing (Rural Workers) Act

asked the Minister of Health when it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to extend the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act?

My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot yet specify a date for the introduction of this Bill, but it will not be long delayed.

Ex-Service Man's Sentence, Walsall

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at Birmingham Police Court, on 11th March, Sidney Dunham, of 9, Newhall-street, Walsall, was convicted of disorderly conduct at the Lionel Street office of the Ministry of Pensions; that this man has suffered for years from hysteria; that he is certified by a medical specialist as slowly approaching dementia; that he alleges the medical officer at the Ministry refused to give him the medical examination for which he had been called; and whether he will inquire into this case with a view to the remission or mitigation of the sentence?

My right hon. Friend finds upon inquiry that Mr. Dunham was fined 10s. on each of two charges—disorderly conduct and assaulting the police—and paid the fines at the time of his conviction. As he was not received into prison, my right hon. Friend has no information as to his condition, and on that point must refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. On the facts before my right hon. Friend, he finds no grounds for recommending any remission of the fines imposed.

Is the hon. Member aware that this man's denial of assault and disorderly conduct is substantiated by two witnesses who were present? At the very worst, in view of the man's delicate state of health, certified over a period of years, can the hon. Member not do something in order to relieve the position?

My right hon. Friend has gone fully into the facts of the case, and I can add nothing to the answer that I have given.

Will the hon. Member ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot call for a special medical report in this case?

Can he not refer this case to the doctor who is the prison or court psychologist in Birmingham?

Can I have a reply to my question? Can we have a special medical report? This man is an ex-service man who has been badly treated.

The hon. Member can approach the Minister of Pensions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already had the full facts in front of him, and I am unable to add anything to the answer that I have given.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Electors)

asked the Home Secretary what is the average number of electors, on the last register, to each Member of Parliament for a non-university seat in Great Britain and the average number for a university seat?

Upon the current registers for England and Wales the average number of electors to each Member of Parliament is, in the case of a non-university seat, 49,325, and of a university seat 10,217.

Members of Parliament (Railway Vouchers)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Members of this House have, within the last four weeks, intimated that they desire to use third-class railway vouchers instead of first-class?

No Member has, during the past four weeks, intimated has desire for third-class railway vouchers, but as the hon. Member is aware, the existing vouchers may be used, endorsed in manuscript, for third-class travel and no notification of his intention to do so is necessary.

Will the hon. Member get into touch with the 130 Tories who voted for third-class fares?

Can the hon. Member state whether the demand for first-class travelling facilities at public expense comes from hon. Members who habitually travel third-class when they pay for their own tickets?

Transport

Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state the date of commencement of the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel?

No, Sir, I am unable to add to the information furnished to my hon. Friend in reply to his question of the 16th March.

Road Accidents

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give statistics showing the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, in which, respectively, long-distance motor coaches and all remaining types of road transport vehicles have been involved during the last two years, and showing the percentage of such accidents to the total number of vehicles of each category employed in road traffic?

I regret that the particulars for which my hon. Friend asks are not available.

Is it not possible to get relative figures in regard to these motor coaches as compared with other vehicles? Is it not a fact that accidents are numerous?

My right hon. Friend has been in touch with the Home Office, and he is informed that the figures asked for by the hon. Member in regard to accidents are not available.

Questions to Ministers

78. The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. DAVISON:

To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Civil Service Clerical Association has taken disciplinary steps against their general secretary for his action in resigning his membership of the Labour party; and what action he proposes to take to ensure compliance with the Treasury Regulations made under Section 5 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, for the purpose of securing that no Civil Service association shall be associated directly or indirectly with any political party or organisation?

Has the question been withdrawn in view of the unfounded charge made in it?

On a point of Order. Is it not the duty of Members of this House to include in questions only guaranteed and authentic facts, and does not this question contravene that rule?

It is very well known that in regard to statements made in questions by hon. Members, they must be responsible for them.

Personal Explanation

May I, by leave of the House, make a brief personal statement on a matter affecting my personal honour? Last week I asked a supplementary question of the President of the Board of Trade as to whether he was aware that the importation of the Bible was prohibited in Russia. I heard several hon. Members opposite say: "That is a lie." That statement reached the daily newspapers, and one of those newspapers was the "Times" newspaper. I have made myself fully responsible for that statement which was made in good faith. I think that I am entitled to quote from the last report of the British and Foreign Bible Society on this subject. The report was made by Dr. Ritson. This Society is responsible for sending the Bible all over the world, so that they may be accepted as probably the highest authority in the matter. The report deals with the work of the Bible Society in Russia and gives the last date at which the Bible was admitted to Russia as 1927. Finally, Dr. Ritson says:

"During 1928 and 1929 and up to the present time, the door against Bible importation in any form appears to have been doubly barred. Permission to print the Scriptures within Russia cannot be obtained at the present time."

I think, therefore, that the House will acquit me of making an inaccurate statement. I made the statement in good faith, and I certainly make myself responsible for it.

Business of the House

Can the Prime Minister say what business will be taken on Friday?

The Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill is not so far advanced as we expected it would be. Therefore, we propose to vary the business, with the consent of the House. The business for next Friday will be: The Yarmouth Naval Hospital Bill, Second Reading, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; The Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill, Second Reading, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and, if there is time, the further stages of the Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Bill will be taken. The further stages of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill will be taken at a later stage.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say for the convenience of the House when he anticipates that the Foreign Secretary will be in his place again?

It will not be this week, but I hope that it will be next Monday.

New Members Sworn

Cahir Healy, esquire, for County of Fermanagh and Tyrone.

Alfred Duff Cooper, esquire, D.S.O., for Borough of Westminster (St. George's Division).

Orders of the Day

London Passenger Transport Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

London passenger traffic is a subject in which I have been greatly interested for many years. I have drafted quite a number of paragraphs in election manifestos for London County Council elections invariably in favour of the public ownership of London passenger transport services, and I confess that the drafting of paragraphs and manifestos on this subject is an infinitely easier and simpler process than drafting a Bill. But I am not the only one who has drafted manifestos upon this subject. I observe that to-day the London Municipal Society, which is the party organisation of the Conservative party in London municipal affairs, has issued a manifesto with regard to this Bill, and it is quite clear that this organisation, like the opposition in this House, has had great trouble in defining its attitude towards this Bill and their past declarations upon the subject do not give us much guidance as to the real attitude of the Conservative party towards the London Passenger Transport Bill. When my statement was issued as to the policy to be pursued by His Majesty's Government upon this subject the London Municipal Society on 3rd October, 1930, declared in a manifesto that:

It is also said that the London County Council election result has condemned this Bill. I could wish that there was any great policy which settled London County Council elections, but even expert politicians were unable to find out what the last election was all about and, therefore, that is an extraordinary declaration. Moreover, the leader of the Municipal Reform party, Sir William Ray, in his election address did not make this a prominent issue in the election. All he said was that: It is now declared that co-ordination is not necessary— the present separate ownerships. But notwithstanding that they did report on the basis of the urgent need for co-ordination and the elimination of the present competition. Notwithstanding the urgency of that Committee's report, and their appeal that the last Government should make itself responsible for legislation, the last Government, with a great majority, refused to take any responsibility in the matter, refused to introduce any legislation, and merely left it to the London County Council and the London traffic combine to come to what agreement they could.

The result was that the co-ordination Bills, two private Bills, were introduced. Our first grievance against these Bills was that they were private Bills dealing with a subject of essentially public policy that ought to have been dealt with by public legislation on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Secondly, the Bills preserved the separate ownerships, which in our judgment would be inconsistent with the full economic co-ordination of all these services. Then they were incomplete; they left out of co-ordination very important transport undertakings, except for possible subsequent agreement; they excluded the Metropolitan Railway, the suburban services of the main line railways, all the extra-London tramway undertakings and the Tilling and independent omnibus undertakings. Moreover, the Bills involved the demunicipalisation of London's tramway system. The House must really face the fact that the citizens of London are not disposed to have public tramways handed over to a private company to manage. Yet, notwithstanding this, the public safeguards in the Bills were substantially less than those which are provided in the present Bill, although I must point out, in view of the Amendment on the Paper, that the Minister of Transport and the Advisory Committee were put into the picture very prominently under the co-ordination Bill.

In London we have a municipal Conservative of a type materially different from Conservatives of the great provincial corporations. The Conservatives who are in a majority on the London County Council have a profound dislike of any element of public ownership. Consequently they rejected every endeavour at compromise advanced by the Labour party on the London County Council. The Bills were merely skeleton Bills. The real essence of policy which would have arisen, would have arisen on the agreements under the Bill, and those agreements were never before Parliament and were not scheduled with the Bills. Therefore that was a solution which was no solution. The Bills were rejected by the present Government, and in our view we were right in advising the House of Commons to reject them.

A partial endeavour has been made to deal with the problem on the lines of the London Traffic Act of 1924, for which the first Labour Government was responsible. That Bill dealt solely with the regulation of traffic and did not deal with the economic co-ordination and co-operative operation of transport undertakings. It is well known that up to the Third Reading I opposed the London Traffic Bill. I opposed it, firstly, because instead of reforming local government in Greater London it set up another special body for a special purpose, and it protected private ownership in the interests of stopping cut-throat competition, instead of going for the policy of public ownership. But everyone knows the reason of emergency which caused that Bill to come before the House.

Nevertheless, let me say quite frankly, as a critic of that Bill, that the London Traffic Act of 1924 has done a great deal of good work and that the Advisory Committee working under it has achieved much in the direction of the better organisation of London transport. In any case the London County Council, which supported the Act of 1924 notwithstanding the powers conferred upon a Minister of State, has shown no keenness in promoting the reform of London government, and has always been opposed to the extension of municipal transport services. Therefore, I had to build in this Bill on the facts as they were, and to equip myself with a fresh outlook that could meet the circumstances of the time. I recall that a similar difficulty faced the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was framing the Port of London Bill in 1908. It is known that the right hon. Gentleman desired that the London County Council should be the port authority. The London County Council again said: "We do not want to be possessed of trading undertakings," and the right hon. Gentleman had to set up a special authority for that purpose.

4.0 p.m.

I do not disguise from the House that, in proposing that these various transport agencies should be transferred to a public corporation, we are dealing with a very vast and complicated business. In the aggregate the local transport undertakings, excluding the main lines, carried in 1930 nearly 3,500,000,000 passengers, which was an increase of nearly 500,000,000, or 15 per cent., compared with 1925. Corresponding particulars of the numbers on suburban services of the main line companies are not available, but a special return which was obtained in the month of May, 1927, showed that the journeys of passengers from stations situated within a radius of 15 miles only from Charing Cross, to other stations within that area, were approximately 33,000,000, equivalent to 400,000,000 passenger journeys per annum. It is estimated that the passenger journeys taken in Greater London, per head of the population, have trebled in the last 30 years. If it be the case—and I do not know whether it be the case or not; I am not committing myself in any way to figures, but as indicating the magnitude of operations with which we are concerned—if competition involved a needless charge of only a farthing per passenger journey on the 4,000,000,000 journeys which must have been exceeded for all services in the London Traffic Area in 1930, that farthing per journey would aggregate over £4,000,000 in a year. If that sum should prove to be the price of competition, and if consolidation in time—and it would take time—would save it, that vast sum could be set aside for much-needed development, reductions in fares, or better working conditions.

Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that we should handle the problem on a bold, comprehensive and courageous basis, and I submit to the House that there are eight essentials for dealing with a problem of this character. First, we must not tinker with the problem, but we must get to fundamentals and deal with it from the roots. Secondly, competition must go; it stultifies progress, endangers the standard of life of the workpeople in the industry, and is too expensive. Thirdly, co-ordination must not be a mere phrase covering up a mere deal between existing operators. Fourthly, real co-ordination means a single consolidated ownership, and I beg of the Opposition to look into that aspect of the matter, and really ask themselves whether they can get proper co-ordination upon any other basis. Fifthly, the tram mind, the omnibus mind and the tube mind in transport—the sectional mind must give way to the transport mind, so that we may look at the problem, as a whole. But that will not be done as long as these various undertakings are owned by separate concerns. Sixthly, for a Socialist Minister of Transport, or, indeed, any other politician who has an enlightened public spirit, a single consolidated ownership in such a vital public service must involve public ownership for public service and for the public good. Seventhly, there must be efficient management of the undertaking. Eighthly, and lastly, the combined concerns must pay their way, and not require any subsidy from State or municipal funds. I venture to suggest that all these essentials are met by the Bill which I have the privilege of moving this afternoon.

In drafting this Bill we had to face many problems. One of the first, after deciding that economic consolidation was essential, Was the problem of management—who should manage this vast transport undertaking, and how should it be organised from the public point of view. If we looked for a municipal authority who could discharge this function, even if they wished to do so, we could not find one. The area of the London County Council is 117 square miles, and the effective area of London traffic is certainly approximately 1,800 square miles. But the London County Council, in any case, does not wish to have this job, for, unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), when he was Lord Mayor of Birmingham, the London Municipal Conservatives thoroughly dislike the municipality possessing remunerative property of any kind. We have not yet been able to persuade the Conservatives in London to follow the admirable example of the right hon. Gentleman in invading that holy of holies, namely, the banking system, and to start a municipal bank, and I am afraid that by his Conservative friends in London he is regarded as something in the nature of a pink Bolshevist of a very insidious type. So there was no one suitable municipal authority.

I then considered whether we should have a joint municipal authority. Let me say with the greatest frankness that, as an expedient, not because I liked it, I have in the past advocated a joint municipal authority for this purpose at a time when a Conservative Government was in office, because if we did not take something, even though it was not satisfactory, a Conservative Government might give us something worse by handing the tramways over to a private undertaking. Frankly, I did not quite like it, and my hon. Friends were never enthusiastic about it. The difficulties in a joint authority are great. There is a great deal of joint about a joint authority, and not enough authority. Moreover, an undertaking of this kind requires quick decisions to meet the public need, without waiting for the numerous committee meetings of the authority and the final meeting of the authority to carry through urgent things. I have come to the conclusion that the joint authority idea for a vast undertaking of this kind is inappropriate, and is not the best type we can set up. In this connection, I may quote the Royal Commission on London Traffic, who reported in 1905, and stated in support of their proposal for the setting up of a London Traffic Board consisting of a chairman and not more than four and not less than two other members: that the old idea of Departmental nationalisation in the ordinary sense of the term is not the appropriate way for a great business undertaking of this kind. Therefore, I rejected the idea of State Departmental management, and in that sense this Bill is not nineteenth century nationalisation, as it used to be understood, perhaps more by Conservative politicians than by us, for our minds were always elastic and recipient. That is why we are not Conservative. Our minds were elastic, and always receptive to new ideas, to new thought, from wherever that thought came. Part of that new thought is my own, but part came from the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Transport, and part from members of the Liberal party in their famous publication, "Britain's Industrial Future." [An HON. MEMBER: "IS there any of your own?"] I have already said that my thought, and the thought of my party have contributed much to the production of this Bill. We ask ourselves whether this vast business task is necessarily appropriate for politicians with electoral minds at all, for politicians trying to win elections with concessions to electors upon questions of fares, wages and salaries. When we know how Members of this House are squeezed upon this or that subject at elections, and sometimes submit to the pressure, I began to think twice whether we want this undertaking to be run by the ordinary political mind along ordinary political lines. I say, quite frankly, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, a politician as such is better outside the function of management, unless he qualifies for membership as constituted in the Bill.

May I give an illustration of the kind of danger that politics in the management of a public undertaking bring out? The London County Council, in the financial year 1929–30, earned a tramways surplus of £128,804. They decided that that surplus should be set aside for tramway purposes—a right and proper thing to do, particularly as receipts this year have dropped materially, in common with other transport undertakings. In due time, just before the election, the Finance Committee was looking round for money, and found this £128,000, and, without in any way consulting the Highways Committee as the committee responsible for the management of the tramways, collared the lot, and used it for the reduction of the rates. It is true they said the reason was that they wanted to prevent me from getting at—which, again, is rather a political motive—any money which had been contributed by the travelling public of London, and it meant, that before this House had had an opportunity of considering this Bill, the London County Council was going to make away with the loose cash. I must not be cross about that or bad tempered, and I understand their feelings, but there was an election coming which needed some life put into it. It was going slow—I know that as well as they did. It was a slow election, and they wanted to bill all London with, "We have reduced the rates by 7d. in the £. Send us back again, and beware of the Socialist labour men who will give you Poplarism all over London, and put up the rates to 25s." That was the real motive of taking away the surplus earned by the travelling public, and set aside, quite properly, for tramway purposes. I venture to say that that surplus was taken for political reasons, and not for transport reasons at all.

That is the kind of danger of politicians playing about with big business undertakings, and it is one of the things I have learned from the Conservative party, and it makes me careful on the subject. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the proper authority to set up is a business board, and in that direction I have been influenced by three considerations. The first one was developed from modern Socialist thought and my own municipal experience. Secondly, the Liberal party contributed much to this subject in dealing with public concerns in "Britain's Industrial Future." I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) had a hand in the production of the book, and I pay all due acknowledgment for his assistance, and that of his colleagues in this matter. This is what they say on page 82:

The Central Electricity Board is responsible for the wholesaling, so to speak, of electricity supply in Great Britain. Talk about interference with the rights of individual operators and undertakers. That Measure was full of such interference. It said to the operators and the generators of electricity: "You have to supply to the board, at the grid, electricity in bulk at cost price, and we are going to make you do it." It said to the individual undertakers: "You shall not develop your undertaking; you are going to take your supply from the Central Electricity Board." The Central Electricity Board is a public authority appointed by the Minister of Transport in the same way as this board is to be appointed.

Provision was made that where anything was taken it was to be paid for in cash.

You see what happens when I try to pay a compliment to my right hon. and gallant Friend. No, it really was worse than that. They said: "You are generating electricity. We are going to take as much as we like, and we are going to take it at cost, and you shall not make any money out of it." That was a very serious thing to say, but, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not believe me, let him ask the hon. Member for Hampstead, and he will get the straight tip. Let us leave that aside, however. This Board is appointed by the Minister of Transport. It is not a political body. It is not a State Department. It is a business board. It is not even responsible to the Minister for its every-day actions. The members know that the Minister re-appoints them, and that if they did not behave themselves he could appoint somebody else, though he could not do that, unless they were very bad, and public opinion was against them. They know that he is answerable for them in Parliament, and, when they are up against a ticklish question of policy, of really big policy, they have a friendly talk with the Minister—not to receive his orders or instructions, but in order that both may understand the problem and mutually consult, and agree as to what is the best thing to do. That is not a political authority.

If they disagree with the Minister on policy, what happens then? Can he dismiss them or not?

They never do. The British are a wonderful people. It is only political parties who disagree. On practical business matters you would be surprised how easy it is to agree and come to conclusions. It is not a political body; it is a business body, but there is an element of public accountability, of public service and of public spirit. When I found as Minister of Transport, how successfully the Central Electricity Board was working, I said to myself that the example of my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Minister of Transport was worth looking into, and the example of the late President of the Board of Trade who backed the Bill which set up the Central Electricity Board, was worth looking into. And, the more I looked at it, the more I was impressed with the soundness of "Britain's Industrial Future" and all the advice given to the Labour party on this subject.

Therefore, the board is to consist of five members appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, and the persons appointed are to be persons who have wide experience, who have shown capacity in industry, commerce or finance or in the conduct of public affairs. In "industry," of course, we include transport, and, as the Bill goes on, we shall probably insert the word "transport" for greater clarity. We desire upon this board the best business brains that we can secure for the purpose, and the Bill does not exclude from consideration for membership somebody associated with local government in London possessing the necessary business ability. But we must insist upon all the members being persons of business ability and capacity. It is obvious that the people in charge, certainly the Chairman of the board, must have great industrial and managerial ability, and we must be prepared to pay what is necessary in order to secure that ability, if the undertaking is to be efficient, and if the ordinary workpeople in the industry are not to be let down by incompetent management at the top. It is provided that there shall be paid to the Chairman and the other members of the board such salaries or fees and allowances for expenses as the Minister may direct. The board will, of course, appoint the appropriate officers for the management of the undertaking, and indeed we shall take over the officers and staffs of the existing transport undertakings.

Clause 3 of the Bill defines the general policy which the board is to pursue. The powers to be vested in the board are to be exercised so as to secure an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport in the London Traffic Area. The Bill lays it down, perfectly clearly, that the board must pay its way and must not be dependent or expect to be dependent upon any subsidy from the State or from the local authorities. We are making this Bill complete, and therefore we propose that there shall be transferred to the new board all the passenger-carrying agencies in the London Traffic Area, whether omnibus, tube or tramway, so that we may get a completely consolidated undertaking. The only undertakings which will be left out will be the suburban lines of the main line railways, and with that aspect of the problem I deal shortly, because it raises separate issues. There are certain undertakings which are jointly owned by one of the London undertakings and a main line railway. The new board will succeed to the ownership of the London undertakings, and will continue to work these jointly with the appropriate main line railways. As I say, the tramways of the local authorities will come over and also the omnibus undertakings of Messrs. Thomas Tilling and the independent undertakings in so far as they operate omnibus services within the London Traffic Area.

Now I come to deal with considerations for transfer, in the way of exchange of stocks, and so on, provided for in the Bill. The Underground group of undertakings, and the Metropolitan Railway will be transferred to the Board on the basis of an exchange of the Board's transport stock for the existing stocks, and provision is made in the Second Schedule for the distribution of the substituted stock among the holders of the existing stocks and the winding-up of the existing companies. Other private undertakings may be acquired partly by payment in cash and partly by exchange of stock. The amounts of consideration to be given by the Board for the transfer can be agreed between the Board and the companies, and, if they are not agreed, they can be referred to arbitration. Broadly, the tribunal of arbitration which is set up under the Bill is directed to settle the terms with particular regard to the average net profits earned during the three financial years immediately preceding the passing of the Act, and the probability that those profits would have continued to be earned if the Act had not been passed. Net profits are to be assessed, after all proper charges have been met, including adequate provision for replacement and renewal of all assets subject to depreciation or obsolescence. The principle embodied in the Acquisition of Lands Act, that no allowance is to be made for the compulsory nature of the transfer is to apply.

Finally, an important factor to be taken into account by the arbitration tribunal will be the provisions of Section 13 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, to which I may recall the memory of the House. After declaring that no value should be conferred upon any undertaking by the passing of the Act of 1924 it went on to say: local authorities tramways shall be taken over on the basis that the Board will assume the responsibility of the authorities for the service of the outstanding debt of the transferred undertaking.

It should not be inferred from the necessary inclusion in the Bill of complete machinery to settle terms of transfer, that agreement cannot be reached with the authorities and companies who own the undertakings to be transferred. Negotiations have proceeded and are proceeding, but, in a matter of this complexity, settlement necessarily takes some considerable time. Several local authorities have, in fact, already intimated their general acceptance of the proposals. That statement does not include my friends of the London County Council but our relations are still friendly, and I hope that such may continue to be the case, because I am a member of that authority. The settlement of terms with the companies is necessarily a more complicated matter. Here, again, I shall continue my policy of endeavouring to reach agreement. If agreements are reached before the Bill passes into law, it will be proposed that they shall be scheduled to, and confirmed later in the Bill. It is perhaps fair that I should read to the House a letter which I have received from Lord Ashfield, which defines his position and that of his companies towards the Bill. Whatever our controversies may have been and may yet be, all of us can agree that Lord Ashfield and his colleagues have played a very big and important part in the London passenger transport system, and it is fair to him, in view of the attitude that he has adopted on the Second Reading, that the House should know of his attitude. He writes to me, under date 21st March, 1931:

"Dear Mr. Morrison,

London Passenger Transport Bill.

We have now before us the text of the London Passenger Transport Bill, and learn that the Second Reading is to take place on Monday next. Shortness of time has prevented us from consulting our security holders, whose interests are vitally affected by the Bill, and it is necessary that we should put the whole subject before them, having regard to the magnitude and importance of their stake in matters covered by the Bill.

So far we have proceeded on the basis of direct negotiation with you and your advisers, and, although these negotiations have not yet proceeded far, we have your assurance that they will be continued. We assume that, if and when agreement is reached, and we have consulted our stockholders, the Bill will be adapted to give effect to such agreement.

For many years we have pursued a policy which is in accord with the main principle of the Bill, namely, that there should be a consolidation of the local passenger transport undertakings of London, under a unified control and with a common financial interest. We are, therefore, not proposing to challenge this principle of the Bill. But when we examine the Bill, section by section, we may find many things with which we are not agreed, which are also matters of principle.

In these circumstances, we rely upon the assurance which you have given us that neither we nor our security holders will be prejudiced as the result of our taking no action upon the Second Reading stage, and we regard ourselves as free to raise on the Committee stage all matters which affect or concern us.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Ashfield."

That is a perfectly fair and proper letter for Lord Ashfield to have sent, and indeed I think it will be said that so far, with the exception of the independent omnibus proprietors, who have very much misunderstood the Bill, and possibly the London County Council, although I am not sure of them, none of the existing transport undertakings have really challenged the fundamental, economic and administrative basis upon which this Bill proceeds. They have their arguments, their points, big points, and they will want to be satisfied, but it cannot be said that in the main they challenge fundamentally the basis upon which this Bill proceeds.

I have already stated that an Arbitration Tribunal is to be set up, and the necessary provision is made accordingly. The Bill provides that the commissioners shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, but, if it is possible their names, will be inserted in the Bill at a later stage. The tribunal will have to hear all the parties, including the existing operators, and the local authorities, and, in response to the request of my trade union friends, I have thought it right to take the view that labour in this industry, whose future is very much involved in the settlement, has a right, in addition, to be heard under the Bill before the Arbitration Tribunal; and I think that for the first time that provision has been made.

I now come to the area with which are dealing. The area must be a natural traffic area, and it must be adequate otherwise, we are merely making more trouble for ourselves. Again, I would beg of the House not to tinker with the problem, but to be bold and courageous about it. We therefore take the London traffic area, which has a 25 miles radius from Charing Cross, although the Metropolitan Railway does, and will continue to, run beyond that area; and power is taken, in order to complete the fringe omnibus services, that the board may run road services beyond the 25 miles, but in that case they will have to get a licence to run in the same way as anybody else, and the service so run must be related to the London system itself. They will be empowered to effect working agreements with local authorities or private operators on the fringe. They will not be concerned with real long-distance services which do not both pick up and set down in the London traffic area; otherwise, I wish to make it quite clear that the board must be secured against competition except with its own consent, as from the appointed day, which is to be the 1st January of next year or such later date as the Minister may appoint. Compensation may be claimed for direct loss due to prohibition or restriction as a result of the board's monopoly.

At the suggestion of the London County Council, we are taking powers for the board, by agreement with the county council, to operate steamboats on the River Thames, or probably motor boats, as they would now be, under the powers which at present exist with the London County Council.

Power is taken in the Bill for the abandonment of tramways. I do not wish to enter into the great controversy as to trams and anti-trams. The future of the tram in certain towns is a matter of some speculation, and the future of light services in the outskirts is a matter of speculation. Everything in traffic is a matter of speculation, and I do not wish to be a dogmatist, but the board must be free to provide the best service in the public interest, and therefore the necessary provision and elasticity is given to it.

It may be said: "This transport board of yours may consist of five thoroughly brilliant and thoroughly able men, but you must be careful that they do not become too expert, too much dominated by the transport mind." I think the board will itself desire to be popular, and it will try to be popular, but, if it should become dominated by the technical instead of the public mind at times, provision is made whereby the necessary corrective will be supplied. We are reforming the Traffic Advisory Committee, making it much more municipal in character, and that will act as a constant liaison between the board and the local authorities.

We are referring to the Railway Rates Tribunal, which for this purpose will include local government representation, all questions of fares and charges, and local authorities can make claims, they can ask for reductions or appear against the board, should the board desire increases in fares, and the board can itself, of course, go to the Tribunal if desired. Thus we shall get, in the matter of fares, a single jurisdiction of an independent, judicial, non-political body, but the Tribunal will understand that the board must pay its way. On services and facilities, the local authorities individually will be able to approach the Minister, who can refer the matter to the Traffic Advisory Committee, which will report, and upon its report the Minister can make an order. Therefore, ample safeguards are provided, notwithstanding that this will be a public service.

There is a Clause which provides that there will be established a standing joint committee between the board and the railway companies. I have thought it right that there should be a steady contact between the board and the main line railway companies. They may operate together, they may work together, they may even elaborate a pooling scheme, but it is provided that on a matter of that kind, which may involve very big public policy, the approval of the Minister, who can delegate his approval to a technical body, if it is really a technical question, has to be secured. The main line companies would have preferred, I think, to be guaranteed a pool under the Bill itself. My present view is that the pool must be argued, must be proved, and must be shown to be in the public interest, but a pool of receipts does not frighten me in the least. I am anxious that the board shall work in the fullest co-operation with the main line companies, and further discussions are proceeding with the main line companies upon that line, but in any case the proposals in this Bill go very much beyond the proposals that were in the Blue Report.

Hon. Members will find in Part III of the Bill various financial provisions, which I need not explain, because they are of a somewhat technical character. Part IV of the Bill provides for certain necessary Amendments of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. The licensing of public service vehicles will pass from the Commissioner of Police to the Traffic Commissioner; and there are necessary Amendments to the London Traffic Act, which is made permanent, including an increase of municipal representation upon that body from eight members up to 22.

Provisions are made in the Bill for the protection of the rights of existing officers and servants, and, while we shall necessarily have to discuss those provisions with the associations concerned, I think it will be found that they give very great safeguards to the existing staffs and to the existing superannuation funds; and, moreover, they empower the board itself to set up a complete superanuation fund.

May I now make a brief reference to the Amendment which, I observe, has been placed upon the Order Paper for the rejection of the Bill? The Amendment says that the House would welcome a further scheme—[HON. MEMBEBS: "Any sound scheme!"]—of co-ordination, and then it goes on, it seems to me, to lay down conditions under which it would be utterly impossible for any Government to evolve a sound scheme of co-ordination. The Amendment goes on to say that this Bill

"provides for the nationalisation of London passenger transport."

Really, does this come appropriately from the Conservative party? Who nationalized the telephones? The Tory party did. It is true that they have been grumbling about getting the wrong number ever since, and, if they go on opposing sound Bills of this kind, they will get the wrong number at the next election. Who was it that made the water undertakings of London a public concern? It was the Tory party. Who was it that converted the British Broadcasting Company into a

Is the Tory party, in its desire for privilege, taking the position that it and it alone is entitled to introduce socialistic legislation? Is it their position that a Conservative Government may bring in socialistic legislation, but that, if a Socialist Government dares to do it, it shall be condemned by Parliament and by the country? We reject this monopoly of Socialism. We demand that even a minority Government in this House, Socialist Government as it is, shall also have its right to introduce its little share of socialistic legislation. On the question as to whether the scheme of the Bill is nationalisation or not, I leave hon. Members opposite to make up their minds. I have already quoted the London Municipal Society to show that they first said that it was not, and that I had gone over to the capitalist class, and two months afterwards they said that it was and that they would fight me to the death.

Reflect on the problem of the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Supply Act of 1926 again. It was being denounced by the back benchers opposite, who were then on this side, as a Socialist Bill; and Lord Peel, when he went to the House of Lords to get the Bill through there, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite will know, had to be very careful what he said. This is what he did say:

"I ask: What are the tests of this being a nationalising Bill? First of all, it does not take one single wage-earner more under the control of the Government. It does not create one single civil servant in excess of those at present in work—for the employés of the board are not in any sense civil servants."

I say the same about my Bill, and, if it was true that that was not a nationalising Bill, neither is this. At the moment, I am not saying whether it is or not, because I am coming to a much more sensible and more appropriate observation that Lord Peel made. Earlier in his speech, Lord Peel said—and I hope hon. Members opposite, including the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), will listen to this:

"I do not say that your Lordships will necessarily be greatly concerned as to whether this Bill is or is not in accord with some political theory. You will probably consider whether it is is or is not in itself a useful and admirable Bill."

Quite shortly, he said: "Do not worry about our old shibboleths; let us talk sense." I say to hon. Members opposite, let them not be as dogmatic as they say the Karl Marx people are, but let us talk sense and ask: Is this right or wrong? I have another recruit in the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who will always be famous as a brilliant Assistant Postmaster-General. He was preaching on the Post Office, and said:

"The action I want to take is to remove the Post Office altogether out of the hands of politicians and the Civil Service, and to put it in the hands of a statutory authority—as the Minister of Transport proposes to put the London traffic—controlled by the ablest business brains we can find, in a position to raise its own capital, to employ the greatest technical experts, no matter what country they come from"—

He did not even exclude Russia—

"and to run this great concern as a business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1931; col. 2221, Vol. 249.]

Was the Noble Lord right, or has he become infected with Socialism in his time? The Amendment also says that the Bill

"deprives, local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings."

The scheme of common management under the co-ordination Bills promoted by the London County Council and the Underground Group, so far as such scheme was revealed to Parliament, provided for the management of the combined undertakings by a board of directors consisting of 20 members, two of whom were to be representative of the London County Council. Nothing was said about representation on the board of other local authorities whose tramways might be brought under a common management or of the representation of local authorities as such. Is it consistent with co-ordination that 14 separate tramway authorities should exist in Greater London? That is the question, and the answer must be in the negative. The next point in the indictment is that the Bill

"takes the property of private owners out of their control; gives them no option of sale"—

just as the right hon. Gentleman did under the Electricity Supply Act of 1926.

"It is agreed that co-ordination is necessary; it is agreed that co-ordination in London traffic would not only he of great benefit to the people of London, but also that it would go a very long way towards relieving the very serious traffic problems that we have. It is also agreed on all sides that you cannot get co-ordination without creating some type of monopoly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1929; cols. 572–3, Vol. 230.]

The creation of a monopoly of London passenger transport can only be secured by taking the existing undertakings out of the control of their present owners if the scheme is to be complete. The further indictment is that the Bill

"vests in the Minister of Transport bureaucratic powers; and constitutes him, and not a judicial tribunal, the court of appeal in such important matters as the provision or withdrawal of traffic services and facilities."

The Minister of Transport comes in to protect the public interest; if he did not, there would be complaints. Indeed, he has left himself out in one respect where the co-ordination Bills put him, namely, on the question of fares; and the initiative and influence of local authorities is much wider. Before requiring the board to provide new or improved services, or prohibiting the withdrawal or reduction of services, the Minister will have to refer the matter to the Traffic Advisory. Committee for inquiry or report. If it is said that that body is not appropriate to inquire into and advise the Minister upon such matters, as it is being said in some quarters, I would quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who before the day is out may quote me on some past declaration—

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been suitably briefed, and we shall have a pleasant half-an-hour on the brief which he has received from the other side of the water. Nobody will listen to it with more pleasure than I shall. In the meantime, here is something for him to get on with:

This Amendment is a preposterous thing, and I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be asked to go into the Lobby in support of such a contradictory and unreasonable so-called "reasoned" Amendment. I seriously suggest to the Opposition that, if they want a reasoned Amendment on the Third Reading, they should come to me, and I will draft a better one than this. I have tried, and I will continue to try, to get what is essentially a business matter above party controversy so far as that is possible in the House of Commons. I appreciate that the Opposition feel that an opposition must oppose, that they must divide against the Bill and express their views on the principle; I appreciate that they may even remember that I rejected the Co-ordination Bills, and that I am not to be allowed to get away with this Bill too easily. The spirit of revenge is regrettable, but it is human, and we all suffer from it. I appreciate that on the part of the Opposition, and I do not complain about this Amendment and of their dividing the House, but I ask that, when the Opposition have vindicated their principles by the Division which will take place to-night, and when the House has approved the policy which is incorporated in this Bill, as it will do, all parties will co-operate for the practical ends of what is a practical business matter, which must in the end be supported on business lines. I ask them to discuss it and consider it in that way in the interests of London's travelling millions, and of those visitors from the provinces, the Dominions, and foreign countries who visit us and use London's great transport system.

I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: of the sources from which he has drawn it, might properly be described as a hybrid Bill. The issue on which the House will vote, however, is a very simple though very important one, and it can be stated in a fairly short speech. We are not going to vote to-night on the question of whether there ought or ought not to be a co-ordination of London traffic. There are no two opinions about that, but it was the action of the right hon. Gentleman—whether under the inspiration of revenge, or whether from the driving force of his friends behind—it was his incontinent action in throwing out Bills which had received Third Readings which prevented us having a large measure of co-ordination in London traffic to-day.

If those Bills had gone through, we should to-day have been in a position of being able to judge by experience whether a system of co-ordination were working well, and we might have been able to do any further co-ordination in the light of practical experience. The right hon. Gentleman threw those Bills out, because he cared much more for Socialism than for co-ordination. Nor is the issue concerned with implementing an agreement which the Minister has made between the different parties. It is plain from his speech, and from the letters which he has read, that he has no sort of agreement with any authority at all about this Bill. Lord Ashfield objects to many points of principle. The right hon. Gentleman has no agreement with the railways—the main line railways or the Metropolitan Railway. He has no agreement with the London County Council. He has found some agreement as to terms with one or two local authorities. I am not sure whether by "agreement as to terms" he means financial terms which they are to receive if this Bill goes through, or the principles involved in the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us which are the local authorities with which he has reached agreement, but it is obviously a very small fraction of the whole number of the undertakings which it is proposed to mobilise under this Bill. Therefore, we are not in the position to-day of having an agreement between these undertakings which Parliament is asked to implement.

5.0 p.m.

The issue is a very simple one. To take the Minister's own words, what we are asked to approve is "the greatest. Socialist transport scheme which has ever been before the country." Those are the words in which he commended it to his supporters in one of those joyous gatherings where they co-ordinate their policy. That is an issue we are prepared to meet, and it is the only issue which we have to meet on Second Reading. There is no inevitability of gradualness there! We have passed far beyond that. In this Bill we are getting "Socialism in our time." [ Interruption. ] I can understand the refreshing glow which fills hon. Members opposite at finding, for once, a Socialist Government introducing a Socialist Measure. I congratulate the Minister on having got into the Cabinet in spite of that indiscretion.

But what about hon. Members of the Liberal party? I really want to know, and I ask it in all sincerity, where do they stand on this Bill which, in the words of the Minister, is "the greatest Socialist transport scheme that has ever been put before the country"? [ Interruption. ] Perhaps they are meeting to consider it at the present time. We all know that a large number of Members of that party have permitted themselves a large field of Parliamentary manœuvre, but they have always made it plain that there were bounds beyond which they would not go, that the confines of Socialism and nationalisation were set, and that they were prepared to support the Socialist Government just so long as it did not introduce Socialism or nationalisation. That was the rubicon which, however friendly their feelings towards the Government might be, however closely they might be allied, they would never cross. But that is what they are brought up to to-day!

Anybody who votes for this Bill is, without any possible question, voting for nationalisation, and for nationalisation in a very peculiar and extreme form. I think the Minister's description of it as the greatest Socialist scheme is very apt. Let us see what the Bill does. All are forced to transfer their property, whether they like it or not, to a public undertaking, the board of management of which is appointed by the Minister. It is a tremendous Socialist experiment, nationalisation and nothing else.

The Minister will not get away with that! I am coming to that and one or two other so-called precedents in a minute. The Minister said, "Of course it is Socialism, but it is going to be removed from politics." With great respect to him, that is all nonsense. He is not removing it from politics in the least. The Minister appoints the board. He may say, as the right hon. Gentleman who sits behind him has said, "It does not matter much what I put in the Bill, because in the exercise of my powers I am going to be very reasonable." How do we know that reasonable people are always going to be in office? Next time it might be the First Commissioner of Works in charge, and he might have very different ideas.

I know the right hon. Gentleman thinks so. That is the danger. The Minister is to make the appointments, and what we have to remember to-day is not the reasonableness, or the charm, or the businesslike capacity of the particular gentleman who occupies the post at the moment, but that we are legislating for all time. The Minister says, "It is perfectly safe for me to make the appointment, because look at the qualifications of the people whom I have to appoint. What are their qualifications? The Bill states that the Minister is to appoint persons: not exceeding seven years. He might appoint a board for one year, and when their time for reappointment fell through might appoint another board to carry out all his Socialist predilections. We must have regard to the provisions of the Bill and not to any statements of intention which the Minister may make in presenting it. Not only can he appoint the members of the board but he can remove them. If they do not go fast enough he can turn them out. The Bill says:

I should say that that power in itself was a pretty strong form of Socialism. But things do not end there. This is a novel and very irresponsible form of Socialism. The owners of transport undertakings are not to be bought out, they have to take stock. Excepting some of the independent omnibus companies, who may get some cash as well as stock, they have to transfer the whole of their undertakings and take in exchange for it stock in this new board. That is giving the Minister power without responsibility. Neither the shareholders nor the local authorities are to have any say in the appointment of the board upon whose success the whole of their investments depend. They will have no say in the appointment of the board they will never be able to challenge it.

I recall that when we were passing the Companies Act through the House a number of Members of the Liberal party emphasised the importance of there being clear accounts, so that shareholders could learn the position of a company and could be critical of the board at the general meeting. What is the good of provisions of that sort if shareholders are to have no chance of appointing the people to manage their business or of criticising them or exercising any control over them? It cannot be said in this case that people have to be removed because their management of the concerns in the past has been at fault. The Minister himself paid a most admirable tribute to the management of the Underground Railways. No one will say that the management of the Underground Railways, or the management of the Metropolitan Company under the late Mr. Selbie, was not of the highest possible efficiency.

The Minister said just now that he did not like joint authorities, because there was too much joint and too little authority about them. If I may plagiarise him in reply, I think a good many people do not like this Bill because there is too little local and too much Minister in it. The Minister not only appoints these people and removes them, but he retains a most important element of control in the conduct of their business. He is the judge between the main line railways and the board. He laid stress on the importance of the arrangement which will be made between the board and the main line railway companies. A joint committee is to be set up and they are to try to arrive at agreements, but who is to be the arbiter if they fail to reach agreement? Who is to have the last word? In default of agreement who is to issue directions, directions which may affect very gravely the whole financial stability of either one company or another? It is the Minister. He is the one man who retains control and who is the arbiter. He has another enormous power. He is the arbiter under Clause 21 on the withdrawal or provision of facilities. I cannot think of any power which could be more important. It may affect the whole financial stability of a company. As to that the Minister says, "Ah, but I have to consult the Traffic Advisory Committee." The Minister has quoted many speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the House in connection with other Bills. May I remind him of what he said about the Traffic Advisory Committee, and the powers of the Traffic Advisory Committee, when his own Government were introducing the London Traffic Bill in 1924:

Yes, we all have the Bill before us. The Minister said he went to many sources for information, but I should like to know whether he consulted the London Traffic Advisory Committee in regard to the preparation of the Bill.

I met the Committee, and explained my intentions to them, but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the Cabinet, when it introduces a first-class Measure, has to obtain the assent of the advisory committee.

I suggest that it is not an unfair test of the importance which the Minister attaches to the advisory committee, and the influence which it is likely to have in the future, to ascertain whether the Minister thinks that body competent and important enough to consult in the preparation of a Bill, in regard to which he has been quite willing to draw from the Liberal Yellow Book.

On certain things it was quite appropriate that the advisory committee should give advice, but obviously questions of high policy must remain with the Government.

I think all this bears out very much the view which I am expressing to the House, that the advisory committee will be kept in their proper place on these matters. I expect that they will be consulted in the little things. When it comes to really important things in London traffic—I mean the kind of thing that a board considers and not a clerk—those will be matters upon which the Minister will take his own decision. In that case, I think the Minister will be within his legal rights, and his position will be secure under the terms of the Bill. He is not bound to take their advice, but he will consider it and will make the Orders, and he will make any Order which he thinks is right. I now come to the consideration of Clause 21 which makes the Minister the authority to decide whether traffic facilities are to be curtailed or withdrawn, or whether further facilities are to be granted. At first sight it would appear that the Minister is bound by an over-riding rule in regard to financial matters. As a matter of fact, he is to be the sole judge whether a particular proposal is going to affect the financial position of the Board. The Clause reads: is to be given, it ought to be given to an independent tribunal. In the case of a dispute about fares, the matter goes to the Railway Rates Tribunal, which is a judicial body, and that tribunal is bound to decide the question in accordance with the financial position of the undertakings. I do not believe that you can divorce the question of facilities from the question of fares, and therefore the same body which deals with one ought to deal with the other. I think there ought to be an appeal to an independent tribunal; otherwise, the most complete nationalising control is vested in the Minister. The Minister has to control the question of how much money a company is to place to reserve. No one will dispute the reality of nationalisation in this Bill. No one will say where you have so much irresponsible control that the Minister's discretion to describe it as a vast socialist system is at all wrong.

The Minister of Transport said there were precedents for what he has proposed, but there is no sort or kind of precedent in the whole history of the past for what the Minister is actually proposing in this Measure. The Minister of Transport cited the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. In that case, the shareholders were to receive cash unless they agreed to take stock, and there the appointments did not rest with the Minister but with a large number of the representatives of different undertakings who had the power of appointing. The right hon. Gentleman also quoted, as an instance, the Port of London Authority, but that constitutes no sort of precedent for what is proposed in this Bill. What is the whole basis of the principle upon which the Port of London Authority was set up? The sum which the undertakings were to receive was definitely laid down in an agreement. The Port of London Authority Act confirmed and ratified that agreement and registered in its Sections the consideration that the authority had agreed to pay for the undertakings which would be transferred. I have looked up the Debates on this subject, and I find that the Act constituting the Port of London Authority had the support of Lord Banbury, who at that time sat as the Member of Parliament for Peckham, but I do not think the Minister of Transport will quote Lord Banbury in support of Socialism. I think the Minister will recognise that there was no Ministerial power of appointment or control in the Port of London Authority Act.

Then the Minister fell back on the Central Electricity Board and made great play of that precedent. In my view, there is no sort of parallel between the Central Electricity Board and what is proposed in this Bill. Under that board, nobody is to be expropriated in regard to their stock whether they like it or not, and only in a very remote contingency which has never arisen could the board buy out anybody at all. The Electricity Board has been created for the purpose of carrying electricity throughout the country under a grid system, but the board does not take away from any producing company its control of production or the management of its undertaking. It does not take away from the distributors of electricity the right of distribution. They remain in charge of the productive and distributive undertakings. In the limited powers which the Central Board had given to them Parliament took care that the Electricity Board should be entirely independent of the Minister, and in no case is there any appeal from the action of the Central Board to the Minister or the Electricity Commissioners. The result is that, so far as you can make a board of that kind independent, you have done so, but throughout this Bill you find the Minister mentioned on every page, and the control of the Minister goes all through this Measure. There is no sort of precedent for this Bill, and if the House passes it we shall create a precedent which will be a tremendous Socialist experiment.

For once the Bolshevist wing is acting in support of the Front Bench, but I would like to ask, is the Soviet Union now complete? The Minister of Transport in his speech said that the method proposed in this Bill was the way in which they were going to obtain public ownership of all transport. Why does the Minister stop there? This Measure may be a precedent for the public ownership of everything, and why does the right hon. Gentleman stop at railways, transport and electricity? Why not include steel? Why should the right hon. Gentleman not say to other industries, "I do not like the way in which you are conducting your business, and I propose to transfer all companies, whether they like it or not, into a new undertaking and combine. They will receive stock which I shall issue to them. It will not cost me anything, and I shall undertake no risk. We shall transfer to the new Soviet combine every undertaking in this particular industry. The people will not be bought out but they will receive stock; they will have no further say in the management of the business, and the Minister will appoint the Board of Management and have power to dismiss them. The Minister will be the court of appeal, and he will watch over all their operations. He will be the first and the last court of appeal in regard to those operations." That is an amazing precedent. It is nationalisation, and nationalisation of a peculiarly irresponsible kind, and it is upon that issue, whether this House is going to approve that very novel and far-reaching principle of nationalisation, and upon no other issue, that the House will vote to-night.

I want to add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) on the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. His progress has been rapid since he entered the House in 1924, when he and I collaborated in criticising another Government Measure. He has risen to the position of a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, and has now entered the Cabinet. I think everyone will agree that he has well earned has success, and certainly his speech to-day had the saving grace of humour. If I say that it was somewhat of a Cockney humour, that is not meant in disparagement, but rather in praise; his speech was of the kind that adds to the gaiety of the House.

I will tell the House right away that I am not particularly in love with this Bill; it is not the kind of Measure that I should like to see in order to solve the traffic problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, in his very interesting speech in moving the rejection of the Bill, tried to make our flesh creep by describing the Bill as Socialism of a most striking character. I am not satisfied that the only way to solve the traffic problem of London is by a monopoly. But the position was given away in 1924. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is busily making notes. He was one of the arch-conspirators who indulged in this little experiment of creating a monopoly in London traffic. I remember pointing out, during the discussions on the 1924 Bill, that inevitably the provisions of that Bill, when it became an Act, must mean a monopoly in one form or another. That was the intention of the people behind the Bill; Lord Ashfield made no secret of has purpose. I anticipated, and so did my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport anticipate, that step by step, as licences came to be limited to privileged individuals, monopoly must grow out of that Measure, and it has come about on almost a larger scale than I anticipated. It is true that there is an occasional private omnibus still plying for hire in the streets, but, as soon as that licence becomes of any commercial value, I think my hon. Friends above the Gangway will agree that the traffic combine comes along and buys it out, often at a very high price, in order to keep its stranglehold over the traffic of London.

As I have said, the Bill of 1924 was the first step towards a monopoly, but there was a further step, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon did not refer much to it. That was the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill. I assumed that the rejection of this Bill would be moved by the ex-Minister of Transport, looking, as always, charming behind his pink carnation; but I suppose he felt embarrassed by his past. Not only did he take a very active part in passing the London Traffic Act of 1924, but he gave his special blessing to the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill. What did that Bill propose to do? It proposed to create a complete monopoly. There was no suggestion there that there was going to be any play of free competition; it was a proposal to hand over the whole traffic of London to the tender mercies of the traffic combine. The management was to be vested in the hands of a private company; there was to be a traffic pool; and, as far as one could understand the terms of the Bill, for 42 years there was not going to be the slightest opportunity for individual enterprise or competition.

I am not ashamed to say that I played a part in the rejection of that Bill, and the present Minister of Transport helped me in destroying it. I am unrepentant. I will say this to the credit of the Minister, that he has given himself 18 months to think out his scheme; he has not been hasty. I will give him the credit that, differing from the late Minister, he has been prepared to consult every section of opinion and every interest concerned. There have been constant conferences at the Ministry of Transport—there is no secret about it—between the London County Council, the City Corporation, and all the various urban district councils The Minister has brought them together in order to get agreement, and he has made a brave attempt to get everyone into his scheme. I will say this, that if monopoly is inevitable, and if we are to follow the lead of right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, we have to accept that principle, we should scrutinise most closely any scheme that is put before the House. Traffic is as vital to the people of London, or to the life of any great urban district, as water, drainage, lighting, or even roads. It is an essential public necessity, and I say that it is not safe to hand it over to any private monopoly or to any trust, however much it may be controlled. One sees how important traffic is to London or any other great town when there is a traffic stoppage. The paralysis of the community during the great strike gave proof of that. Cheap and rapid transport is the very life-blood of a large community, and, as far as I am concerned, I will never consent to the giving of a monopoly to a private company. I am always for competition when there is free competition, but there is no free competition when the State takes an essential share and plays an essential part in the management of an industry.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon quite rightly pointed out that that is admitted in the case of water, in the case of electricity, and in the case of the Port of London, and it has been admitted in every case in every great city. When it is remembered that the number of passenger journeys taken in 1929 was 4,000,000,000, or an average of 1⅓ journey per head of the population per day, it will be realised how much, to a great community like that of London, cheap and rapid transport means. The whole question is as to what form the monopoly is to take. Is it to be left to a trust? I think I showed my opinion 18 months ago when I moved the rejection of the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill. Is it to be left to the State, or is it to be left to a local authority? I am unrepentant; I come down strongly on the side of the local authority. So far as it is necessary to run a service in the form of a monopoly, I am all for association of the people concerned in its direction. I think it is agreed that there is not a city in this country, or anywhere in Europe or in the Empire, that has not been allowed to manage its own traffic. Birmingham, which has already been referred to, Manchester, Sheffield, Glasgow—all of them manage their own tramways, omnibuses and so on, or control them in the interests of the community; and it is the same on the Continent. It may be that in Paris they lease the franchise; it may be that they are partners in it; but it is not the State, it is not the French Government, it is not the Ministry of the Interior, but the city of Paris, that is allowed to control and manage its own traffic; and similarly in Berlin and Vienna. If other precedents are wanted, one can go to Australia and find that in Melbourne, Sydney and others of the great cities, the State stands aside and leaves it to the municipality to run its essential local government services.

I agree that the problem of London is different, that it is complicated by the size of London, and I will do the Minister the credit of agreeing that, if we had had a Greater London Authority, he would never have attempted to butt in, through the Ministry of Transport, in this essential local government service. He was, however, ready with an excuse. He said that right hon. Gentlemen opposite him did nothing to bring about a reform of London's government. But what has he been doing during the last 18 months? Would not he have spent his time better in collaborating with the Minister of Health in the working out of a scheme for setting up a Greater London Authority, capable of dealing, not only with this problem, but with other London problems, than in delving into the bureaucratic experiment which is contained in this Bill? During the last four months he has been very severe on joint authorities. "Too much joint and too little authority" has become the great phrase. That is specious enough. I am all for regularly elected authorities. Where they exist, they bring publicity, and I say that they bring efficiency. I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's contempt for the municipalities. Where would he have been to-day if it had not been for his experience in the London County Council? He would have been a practically unknown politician. He won his spurs by taking an active part in the administration of the London County Council tramways efficiently and well. Moreover, two of these authorities are not quite so bad as he makes out. The Port of London Authority is the most successful port authority in the world—

I think that really the Port of London Authority to-day is the most efficient port authority in the world. While trade is depressed, while imports and exports are going down, the Port of London Authority actually last year passed a record as regards the amount of trade it handled. Again, take the Water Board. No one suggests that London does not get good water, or that, in spite of all the difficulties, water in London is not supplied on reasonable conditions and at reasonable rates. I very much doubt whether, if the London water supply was run by a board of five, appointed, say, by the Minister of Health, London would get a better water service at lower rates than at present. However, I know that the fashion is, in these days of rationalisation, to speak in favour of a small board. It certainly does lead to efficiency. The Yellow Book, to which the present Government goes for all its inspiration—whenever they get a good idea, they have not discovered it in "Labour and the Nation," but in the very valuable pages of the Yellow Book—it is quite true that the Yellow Book favoured a small board, and I am satisfied that, if you look at the matter purely from the point of view of efficiency, good management and getting the best results, a small board is by far the best board to manage a big undertaking like this. I go further. If you are really looking at the matter purely from the point of view of efficiency, no doubt, if, say, Lord Ash-field, were installed as a benevolent despot, the results would be even better than with a board of five. I do not want to quote the right hon. Gentleman; it is not fair. He was very young. He had no hope of becoming a Minister, and he was willing to follow my lead. He was speaking then of the London Traffic Bill. He said: expanded the numbers. He is all for smallness in the board. There are to be 34 members to give advice. They are to advise the Minister and to advise the board. Advice is cheap and, no doubt, will be very prolific, but, when it comes to the scratch, I think the five officials at Whitehall will be inclined to fob them off with the answer, "All these things are very nice; they add to the convenience of the travelling public and provide more facilities and cheaper fares, but our job is to make the two ends meet and, if these proposals are carried through, the obligation to make this undertaking financially sound will be impossible."

Of course, the ultimate arbiter of all these problems is to be the Minister himself. I tried to count the number of times that he is mentioned in the Clauses of the Bill and, as far as I could see, it was 70 times. I should not be disturbed if I knew that he had the freehold of the job. He is such a keen Londoner and has such enthusiasm for local government that, if he remained Minister of Transport, the interests of the travelling public would be safe in his hands. But he is already in the Cabinet. At any moment we may see him Lord Privy Seal. He may be transferred to a higher post. Parties come and parties go. The right hon. Gentleman who was there before is already looking longingly at the job, and expects to be back there. He comes from somewhere in Hampshire. I do not know whether he will be so concerned about the facilities provided for Hackney, Bethnal Green, Shoreditch and Woolwich. We cannot be satisfied that the future will secure a Minister as sympathetic and as concerned with the interests of London, and, after all, this is a London question. There has been a Committee sitting now for some months inquiring into the procedure of the House of Commons. Its whole purpose is to show that the business of Parliament is overloaded. Our work is congested. We cannot give enough time to criticising finance or many foreign and Imperial questions. The very last thing we want is to put on the House of Commons and the Government any new work that is going to lead to discussion and debate. London traffic questions will always be relegated to the hour of the Adjournment and, if London Members endeavour to keep a House to discuss London traffic questions, I am afraid that in nine cases out of ten the majority of Members will be anxious to hurry to their beds, and we shall have a count out. I am convinced that you must associate the people of the area concerned with the management of a great concern like this. I understand that the proposal is to send the Bill to a Joint Committee which, I assume, will be in a position to scrutinise and amend these proposals.

My attitude will depend on whether the constitution of the board can be broadened and changed. If there is some magic in the number of five, there seems to me no reason why at least two of the five should not be appointed by some other authority than the Minister. The Minister claims to himself all the wisdom. I do not know why he should be more intelligent and more independent, or less under the influence of politicians, in selecting the members of the board than the properly constituted authority representing the people of London. I admit that the largeness of the area is a difficulty. The hundreds of authorities outside London cannot very well have much share in the appointment of a board of this character. They will have to look to the Minister to protect their interests. But in London you have a homogeneous area with a properly constituted authority, the London County Council. I have no special affection for the London County Council as such. They have never treated me very generously. Representing a very small number, I have to fight for my life there, and I am not ever allowed to get a share in the selection of an Alderman. But it is the properly constituted authority of the London area. It is the authority under Parliament elected to manage the Metropolitan district. It is not unreasonable to say that, in constituting a board of this character, at least two of its members should be appointed by the London County Council. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to resist that, let him expand the number to, say, seven. That is a very convenient number. There is no reason why the board should not be able to say, "We are seven, part of us appointed by the Minister and part by the County Council." It is suggested that the County Council might appoint politicians. I do not know if that is a serious objection but, if it is, let us impose on these appointments the same qualifications that the Minister requires for his appointments. Let them, too, be men of business ability and administrative capacity. Let them, too, be subject to the approval of the Treasury. But let them be in direct contact with the great London area, with its teeming millions, with its great traffic requirements and its urgent necessity for traffic improvements.

There are two other very strong reasons why the County Council should be associated with the appointment of the board. The first is that London has a very large financial interest in this new undertaking. They have invested some £18,000,000. It is true that they have paid off £10,000,000 of capital, but they still have a liability of £8,000,000. They are not going to be paid in cash. They are going to be paid, as I understand it, in London Traffic stock. The Government are to have no financial association with the enterprise. The County Council will have a direct financial interest, because it will be interested to the extent of the £8,000,000 of London Traffic stock that it is to receive in payment for its undertaking. Therefore, it has a great claim to have a financial share in this enterprise. But there is a more important reason for the association of the elected authority of London with the appointment of this board. London traffic cannot be dissociated from London streets. The traffic problem is as much a street problem as a transport problem. In the 1924 Act we were told they were going to solve the problem because it was going to reduce the number of vehicles plying for hire and the streets would no longer be so congested. Go down the Strand or Piccadilly, go to the Elephant and Castle, to Tottenham Court Road or any of the great traffic centres and you will find the same overcrowding, the same congestion, the same fight at the peak load time to get on omnibuses and trams to get to or from work each morning and evening.

The local authority during the last few years has refused to take any important part in replanning and remodelling London. If this Bill goes through in its present form, with all responsibility vested in this board of five, appointed by the Minister, the London authority will be justified in washing its hands of any responsibility for replanning and remodelling London. Streets which were suitable in the days of horse traffic are quite unsuited for fast-moving motor traffic and speeded-up trams. The whole of London wants replanning, and new streets have to be cut. Nothing really will be done in that direction as long as the elected authority is divorced from any responsibility for London traffic. My support of the Bill, therefore, is conditional. It is to go to a Hybrid Committee, as I understand it, and will there be subject to severe scrutiny, and it will then come back for Report. Speaking for myself, if I am to support it in its final stages it must become more democratic in its character, be less bureaucratic and more directly associated with the local authority that is responsible for London. If the Minister will be true to his past and dissociate himself from his Department, we may yet be able to knock the Bill into shape so that it can be made into a real measure to improve London traffic. I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading, always on the understanding that if, in its final stages, it has not become more on the lines of the principles on which I and the right hon. Gentleman have been brought up, I shall reserve my full liberty to vote against it.

6.0 p.m.

I am glad to have the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend, not only upon his recent promotion to the Cabinet and upon the introduction of this very excellent Bill, but also upon having redeemed the Ministry of Transport from the position it held under the last Government when it was despised and condemned to extinction. I should think that when the history of the late Government comes to be written, it will be seen that there could hardly have been a more unfortunate action contemplated—fortunately it was not carried out—than the destruction of the Ministry of Transport. I hope that my right hon. Friend may continue in the good work until he has completed all the work that should be done under the Ministry. With the main purpose and scope of the Bill, those of us who are associated with employés concerned are in complete agreement. To us they are entirely commendable. We look upon it as a most excellent Bill. But I am compelled to draw the attention of the House to one or two doubtful points and omissions, and I am sure that I shall have assurances from the Minister that they will have his careful consideration.

Is it intended that any of the members of the proposed Traffic Board shall be in any way representative of labour or be of labour origin? That is a very important point to us. I would remind him that the first Minister of Transport made provision in the great Railways Act of 1921 for representatives of all workers to be on the boards of directors of the four amalgamated companies he then brought into existence. It is true that we had to relinquish that provision in order to obtain the full advantage of the recommendations of the Whitley Committee as to provisions for dealing with labour questions. On balance, we thought that the recommendations of the Whitley Committee would be more valuable at that moment than having representation on the boards of directors of the railway companies. Our reason for that was, that they were to be entirely capitalist concerns having as their sole motive the earning of as much dividend as they could so as to raise the price of their shares. Here we are to have a public authority which will have an entirely different motive and one which we appreciate most highly, namely, that of giving the maximum service to the community at the lowest possible cost consistent with the fair treatment of the people who do the work.

I would also remind my right hon. Friend that under the constitution of the Port of London Authority there are two representatives of labour definitely provided for on that body. I do not for a moment wish him to contemplate the appointment of people who will have two responsibilities. I would not ask him that; I do not think that any sensible man would seek it. Those who are appointed to this important board must give their whole services to the board and be answerable to no one but the Minister himself. We hope that he will be able to give an assurance, that when the appointments are made due regard will be paid to people of labour origin who are competent and capable of fulfilling the requirements laid down in the Bill. We appreciate very highly indeed the provision he has already made for permitting labour organisations to have locus standi before the amalgamations tribunal which is to decide the terms upon which undertakings are to be taken over by the new board. That is a matter of first-rate importance to us, because experience has shown that in the amalgamations of the four great steam railway companies, it would have been much better if certain capital arrangements had not been made. Financial obligations were entered into which ought not to have been placed upon the new concerns and those have been responsible for part of their recent trouble. At any rate, we shall have a chance of seeing that fair play prevails in the capital arrangements of the new authority.

We are particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for having made provision for the redemption of the capital to be involved in this great issue. We believe in redemption—I suppose everybody does in another sense—of capital by paying it off, and not confiscating it. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the very fact that there is provision for redemption in the Minister's scheme whereby the whole of the capital will be liquidated within 90 years will give those who take stock in exchange for the present shares the best possible security, and the exchange which they make will be of good market value directly the transaction has been carried out. We are glad that capital is to be redeemed and that this new great public authority to serve London and its environs will have an opportunity of getting free of the burden of capital just as do municipal authorities in the course of their debt.

I wish to draw attention to a point in the scheme which we think is inadequate. It is in regard to the Advisory Committee provided for in Clauses 42 and 42, and in the Fifth Schedule. My right hon. Friend makes provision on that larger body, which, of course, is quite distinct in character from the board itself, for only three representatives of labour. I ask him to be good enough to consider whether he cannot make the representation five. I ask him to consider increasing the number so that all the organisations having a large number of members concerned amongst the working people associated with this enterprise will be able to obtain representation.

I now come to the omission which we feel is peculiarly unfortunate. There appear to be no provisions whatever for dealing with labour questions such as were enacted in Part IV of the great Railways Act under which we have not only local and Departmental committees to deal with lesser matters, but a National Wages Board which deals with general questions affecting labour. Those amongst the employés with whom I am associated will be grateful if the Minister will give favourable consideration to our proposal that some such provision should be embodied in the Bill before it is sent to another place. In Clause 56, which provides for the protection of existing officers and servants, we find that Subsection (6) limits the protection from dismissal for a period of five years only. Our experience in connection with the great steam railways—and I suggest that this proposed huge combination for the London area is almost comparable with the great combines of the main line railways—has shown that not only is five years inadequate, but that even seven years is not enough. Cases are still in hand which have to be dealt with. One recognises that under this Bill the Ministry or the board will have the power to discontinue tram services and trolley overhead omnibus services and things of that kind; power to change and vary the character of those enterprises at any time, and, therefore, just as there was no time limit in the protection Section of the Railways Act, 1921, in respect of the staff, there should be no time limit in the proposed Measure.

We should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would tell us what is likely to be the procedure in the proposed Joint Committee to which he contemplates sending the Bill? Will it be similar to the procedure on private Bills by way of petition and appearance through counsel, or will it be the ordinary procedure on Government Bills upstairs in Committee? We should like some information upon that point.

I have asked that question because there are many matters of detail in which we are greatly interested. If the procedure is going to be as has been stated by my right hon. Friend, we shall have adequate opportunity of dealing with all detailed questions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some assurances on the particular points I have raised during the course of my remarks.

I happily associate myself with those who have spoken in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to Cabinet rank. I am sorry that he did not receive promotion some little time ago, because I am afraid that the period during which he will be able to enjoy it will be very short-lived. I cannot help feeling that his action to-day in introducing this Bill is inclined to knock away a prop from under that Cabinet when the real meaning of the Bill is grasped by the Gentlemen who sit on the benches below.

I agree with every word that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) in moving the rejection of this Bill. When I listened to the Minister's very able speech, I hoped that he might, at least, throw a crumb of comfort to the east side of London in connection with some scheme for dealing with the transport facilities and traffic difficulties in that ever-growing area, but not a word did he say. In the Bill itself, as far as I can see, the matter rests entirely with the Minister. It is within the discretion of the Minister to sanction any further facilities for traffic convenience. My predecessor for the borough of Ilford and I have bullied all the Ministers of Transport for many years and each time we, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) and his predecessor, have approached him and asked him to supply additional facilities, we have been put off with some promise of the matter being attended to in the very near future.

First it was referred to the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee strongly recommended a tube. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport promised that this matter would be attended to when the Traffic Bill, which he was supporting, had gone through. I actually received a definite promise from the head of the London Electric Railways that if the Traffic Bill went through and if we had the co-ordination of London traffic—that combination of the London County Council and the Underground Railways—the second tube, at any rate, which he had in mind, would be a tube for the east of London. Although those two Bills received a Third Reading, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister came down to the House, almost directly after he was appointed Minister—I think it was his first speech as Minister of Transport—and washed out those proposals, so that again the people in the east of London saw their proposed tube swept away.

Although in my view this Bill is pure Socialism, I should have thought that the Minister would have endeavoured in this great Measure for the better government of the traffic of London to deal fairly by local authorities. But he really does not do so. What he does is to treat all local authorities the same, whatever their behaviour or financial management of their undertakings may have been in the past. Those local authorities who have been extravagant and have borrowed money are to receive a full reward in respect of the money they have borrowed, but local authorities who have economised and have managed their undertakings with great economy are to receive nothing except the present capital value of their undertakings, after they have spent thousands of pounds which might have gone to the ratepayers out of the savings and profits of their undertakings. Those thousands of pounds are not to be taken into consideration, nor is the fact that those authorities economised in the past in order to benefit the ratepayers in the future. The fact that they intend to hand over relief to the rates in the near future has not been taken into consideration. Not a single pound is to be paid to them. The undertaking is to be taken over extremely economically and with great skill by the right hon. Gentleman and his Socialistic body of five marvellous superhuman gentlemen appointed by him. In the borough of Ilford, which is not very small, inasmuch as it contains over 125,000 inhabitants, the position is felt very acutely, and the following letter was written quite recently to the Ministry of Transport on behalf of the council: £221,000. The repayments of capital expenditure amount to £148,000. At the end of the present month it will be 28 years since the tramways undertaking started in Ilford. The repayment of the £148,000 has been spread over that period up to the end of March, 1930.

The undertaking is to be taken over from the ratepayers of Ilford at a total valuation of £67,000, while the ratepayers of Ilford claim that the real and proper value of their scheme—kept up as it has been by the renewal of the tramway track, the modernising of the rolling stock, and the bringing up to date of the feeder system out of revenue—is £250,000. I did think that the Minister of Transport would have endeavoured to be fair to the local authorities even if he was unfair to private enterprise under the Bill. Far from being fair to the local authority in Ilford, his principle in dealing with local authorities is to say in regard to those who have been extravagant and have managed their affairs badly: "We will pay them large sums of money. We will relieve them of their debt obligations," but in regard to those who have managed their affairs well, economically and efficiently, he says: "We will take full advantage of their economical management. We will take it away from them by law, by force, without giving them any real chance of arguing the matter. By Act of Parliament we will seize the benefit of the undertaking that they have built up for the benefit of their ratepayers." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he passes the Bill with this particular provision applying to the borough of Ilford, he will make many enemies among the 125,000 ratepayers, who will consider that they have been grossly wronged.

May I join in the congratulations to the Minister of Transport on attaining Cabinet rank, and may I congratulate him upon the courage he has shown in bringing forward this Bill as his first Measure since his attainment to Cabinet rank? I am not afraid of the challenge of the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) when he denounced this as a Socialist Measure. I have been rather puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's argument in regard to the appointment of the five persons who are to manage the undertaking. From one angle it seemed that he was arguing that no persons, even if they have business capacity, should be appointed to the board if they happen to be Socialists. The other argument was that the Minister must have an enormous balance of corruption in his mind.

I was dealing with Clause 1 (2) which says—

"The members of the board shall be persons who have had wide experience, and have shown capacity, in industry, commerce or finance or in the conduct of public affairs."

I said that the Minister of Transport acting within that Clause could appoint five Socialist statesmen to the board, and so he could.

It seemed to me from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend must not appoint a Socialist even if he had business capacity. The argument is that you cannot appoint any persons to the board if they are Socialists, or, on the other hand, that the Minister is going to take advantage of his position simply to appoint his Socialist friends. I do not think that that position would be taken up by any Minister, no matter to what party he belonged. If that is the only argument that can be brought against the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman, we can dismiss it and we ought not to trouble the House to go to a Division.

The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has been arguing the point as to our having complete municipal management in regard to the traffic problem of London. With a great deal of what he said I am in sympathy, and I think that other hon. Members who have taken part in local government affairs are in sympathy with the idea of municipal management and control; but we have to face up to the facts of the position. The hon. Member asked the Minister of Transport to say what he has been doing during the last 18 months while he has been considering his problem, and why he has not considered the question of bringing about a Greater London local authority. In the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) we get some idea of the petty things that are in the minds of local authorities within the area. Those of us who have taken any part in London government know the terrible struggle there is between the various local authorities within the London area and that in no circumstances do they desire to surrender themselves to any great London authority. Even the London County Council does not seem disposed to widen its area. Certainly, the county boroughs outside would resist any attempt that might be made to establish a London municipal authority applying to the whole of the London area.

During the last few years the traffic of London has increased to an enormous extent. It has extended to areas which were never contemplated a few yeans ago. Even the London County Council finds itself having to deal with areas very much larger than those under its own direct control. It has been compelled to enter into running agreements with outside authorities in regard to its tramways system. The tramways system, valuable as it is to London, is not a sufficient contribution for dealing with the problem of passenger traffic. It therefore becomes quite clear that, as the Minister of Transport said, we must not tinker with the problem. We cannot think in terms of this or that municipality.

We are driven back to the idea as to whether or not we should produce some great authority which will be efficient in order to manage the passenger traffic of London as a business undertaking. I do not say that that is going to be brought about by bringing in some joint board which will be representative of all the authorities in London which are interested in traffic. Those who axe owners of particular forms of transport would desire representation on that authority, and all the various authorities would require representation, because of their interests as consumers of traffic if not as owners of traffic undertakings. Therefore it seems to me that the Minister has entered into a very reasonable compromise in proposing that the board should be a small one, composed of persons whose only qualifications will be the qualification of being able to carry on the undertaking efficiently. By the enlargement of the London Traffic Advisory Committee and making it more of a municipal body than it is at the present time, the right hon. Gentleman is bringing to bear upon that authority the necessary public opinion.

Anyone who knows anything of London traffic knows that competition must go. If competition must go, it means that we must have single ownership of the whole of London traffic, and that single ownership can only be of one kind. It must either be ownership by private enterprise, carried on by a private company, whose only concern would be to make as large a dividend as possible for its shareholders, or a board of the character proposed. When we were discussing the question of London traffic on an earlier occasion I quoted the opinion of a very solid Conservative who, in no sense of the word, would have anything to do with Socialism, namely, the late Sir John Gatti, in which he pointed out The difference between the two, one owning a traffic undertaking as a public authority, which is then only concerned with the public service and providing it in the most efficient way, and the other a private company, whose first and supreme consideration must be the payment of dividends on the capital invested.

When we are balancing these two points of view in relation to an enormous problem like that of London traffic we have to come down in favour of public ownership and control. I really do not see that Ilford has any grievance at all, from the figures of the hon. Member for Ilford. We are transferring undertakings from a number of public authorities to the control of one public authority for the purpose of co-ordination. Why should it be necessary to have a number of book-keeping transactions because these petty little places think they should have a few more pounds than they get under the proposals in the Bill? The whole traffic of London becomes a public undertaking, and therefore property already in the hands of a public corporation is simply transferred to the one authority. I trust that we are going to have a record Division and a large majority for the Second Reading of this Bill, which I hope will triumphantly pass on to the Statute Book as one of the first and biggest pieces of socialism the Government have introduced since they came into office.

I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the well-deserved promotion he has received. As the right hon. Gentleman is not at present in the House, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will convey my heart-felt congratulations to him, not only because I think he deserves the honour on general grounds, but because I admire his energy, his industry and his clear explanations of propositions he has to put before the House. With regard to the question of London traffic, I am not what is called a "standpatter." I do not consider that all is right with London traffic and that no improvements can be made. I welcomed the underlying principle of the two Bills which were introduced in 1929, one by the London combine and the other by the London County Council, which sought to co-ordinate London traffic and eliminate wasteful competition. There is no one in the House who will disagree with that general proposition, but when you come to put it into practice, a distinct divergence of opinion arises. I did not agree with all the details of those two Bills, but, after all, they did seek to secure unified control of London traffic, and they would have brought in everything that the present Bill brings in except the small outside omnibus owners, who are not more than five per cent. of the total number of omnibus owners. Therefore, for all practical purposes those two Bills, voluntary and private Bills, were just as good as the present Measure, except that they did not absolutely co-ordinate to the same extent, but they had the great advantage, from our point of view, that they left the ownership of the various undertakings in the hands of private owners and municipal owners, and did not compulsorily amalgamate all the properties as is done under this Bill.

The Minister of Transport, in effect, says that the Government threw out the Bills of 1929, which were practically through both Houses of Parliament, because they were determined that there should be public ownership of London traffic within a radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross. Here we have a distinct and vital difference of opinion. Before I deal with the principles embodied in the Bill, I should really like to probe rather more closely into what are the real views of the Minister of Transport. I am not sure as to what particular form of public ownership he thinks is the more desirable; whether it is State ownership or municipal ownership. He comes here to-day and plumps for State ownership, but until a year ago he was in favour of municipal ownership. He cannot say that the Government have been supported in their view regarding State ownership by the result of the London County Council election. The Socialists fought that election on three issues, housing, public assistance and transport, and on transport they concentrated all their energies over the whole of London on the policy of State ownership as against private enterprise. They lost six seats, and now the Municipal Reform party, which brought in the Bill of 1929, has more than two to one over all the other parties combined in the London County Council. Therefore, there was no endorsement as far as municipal London is concerned of the policy of this Bill when it was put to the electors a few weeks ago, because it increased the already overwhelming majority of the party which is opposed to this Bill and all for which it stands.

What did the Minister of Transport say in the much-quoted speech on the London Traffic Bill on 28th March, 1924? In view of what I am going to quote, it seems strange that he should bring in a Bill like this. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Gosling, who was then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman said: In view of that declaration, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us why he has thrown over municipal nationalisation and gone so far in the way of Governmental nationalisation. Does the state of London transport to-day justify the Government and this House in preventing local authorities or one local authority, the London County Council and the traffic combine, from a voluntary combination; and must we really go in for this compulsory Measure of State trading? There is no one in this House who will say that the London County Council do not run their trams extremely well. It may be said that they cannot do as much as they ought to do, and they would have been able to have done a great deal more under the Bills which were introduced in 1929, but, at any rate, the trams of London, run by municipal enterprise, are run extremely well, and there is no ground whatever for the compulsory expropriation by this Bill. Can anyone say that Lord Ashfield does not run London transport extremely well? There is no city in the world where you have such enterprise in transportation, such up-to-date methods or such seeking after new types of omnibuses and underground stock. We are all agreed that some form of co-ordination of traffic is necessary, a common management and a common fund, but I say advisedly that there is nothing in the state of London traffic to-day which justifies a State expropriation of these municipal and private interests. It would be quite sufficient to allow the Bill of 1929 to operate by which you would have voluntarily what you are now getting compulsorily and leave the control of the various concerns in the hands of municipal and private enterprise.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has mentioned that rightly or wrongly the decision which will be taken to-night on the general principle is much more far-reaching than the ordinary man-in-the-street appreciates. If the House to-night sanctions this plan of nationalisation it will be an excellent precedent for the Government to set up similar boards in all parts of Great Britain. And, indeed, why stop here; why not nationalise railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think I know why hon. Members opposite want to nationalise some things and not others. They will nationalise what will pay; anything that will not pay they will leave alone. Why have they not nationalised railways, which was part of their programme? The reason is because the railways are not a paying proposition, but I am always interested to learn the official policy of the Government from the back benches on the Government side. They are not going to nationalise the railways because they do not think it is a good business proposition, but they seize hold of London traffic—a gold mine when properly looked after, and in this case a gold mine at the expense of those who travel, for the result of this Bill will be to put up fares all over the London traffic area. It has been stated, certainly in the Press, and I am not sure that the Minister himself did not indicate it in his speech, that his power over the board would be but slight, that although general questions of principle may not be settled by him they would be talked over between him and the board, and everyday matters of policy would be left to the board. When the Minister replies will he tell us whether he is going to answer for this board to the House of Commons?

He is; that is one of the most illuminating answers we could have. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer questions with respect to what the board does, that means that it is a Government Department and nationalisation.

I shall answer for the board in exactly the same way as the right hon. Gentleman did, and I do, for the Central Electricity Board, which he set up.

That is no answer at all. What are the powers of the Minister as regards the board? The powers of the Minister vis-a-vis the board will be a criterion as to whether this is nationalisation or not. The right hon. Gentleman appoints the board and he consults the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the names. I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be very much interested in the appointments. He has to find no money under the Bill. Therefore it will be a question of the Minister of Transport going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and saying, "Sign, please," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will sign without any demur or difficulty. I am very much surprised at the drastic powers the Minister of Transport seeks to give himself. He has to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think he would seriously contend that it will be more than a simple consultation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not trust his colleague to appoint five good men and true, I do not think that colleague would be welcomed in the Cabinet, as I know he is.

Why not follow the example of the Central Electricity Board? In that case I had to consult interests representing local government, electricity, commerce, industry, transport, agriculture and labour. In that case I was anxious to get the views of anyone who could be said to be remotely interested in this great undertaking, and in effect the advice of such responsible bodies as these carried great weight with the Minister of the day as to who should be appointed. Why does not the Minister have consultations in the appointment of this board? Surely he ought to consult interests representing local government, when it is proposed compulsorily to expropriate the people's trams? We used to hear the cry, "Hands off the people's trams," but now the Minister is to put his hands on the people's trams and to take them. He might at least consult the London County Council as to who should be appointed to the board. He might go through the form of consulting the transport interests, and surely he might consult the organisations representing labour which are so vitally interested. There are hundreds of thousands of wage-earning people who are interested in this matter.

That is the trouble with Socialist Ministers. When they get on the Front Bench they are not as anxious to consult the people who send them to Parliament as they were before they reached the Front Bench. The Minister appoints this board. He also fixes the members' salaries, fees and allowances. There is no consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that case; the Minister alone does it. I suggest that a person who appoints you, who settles your fees and allowances and salary, is a person to whom you have to pay a certain amount of attention. The Minister's power over this board is very extensive. In the First Schedule to the Bill there are enumerated the various undertakings which are to be transferred compulsorily to the new board when the Act comes into operation. But it is contemplated, I see, that there shall be a further extension of the board's activity. The board may eventually take on lease or acquire by agreement any other transport undertaking in or partially in the London traffic area. So far as any new enterprises are concerned, the Minister has the board under his thumb and can say "Yes" or "No" to their desire to extend the scope of their undertaking.

But the most remarkable provision of all is the one with reference to facilities. Under this provision the Minister has most complete power over all the activities of the board. If any local authority thinks that facilities are not enough and that there should be changes, in fact if it desires any change in connection with trams or railways, it makes an application to the Minister, and the Minister then may, but only if he likes, consult the advisory committee. Then the Minister decides entirely on his own responsibility whether or not the facilities are to be given. It is no good saying that he has this committee to advise him. He need not consult the committee unless he likes, and when he has consulted it he need not takes its advice. The Minister alone is the person responsible in all questions of traffic facilities. What activities of the board are there that do not concern the Minister? I Cannot imagine how the Minister can say that this is an independent board. In this morning's "Times" I read a summary of an interesting speech which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made at Wigan on Saturday, when he said: and not to this House. That is a new form. The President of the Board of Trade went on:

7.0 p.m.

Let me deal briefly with some of the powers which it is proposed to confer on various people by this Bill. I have searched for precedents myself, and I cannot find any precedent in this country for compulsorily expropriating municipal properties and private properties and paying the owners in stock instead of in cash. It seems to be a new principle and a vicious principle, and one which ought not to be adopted. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade agrees with it, especially in view of the fact that the former owners of this property are to have no say in the management when the new combine is formed. There is no analogy in the case of the Port of London Authority, for Sir William Plender, then Mr. Plender, on behalf of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was then President of the Board of Trade, not only made agreements on principle with each of the dock companies, but settled exactly how much stock each would get. They were perfectly satisfied before the Bill was introduced into this House.

Do not blame me for it; blame the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs if you like. The point is that, before the Bill was brought in for expropriation, they had agreed on the amount of money they were to receive. The board of management, too, consists of representatives of the wharfingers, the users of the Port of London, and of many other people. It is not a Government Department. As to the Metropolitan Water Board, there an option of payment in cash was given, except in the case of the New River, where there were certain special circumstances.

Next, I should like to raise a point, which is of some importance and which I should like to be answered. I can see very grave difficulties arising between the Minister who decides on the facilities, and the Railway Rates Tribunal, who decide as to fares. As far as I can see, there is in the Bill no means of co-ordinating the decisions of the Minister and of the tribunal. The Minister may want a new line of omnibuses or may consider that the tubes in this traffic area are ridiculously inadequate, as, indeed, they are. Many miles of tubes ought, in my opinion, to be built, although they cost £1,000,000 a mile. He may give directions to the board for these new tubes and may be of the opinion that, with the fares as they are, the money can still be found. The Railway Rates Tribunal may at the same time, or a month or two afterwards, decide to reduce the fares all over London by 10 per cent. What is going to happen then? You will have one person, who is the final court of appeal in that matter, deciding one thing about facilities, and the Railway Rates Tribunal, who are the final court of appeal on fares, deciding another. That is a question which ought to be looked into very carefully when the Bill is taken in Committee, because at the present moment there is no co-ordination on this important point.

Again, in Clause 3, Sub-section (3, c ), power is given to the board to manufacture omnibuses and parts and anything necessary for their business. I do not complain of that. It is only right that they should have that power, but in Committee surely there ought to be some negotiations so as to arrive at some sort of understanding between the Minister, representing the new board, and the managers of those firms interested. One must remember that this is a huge area that is being dealt with. It extends 25 miles, and must employ a substantial proportion of all the omnibuses in the country. At the present moment, the trade is supplying not all but a considerable percentage of the vehicles used in the London Traffic Area. If they are to be liable to have the whole of these put outside their manufacturing operations, it will be a big loss to them and will increase their overhead costs when they manufacture for export. It will make it more difficult for them to compete with other countries in foreign markets. Could not some arrangement be made whereby a certain proportion of the vehicles of the new combine should not be provided by themselves but by outside sources?

My last point is about the advisory committee. The right hon. Gentleman may point to the advisory committee and say that he will take their advice and be guided in a majority of cases though not in every case by them and that, therefore, our fear that he may be the great arbiter and that nobody else will have much say has not much substance. I might give some weight to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, if I did not know his real views about this committee. In 1924, on the Second Reading of the London Traffic Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made a clean breast to the world of what he thought of the Traffic Advisory Committee and it is not unfair to recall to the House the remarks he made about it then, if we are going to accept his statement that he is now going to deal with the Traffic Advisory Committee. He said then: the various interests with common management and a common fund, leaving the various enterprises, municipal and private, to own their own undertakings.

May I intervene for a moment at this point? In reading a letter from Lord Ashfield, I made him say:

"But when we examine the Bill, section by section, we may find many things with which we are not agreed, which are also matters of principle."

The "may" should not have been inserted and the sentence should have read:

"But when we examine the Bill, section by section, we find many things with which we are not agreed, which are also matters of principle."

All parties in the House seem to make slow but steady pro-press, and I notice with great interest that our Tory and Liberal friends no longer oppose us on the principle of private enterprise versus public control, as they have done for many years in the past, but are now willing to concede the principle of public control and merely debate as to what kind of public control any enterprise should adopt. The issue, as it appears to me, is very clear cut. We all agree on some kind of monopoly and some kind of co-ordination. The question that divides us is as to what kind the monopoly and co-ordination should be. The Conservative party, in agreeing rather reluctantly to some kind of monopoly or co-ordination, always lean towards the side of a heavy protection for finance. They may accuse us of leaning towards the side of a heavy protection for Labour. If that is so, personally I would prefer to lean on the side of humanity and labour rather than on the side of finance, although I fully recognise finance must be protected. I mention that because the late Minister of Transport has been attacking the present Minister of Transport because of the absence of Clauses that will fully secure and protect shareholders. That may or may not be so. It is a curious fact that, in schemes which the Tories have propounded in this House in the past, there has very often been a significant omission of protective legislation for the masses of the people. That is a point we should not lose sight of.

The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) castigated the Government and previous Governments because he found that the interests of Ilford had been in the past and were still being so neglected. What strikes me as curious is that the hon. Member for Ilford is a staunch supporter of the Conservative party and, therefore, of private enterprise. The London and North Eastern Railway has for years been responsible for the connecting link between London and Ilford, and, frankly, I know of no more reactionary and badly managed railway than the London and North Eastern Railway. It is a standing joke and a standing disgrace, and I have the utmost sympathy for the constituents whom the hon. Member for Ilford represents in having a terrible struggle day after day and night after night in order to get to their duty in the City and to get back to their wives and children. Yet he, who has scorned for so many years the idea of public control, and of Government action, comes to this House and pleads with His Majesty's Government that it may rescue Ilford from the tentacles and disappointments of private enterprise.

This Bill—and I would like to congratulate most heartily the Minister of Transport on its Second Reading—is a definite Socialist Measure. In saying that, I would remind the House that Socialism is not necessarily revolutionary, any more than it is necessarily "the inevitability of gradualness." It is the inevitability of the triumph of common sense. As the complications of modern life increase, we find that the old methods no longer fit the new circumstances, and that we must evolve new ideas and thoughts if we are to keep up with the demands of our complex civilisation. The old methods of individualism are not longer adequate; something more must come in their place, and that something more ought to be organisation of a social and scientific nature. This Bill is a social and scientific Bill, not designed to advance the prosperity of any interested group of financiers who may invest their money—quite properly—primarily in order to extract profits from London transport, but designed to secure for the people of London as a whole, the safest, cheapest and most expeditious transport.

As a private Member I have asked myself, what concrete advantages would accrue to the citizens of London from the passage of this Bill? I can imagine the people who read their newspapers coming down to the facts in which they are interested themselves, and expressing the hope that one of the results of this Bill might be the abolition of first-class compartments on the District and Inner Circle Railways. Day after day, and night after night, I have seen these first-class compartments half empty, while teeming thousands of busy, tired, London citizens are strap-hanging in third-class compartments. That is a scandal. I remember 10 or 11 years ago, the Australian soldiers who were still in England, had no compunction in entering these first-class compartments, if they could find no room in the third-class compartments, and I never saw any railway official dare to put them out. But if some timid citizen of London, who has conscientiously done his duty, attempts to enter one of these sacred compartments, he is either promptly ejected or, if he argues and persists, his name and address are taken, and he stands a good chance of being fined in the courts.

It is a monstrous state of affairs that we should find, not only this anachronism of first-class compartments, but also that there should be such a general amount of strap-hanging as one finds on the Underground Railways. There are hundreds of women, travelling daily, who scarcely ever have a seat, night or morning, in the Underground railway trains. Let any hon. Member go to the Bakerloo or the District or any of the other Underground Railways, between 8 and 9.30 in the morning, or between 5.30 and 7 at night, and he will find that thousands of his fellow citizens never, or very rarely, get a seat. I notice that the Bakerloo Railway has the audacity, not only not to provide sufficient seats, but to put up a notice asking the citizens of London who travel on that line to be so kind as to move up in the carriages in order that other citizens may stand. They have worn down the moral opposition of London citizens to such an extent that no longer are there protests against this kind of treatment; the people are quite willing to be heaped up together in order that more may be put into the already overcrowded compartments. I give the Underground Railways full credit for running a fairly efficient service, as far as time is concerned, but in regard to strap-hanging and particularly in the case of women I think it is a scandal.

One other result which I should like to see from this Bill is that variations in fares and stages of omnibuses should be regularised. We are all familiar with the fact that as soon as an omnibus enters Oxford Street or Piccadilly, the stages rapidly diminish, and a pennyworth in Oxford Street is nothing like a pennyworth along the Camden Road. I do not see why that should be so. We know, of course, that the real reason is that there is no tramway opposition. Another thing which I hope to see in the future, though not in the immediate future, is the gradual abolition of the trams. I know that many hon. Members on this side feel very strongly on the question of the value of the tramways, and so do I, but at the same time I feel that in another decade or so, trams will be entirely out of date, if, indeed, they are not already out of date. It would be nice to think that this Transport Board might take a leaf out of the book of the Corporation of Plymouth which recently decided on the gradual abolition of its tramway system, allowing 10 years for that purpose. The new discovery of the value of crude oil in connection with means of transport, is, I think, most significant in this connection. If we get heavy transport vehicles working on crude oil we should find fares diminish considerably.

There is only one other matter on which I wish to speak. Even if we have all this co-ordination and the whole system working efficiently, there is still one fundamental fact of which we have not control. We have not control of the roads; and it seems to me that we are in nearly the same position, as regards getting a completely co-ordinated system of transport without control of the roads, as the railways would be if they had efficient engines and rolling stock without control of the permanent way. We find, constantly, in London, particularly in the summer, street after street being pulled up apparently with very little attempt at co-ordination as between borough and borough, and the dislocation and delay involved means a loss of thousands of hours per year. I hone the Minister will devise some method, if not of getting control of the streets as far as traffic is concerned, at least of entering into close co-operation with the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs in order that streets may not be pulled up without due regard to the enormous and growing needs of London traffic. I wish to offer my meed of praise to the Minister for this excellent Bill. I hope that it will receive its Second Reading by a big majority, and that we may speedily see a new and successful attempt to expedite and to rationalise, in the interests of the citizens of London as a whole, the complicated and enormous system of London passenger traffic.

It may be a help in this discussion if the views of the main line railway companies are in the possession of the House. The text of this Bill only appeared ten days ago and some of the boards of the main line companies may not yet have had an opportunity of discussing it, but my authority for giving the opinion of the main line companies is that the chairmen and general managers have informed me that I can do so. The main line companies serve the district included in this Bill with a very large number of suburban services and, in considering the co-ordination of the services in that area, it would be impossible, with any hope of coming to a successful conclusion, to ignore the facilities afforded by the main line companies through their suburban traffic. The area in question is very large. It extends for 25 miles in every direction from Charing Cross. It includes Stevenage on the North, and Amersham and Beaconsfield on the West; it goes down to Crawley, Godalming and Edenbridge on the South and down the Thames to Gravesend.

It is an enormous area with an enormous population and the receipts from the suburban traffics of the four main line companies total about £10,000,000 a year—that is the gross receipts—and that cannot be anything but an important factor in considering the whole problem of passenger transport in the London area. I may say, incidentally, that the receipts from the suburban traffics of the main line companies total about one-sixth of the whole passenger receipts of all those four companies. It must therefore be admitted that these suburban traffics are an integral and important factor in the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal, and one which cannot be left out of consideration. The Minister recognises this fact, and makes it clear in the Bill that co-ordination of all forms of transport is to be aimed at, but the provisions which he has incorporated in the Bill with regard to the main line companies are incomplete and inadequate to ensure co-ordination between the services to be provided by the board and those to be provided by the main line companies.

The companies consider that their line of action, to fulfil the duties that they are called upon to perform in regard to their shareholders and the interests of the travelling public, is that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, the main line companies will endeavour to introduce Clauses designed to remedy this lack of co-ordination and to ensure that the main line companies shall be entitled to take their due part in the general scheme. There are other points in the Bill which cause the companies the gravest apprehensions. There is the power that is given to the board to run services outside the area of the board, to co-operate with others, and to finance those services. The companies, in the event of the Bill receiving a Second Reading, will submit and seek to obtain Amendments with a view to protecting their railway undertakings and those important road interests, both within and without the area of the board, which they have acquired through their Acts of Parliament. Unless the Bill can be substantially amended in these and other matters, the main line companies feel that they will be gravely and unfairly prejudiced in their undertakings.

It would be very ungracious not to join in the chorus of congratulation that has been bestowed on the Minister of Transport on his elevation to the Cabinet, on the Bill which he has introduced, and on the manner in which he has introduced it. I do not know whether we may take the occasion when, as he says, he at last decided to break the monopoly of Socialist legislation on the other side, in connection with his entry into the Cabinet, as significant of a change of heart in the Cabinet, but I certainly hope that that is the case. Better late than never. I think it is significant that this is the first Bill which has been denounced, and rightly so, by the other side as pure Socialism. I am not quite sure whether it is pure, but it is certainly more Socialist than most of the Bills which have been introduced from this side in this Parliament, and we are very glad indeed that, facing the problem between private monopoly and public monopoly, the Minister of Transport has fully lived up to our pledges in that connection.

The other side are perfectly right in denouncing the Bill as nationalisation. I do not think it is full nationalisation as we understand it, but it certainly does comply with part of what we understand, in that it transfers a number of great public enterprises from private to public ownership. But that is only part of what we mean by nationalisation. Nationalisation is not merely the ownership, but the use to which that ownership is put, and the relation of that ownership to some clear and understandable measure of public control. We think that the purpose of transferring enterprises from private to public ownership is to secure that they are run quite definitely and deliberately in the public interest and responsible by some means to the opinion of the public generally as to what that public interest is. The Bill certainly goes some way in that direction by making the transference, but I am bound to say that I am not quite so satisfied by the machinery which the Minister proposes to set up for conducting this vast business, once it is transferred.

I agree with him that a joint authority for a problem of this sort is not the right body. I think that with a joint authority, representing a multitude of public authorities, with no very clear, direct responsibility to the public, as the supreme executive body, you will get inevitably the whole responsibility in the hands of the officials. You will get the semblance of democratic control, without its reality and with all its disadvantages and very few of its advantages. Nor am I at all enamoured of an alternative proposal, that might have been made at any rate 20 years ago, of transferring these great industrial enterprises to the control of a Whitehall Department. That is not at all my conception of Socialism, and I speak perhaps with just a little knowledge of the difficulties and deficiencies of such a method of control.

But having ruled out those two possibilities, I am not satisfied that the only possibility is to set up a complete and autocratic dictatorship of five big men. I hope that this is not the first fruits of the propaganda of my hon. Friends who form the new party. They talk of a dictatorship, and precisely for the sort of reasons, as I understand it, which seem to have confronted the right hon. Gentleman in this connection. Under private enterprise you can secure a certain guarantee of a certain measure of efficiency. At any rate, there is a certain inducement. So long as there is competition, competition helps in that direction, and even if there is a monopoly, such as is the real alternative in this case, you have at any rate the pressure and desire of those who are running the monopoly to make the best out of it for themselves and their shareholders and for the crowds of associates who hang around a great private monopoly with the desire of getting all the pickings that they can.

The problem that has always been put to us in propounding the running of industry and of enterprises of this sort under public control is just that problem of securing the most efficient management, with at any rate some responsibility to public opinion and to those who represent and express public opinion. I agree that, for the executive control of this organisation, a committee of five competent people is probably the most efficient executive machine, but I do not think, when you have got there, that you have finished with the problem. As I understand the Bill and the answer which the Minister made to a request which I put in the course of his speech, there is no real power of correcting a mistake if, in your selection of these five traffic autocrats, you pick a man who is not completely incompetent or five people who are not scandalously incompetent, but who are not very enterprising, or not very competent, or not very responsive to changing conditions and changing opinion.

As far as I can see, there is no possible means by which the Minister, if they were obstinate, could either influence them if they were stupid, persuade them to accept his advice, or, if their incompetence or obstruction reached the point of scandal, could get rid of them. The actual words in the Bill are so general that I very much doubt whether any Minister would run the risk of the legal action which, I suppose, they would be entitled to bring in trying to put them into operation. Having got his five dictators, as far as I can see, he will be bound to keep them for the whole period of seven years. I do not want to cramp the executive decisions of the controllers of this great business by constant reference to an uncertain and more or less, from the point of view of the industry, non-existent body of elected representatives who would come together once in two or three months. The sort of conception of a super-London County Council committee does not seem to me to be the right way to tackle it.

I want to secure in the Bill and in the machinery of this scheme some means by which criticisms, suggestions, public opinion, may be effectively brought to bear on this executive board. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill which attempts to do that. It is quite true that there is an advisory committee, but that committee, as I read the Bill, is to have no more powers than it had at the time when most of the traffic of London, or a great deal of it, was in the hands of private owners. It has a right to make suggestions as to traffic, as to where new lines of omnibuses or trams shall be run, as to the regulation of traffic, as to matters of that sort, which were proper and right, and are proper still, so long as the ownership of the omnibuses and so on is in private hands, but it is very inadequate when you have removed at any rate the spur of competition or, so far as the tramways are concerned, the public control that an effective public opinion has brought to bear upon them through the London County Council and the other local authorities. The advisory committee does not at all satisfy what seems to me to be essential in any scheme of public ownership with monopoly rights and a close, tight, and strong executive control.

This new Traffic Board will not only run the omnibuses and the trams, but it is obviously going to run, and it is right that it should run, a great number of connected interests and industries. It has power to manufacture its omnibuses, its trams, and, I suppose, its steamboats if it wishes, and it is quite necessary that it should have the widest powers of carrying on all the related operations; and with regard to all of them, with regard to the internal management and efficiency of this great industry, neither the advisory committee nor the Minister, as far as I can see, has any voice or any control at all. If the thing after the first year or two drifts into loose, lazy, and incompetent management, if the executive are not up to their job, there is no means by which that can be effectively disclosed or corrected. It is quite true that the board has to make a report once a year to the House of Commons, but we all know the nature of such reports, and we all know how completely impossible it is to take any effective action in regard to them in this House. The relevant Clause provides that the report shall be laid on the Table of the House, and that is all that will happen to it, as we all know very well in this House.

I am very doubtful, reading the Bill, whether the Minister could be required to answer questions, except on points of information. It seems to me that when the board is set up and the Minister is questioned in this House, he will be able to make much the same sort of reply as is made, for example, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is questioned about the operations of the Bank of England. He will say that the matter is outside his control, that there are from time to time informal consultations, but that the board has been set up by Parliament to carry out this job and to make its own decisions, and that he cannot be required to answer questions in the House on matters for which he is not constitutionally responsible.

The hon. Gentleman's point is extremely important, but I take it that the Minister could be asked and required to answer questions in reference to any decisions that had been given.

That is true, but I am talking about the running of this vast business, an immensely important business on whose efficiency and internal running depends the efficiency of the whole of London's transport. On matters covered by the London Traffic Act and the advisory committee for which the Minister is responsible, he is required to answer questions; but in the running of this business, which is the sort of thing that the London County Council Highways Committee will have constantly under its supervision, in the holding to account of the executive managers for this, that and the other, there is no power under the Bill to interfere or criticise at all. That seems to be a great weakness. I do not believe that the mere transference of these enterprises from a number of private corporations under directors, each one of whom has some responsibility to the shareholders, to the control of five men, who are not responsible to anybody, is in itself going to secure either real efficiency or the carrying into effect of any policy which public opinion, not immediately but in two or three years' time, may desire.

A scheme of nationalisation which does not provide for the influence on policy of public opinion, or of those who represent public opinion, seems to me very deficient. It is deficient not only from the point of view of principle, but from the point of view of those who are running the organisation. I had some personal experience of running Government business organisations in the War and just afterwards, and I found that the existence of an advisory committee with real powers of inquiry, not into the external things, but into internal things, into the policy pursued in running the organisation, was a great safeguard to the public and a real source of strength to those who were responsible, and provided a buffer between the responsible executive people and the public, which was often very convenient and useful for both the public and those in executive authority. As between these five supermen and the public, there is no buffer and no barrier of any sort what-ever, and if there be disagreement between them and public opinion, a very unsatisfactory position will be reached.

In any scheme of nationalisation, as we on these benches see it, you should not only protect the interest of the public, but see that the workers concerned have some share of responsibility for the conduct of the industry in which they are engaged. The Bill provides that in the court of arbitration which is to examine the question of compensation to existing capital interests representatives of the trade unions may express their point of view. That is very good as far as it goes, but I want to apply that very reasonable principle further. The trade unions and the labour employed are not merely concerned in the capital incubus which the board may have to carry; they are very much concerned in seeing, not only from the material point of view, but from their own point of view as workers, that the thing is run efficiently and well. There is no reasonable doubt that what is wanted in a great number of industries at this moment, and in the next stage in industrial and social development, is to give those who are actually engaged in the industry some real responsibility for management and control.

I do not suggest that you should hand the industry immediately over to the trade unions to run it, but I suggest confidently to the Minister that a moment when we are setting up an entirely new management for a great organisation such as this, provides an opportunity, which should not be missed, of bringing them into some share of control in an industry whose success is vitally important to the Labour interest concerned.

It is not enough to include in this committee of five one or two people of Labour origin. We want at least one or two members who are definitely there with a responsibility to the workers employed in the industry, not so much to protect the interest of the workers in the industry—for they will have their full trade union possibilities untouched—as to see that they have an ever ready channel through which they may make their interests and influence felt in the conduct of the industry, and so that they may feel that it is up to them through their representatives to make the thing satisfactory and efficient.

I am not in the least alarmed, as the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) seemed to be, as to the security for the stockholders in this enterprise. Another hon. Member on the other side said that London traffic, particularly under monopoly conditions, is a gold mine. I do not see how with a monopoly of traffic, short of the grossest mismanagement, this board of five can fail to make the thing pay. They are taking it over under capital conditions that are peculiarly favourable to the private companies concerned. The property of the municipal enterprises, their installations, works, garages, and trams are not, as I understand the Bill, to be taken over as a capital charge at their present value, but with their actual outstanding unmet liabilities to the authority concerned. The trams and other enterprises have been for years paying off capital, and all the advantages of this repayment of capital, these very low capital charges, are to go to this new authority. That is a great advantage to the authority from the financial point of view, considering the interests of the private omnibus companies and others. They will get what is, in fact, an absolutely gilt-edged security. Therefore, it is very important that the financial terms should be examined with great care.

This Bill is going to a hybrid Select Committee. We all know what happens in such a Committee. All the private interests are there admirably and skilfully represented by members of the Parliamentary Bar, and the only interest which is not completely represented, and is always in such a Committee at a disadvantage, is the interest of the community, whether it be the taxpayer or the consumer. There will be every kind of pressure to make concessions here and concessions there, with a little more to satisfy this interest and a little more to satisfy that interest, and, when the Bill comes back to the House, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that we on these benches will scrutinise the concessions that have been made in Committee in respect to finance with very great care.

There has not been time to examine the financial Clauses in any detail. I wonder why three years have been taken as a test period? It is a very short period for enterprises that have been running for 20 or 30 years. No doubt there is justification for it. I rather gather that it was intended to avoid the disturbance of the finance and profits of these companies caused by the events of 1926, but that problem could have been met by cutting out that year and taking a longer period. That is a point of detail which no doubt will be considered in Committee, and it will be considered again when the Bill comes here on Report.

I hope that the Government will keep a stiff upper lip, and not allow this great enterprise of London traffic to be handicapped and weighed down as the London Water Board was, and as the Port of London Authority has been all its life, by immensely exaggerated capital charges. I hope that the Minister will see whether it is possible in the Committee stage or at a later stage to meet criticisms, which are criticisms on important points of principles. When you are taking great enterprises out of the hands of publicly-elected authorities and putting them into the hands of a new public authority, when you are establishing a precedent for the traffic of London, and a precedent, it may be, of very much wider extension, it is very important to see that there is a free play of public opinion and criticism in order to keep this new executive control up to the mark; and to see, also, if you can give those concerned in running the industry, whether trade unionists or technicians, some voice in direct executive responsibility in a great enterprise in which, I have no doubt, they would take great pride, and in which their suggestions and co-operation would be the biggest factor in its security and success.

We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) calling attention to apprehensions which he feels about the Bill and to the disadvantages and defects which he sees, and from them he draws certain conclusions with which we might agree, although probably from a very different standpoint. Within limits, he agrees with us in seeing in the Bill many grave defects. The Minister of Transport is not at the moment in his seat. Perhaps I may be allowed in his absence to join with the long list of those who have already tendered their congratulations to him. My congratulations, because they are tardy, are none the less sincere. I recollect his speech of 1924, which has often been quoted, and which he made on the Second Reading of the London Traffic Act, and, if he were here, I would assure him that I have no intention of quoting further from him. Times change, as the Latin saying puts it, and we change with them; and the right hon. Gentleman is a good example of that old saying.

8.0 p.m.

I rise as a signatory to the Amendment to allude more particularly to the first part of it, and to refer to the position of the London County Council. The appropriate Committee of the London County Council considered the question, and I will give a few extracts from their report. After reminding the Council of how important transport is from the point of view of local government, they said: also, that when those recommendations were before the council, the whole of the Liberal party on the council voted against certain Labour Amendments to them. The Minister of Transport, in his witty and clever speech, twitted an organisation with which I am associated for having had an uncertain or variable policy. I have already mentioned that changes of view are not confined to others, and that he himself has had that criticism raised against him, but I think his answer to the remark at the time was that those of us who are interested in this subject had not had the Minister's proposals before us, and that all we could do was to judge by the announcements which had appeared on occasions here and there, and that so soon as the Minister's policy was clearly laid down then there was no question whatever about either the attitude of the London County Council, from whose minutes I have just quoted, and the opinion of the party with which I am associated in its public declarations. The Minister also skated rather lightly over the declarations of policy of the three parties in the recent London County Council elections. Our own party were very definite on the point. I will read a brief extract from our manifesto which preceded the campaign: the hon. Member for East Leicester. The Labour party manifesto in the London County Council election said: I have read these extracts is to make it quite clear to the House that this issue was most emphatically before the citizens of London in the recent London County Council election. It is true they did not then know the details of the Bill, because the election took place on 5th March and the Bill was not circulated until some days afterwards, but the result of the election was emphatically to reject this and other proposals in the Labour party programme. It is a matter of opinion, but I take the view that had the details of this Bill been in the hands of the ratepayers when they voted the verdict of London would have been more emphatic even than it was. My view is amply supported by the fact that the strength of the Municipal Reform party, which before the election was 77, is now 83, and that the Labour party representatives on the Council, who formerly numbered 42, now number only 35. With regard to the attitude of other local authorities in the area concerned, by far the great majority of the Metropolitan Borough Councils have supported the attitude of the London County Council in their opposition to the proposals of this Bill. I think there are not more than seven out of the 28 borough councils who support the Government. Out of 168 local authorities in the area, 70 support the opposition of the London County Council, and their attitude is also supported by the county councils of Hertfordshire, Essex, Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

What authority has the hon. Member for saying that? The Surrey County Council have passed no resolution on the matter at all.

If I am incorrect in that respect I must apologise to the Surrey County Council and to the hon. Member, if he is entitled to speak for them.

I must apologise to the House for having made a mis-statement on the information given to me. The Hertfordshire, Essex and Buckinghamshire County Councils—but not the Surrey County Council, on the assurance of the hon. Member—take the view I have stated. I have made no mention of Kent, because I understand the Kent County Council have not yet delivered their opinion. One may fairly conjecture what it is likely to be, though it would be premature to announce it.

The whole of this immediate controversy really goes back to 1924 and arises out of the strike which took place amongst the tramway employés of the London County Council. At that time the earnings were insufficient to meet certain demands for increased wages. Thereupon certain assurances were given, and as a consequence the London Traffic Act, 1924, was introduced and ultimately passed. The passing of that Act enabled very considerable improvements to be introduced into the organisation of the transport systems of London, and enabled higher rates of wages to be paid and improved conditions of labour to be introduced, and there has been an infinitely more harmonious relationship between the employers and the employed than previously prevailed. The atmosphere is far calmer and happier. No doubt there are certain opportunities for improved facilities in the transport arrangements, but this Measure offers no special contribution to the reduction of congestion, or at any rate, if it does; they are no better opportunities than were provided for under the Bill of 1929.

The next important step was the constitution of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and the Blue Report which was issued laying down the foundation of the schemes of co-ordination on the basis of which the two Bills were brought forward in 1929. The so-called "Blue Report" recommended the co-ordination of the undertakings without interference with individual ownership, but the London County Council and Underground Traffic Bills of 1928 and 1929 were defeated by a liberal and Labour combination. The Liberals consistently advocated municipalisation, but the Labour party switched on to nationalisation. We know that they were turned down, because they did not appeal to the view of the Minister of Transport as nationalisation, Socialism and the like. The Liberals at that time were in favour of those proposals, but they were against nationalisation. The Minister of Transport seems to have changed his mind since 1924, but I would like to point out that the Bills of 1929 were voluntary and associated common management and a common pool with existing ownership, but they were neither municipalisation nor nationalisation, because neither the one nor the other were wanted then, and they are not wanted now.

If the London transport system is to be sacrificed on the altar of party animosity, if shareholders are to be ridden over roughshod, if the repeated verdict of London ratepayers is to be ignored, if the ratepayers are to be deprived of their property, if the London tramways, representing a capital outlay of £18,000,000 incurred at the expense of the ratepayers of London, are to be confiscated, if the ratepayers are to be disregarded in this way, what security or guarantee have they of efficient management in the future? What encouragement is there under this Bill for enterprise and ingenuity or a go-ahead policy in the interests of the community? The late Minister of Transport said that the traffic undertakings constituted a gold mine, and it is quite true that they are profitable if well managed under astute management. It has been established by the inquiry, held under the Industrial Courts Act after the strike of 1924, that the margin of traffic profits is very narrow. Under a co-ordinated scheme no doubt a profit has been obtained, but, if in the future there is any lack of efficiency, those profits will run off, and what is to happen then? Will the provision of facilities be reduced and the fares increased? In either event you will not get any increased efficiency. It is the short-distance traffic that pays the best, and it is the short-distance passenger who uses the tram, omnibus or train who can afford to be independent in his choice of service.

There was a time in 1926 when the representatives of the party opposite said "Let London walk." I hope that was not intended to apply a long-distance view to what Londoners will have to do in self-protection when we get nationalisation. What about the question of efficiency and the introduction of new methods? Those things do not usually go with the kind of hide-bound bureaucracy which this Bill threatens to instal. The effect of a policy of that kind is to retard new ideas and new methods and make them inaccessible. How is this new organisation going to work? I find that 30 years ago Sir John Benn, who was then a member of the progressive party on the London County Council, declared that the London County Council trams at that time had nothing to fear from the motor omnibus which could not possibly be a formidable competitor. We all know the result of that competition to-day. A few years hence we may have the introduction of some new method of transport and new systems. [An HON. MEMBER: "Aeroplanes!"] My point is that, if a man with Sir John Benn's knowledge and intelligence could state seriously 30 years ago that the motor omnibus would never seriously compete with the London County Council trams, views of the same kind may be held to-day. That was Sir John Benn's conviction, so impressed was he with the perfection of things at that time, and he was quite satisfied with that view. Is it not possible that others may hold a similar view to-day? There may arise an inaccessibility to new ideas promoted by competition or the natural and legitimate desire to earn profits for a well-conducted undertaking.

In conclusion, I have to say that I think this Bill is bad in principle, is against the interests of London ratepayers, is unwillingly acquiesced in, if they must, by shareholders in these undertakings—whom this House ought to protect—is certainly without warrant so far as London is concerned, and, in fact, is without warrant or mandate so far as the country is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has just acceded to a position in the Cabinet. Surely he might use his influence there better than by persuading the Cabinet to spend the time of the House of Commons in discussing and debating a Bill of this kind, which nobody wants, which they are seeking to thrust upon a reluctant body, when there is so much now to be done—when a little encouragement to industry, a little restoration of confidence, and a great deal of economy of administration, is so urgently necessary.

At this time, when we see the unemployment figures unfortunately growing, we have to spend our time here seriously discussing a Bill of 69 Clauses, setting up this bureaucratic system of a glorified Ministry of Transport. It is pegging out a claim for its future existence, I suppose. It cannot, perhaps, be blamed for that, but it is competition of a sort, whereas the President of the Board of Trade said that competition was going to disappear. We shall have competition as between one Government Department and another. With the country looking on and wondering how the House of Commons spends its time, and with all the urgent things which everybody knows require to be done, we are to spend our days discussing this Measure, and we are to spend many more days in the Committee stage, all to achieve a result which, as I have said, will be unsatisfactory from the point of view, not only of the ratepayers and shareholders, but of the passengers also, and which the whole country regards as unnecessary and undesirable. It is, perhaps, too much to hope that the House will reject the Bill, but I am very glad to give my support to the reasoned Amendment which calls for its rejection.

To one who has taken a certain active part in the controversy which has ranged round London traffic during the last few years, the wording of the Amendment put down by the official Opposition is surprising. My surprise has been increased rather than diminished by the speeches which have been delivered in support of that Amendment, and especially by the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan). I should have thought that he would have known better, but, frankly I was unable to make up my mind, while he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) were speaking, whether they were attacking and criticising the Bill which the Government are now putting before the House, or the Bill which they so warmly supported in 1929. The point which the hon. Member for East Fulham made more than any other was that this Bill deprives local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings; but, surely, the hon. and gallant Gentleman remembers that, under the Bill which he so warmly supported, the control of the London County Council's trams was to pass over to the existing board of combine directors, and that there were to be exactly two London County Council representatives as against 20 combine directors. Was that local authority control?

The hon. Gentleman supported that scheme, but the London County Council quite deliberately and specifically rejected local authority control when they were considering this matter in November, 1928. When the outline of the scheme was put before the Council, an amendment was moved by a Liberal Member of the Council suggesting that the scheme should embody the principles of municipal control. [ Interruption. ] That Amendment was rejected by the London County Council, so that to argue now that this Bill, which gives local authorities a much more direct voice in the control of London traffic, does not give sufficient local authority control is, I suggest, farcical. [ Interruption. ] Certainly, I voted for it, and I maintain that infinitely more voice is given to the local authorities through the machinery of this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon was even more inconsistent. If I may say so with respect, I think he has a special flair for inconsistency. When he was attacking the Coal Mines Bill, and particularly the principle of a compulsory quota in the coal mining industry, he was moving heaven and earth to get a compulsory quota in the tin mining industry, as chairman of the Tin Producers' Association. Again, while this afternoon he has attacked this Bill particularly on the ground of the vast power that it gives to the Minister, he and his colleagues supported the London County Council Bill, which gave greater control to the Minister than this Bill does. It was the Very object of that Bill, and was alleged by its supporters to be its very virtue, that the Minister was going to be all-powerful. It was moved at the London County Council by the Conservative party themselves that the following words should be added to a certain Amendment:

When the facts of the London traffic situation are considered, there is a remarkable degree of agreement among all parties. I think it is universally conceded that the present traffic system in London is chaotic, and that it is depriving Londoners of traffic facilities which they might otherwise enjoy. I think it is agreed on all hands that there is considerable, and even dangerous, overcrowding during rush hours, and that during the rest of the day vehicles are frequently half empty.

Yes, I have seen New York. I am not suggesting that London is worse than New York. I think it is also agreed that facilities are not as generous as they might be, and that new developments, and particularly extensions of tubes, are rendered almost impossible by the present situation. It is further agreed, I think, that the heart of the trouble is the wasteful competition which is bound to exist as long as the various traffic undertakings are owned by different bodies and different authorities all competing with each other. It is also agreed that that competition must somehow or other be eliminated, and some form of monopoly established. That monopoly can be of three sorts. It could be a completely unfettered monopoly under private enterprise. I do not think anyone here would agree with that solution. It could be a monopoly under private enterprise, making money for private shareholders, with a degree of public control, as was suggested by the London County Council Co-ordination Bill. I am convinced that, if the initiative of private enterprise is too closely checked and fettered by public control, we get the worst of both worlds. No one is satisfied, and no one is responsible if things go wrong. The third alternative is the one proposed in this Bill, that the monopoly should be under public ownership, with private interests completely eliminated and, when it is suggested, as it has been, that that solution is a Socialist one, I say it is the solution which is logical, practical and common sense and that, when logic and common sense are applied to any modern industrial problem, it is inevitable that the solution will be found to lie along Socialist lines.

The growth of London has been so great recently, the number of housing estates that have been established on its outskirts and the demand for travel on the part of Londoners have increased so vastly, that the adequacy and efficiency of the transport of London people is as vital to them as is the adequacy and efficiency of their water supply. I do not believe the maximum of efficiency is possible as long as that service remains in private hands and those responsible for its management have before them continually a divided loyalty as between their shareholders and the interests of the public. In those circumstances I do not believe any board can work with the single-mindedness that is so essential. Further, I believe that, as long as private shareholders exist in the background, the public will inevitably be suspicious, however efficient the management may be, that their interests are being sacrified or at least subordinated to the interests of the shareholders. I believe that that suspicion and distrust on the part of the public should not exist in any healthy community. Therefore, the only way out of that difficulty, to eliminate the irksome divided loyalty on the part of the board and the suspicion on the part of the public, is the complete elimination suggested in the Bill of the incentive to private profit.

London government has developed haphazard, with little conscious planning, and, as the result, its citizens in the past have suffered severely. From time to time machinery has been established which has regulated and safeguarded one by one the people's needs, as in the matter of water, drainage, policing, lighting, paving and so on. But still to-day one serious gap remains, that of transport facilities, a gap which is still causing severe hardship and suffering. It is the object of this Bill to close that gap once and for all, and, therefore, I believe and hope it will be welcomed not only by those who are suffering from the present chaos but by all who love London and desire to see it a well ordered city.

I am sure the House has listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member, who has made a study of the matter in his capacity of assisting the right hon. Gentleman as Parliamentary Secretary. No one could have made a better case for the Bill than the right hon. Gentleman. Transport of all kinds is a very great romance and is a matter of paramount interest, and I feel in regard to this Bill that we must recognise, as the Minister stated, that there must be a change in the present system. We do not quarrel with the idea that co-ordination is required, because obviously it is. All of us on this side of the House feel that the method that the right hon. Gentleman, as a thorough going Socialist, has adopted is one that he would not expect us to approve. It is simply because we look upon him as a very truthful person that we oppose it. He has said it is the greatest Socialist transport scheme that has ever been before the country. He can hardly expect us to jump in with loud cheers and applause and support the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the Minister's definition of the Bill as a great Socialist Measure is perfectly true in regard to the way in which he treats the private property of individuals. After all, what is this question? It concerns £130,000,000, roughly speaking, and the Minister suggests that private individuals who have put their savings or their surplus cash, or whatever is left now after the taxgatherer has been round, into public enterprise—which is surely a matter to be encouraged—are suddenly to wake up and discover that without any previous consultation their capital is no longer represented by people over whom they have some control but by no doubt admirable individuals who are nominated by the Minister of Transport for the time being. Here I will make a confession. I believe the present Minister is a very efficient Minister of Transport, and I am willing in certain circumstances to trust his judgment, but I am certainly not going to say that his successor will be a man of the same power and capacity as the right hon. Gentleman, and he will be the first to admit that himself.

And we might not care to hand over to him the representation of great sums invested by private individuals. From the very start, the principle of the Bill, from our point of view, is wrong. What is the next point? The Minister has said the taxpayer and the ratepayer are not going to be asked to pay for any deficiency. There is going to be no subsidy. There is going to be nothing contributed by the Exchequer to make the London traffic service pay. That pre-supposes that this business board is going to consist of business men perfectly free to operate the service on the best lines of private enterprise, presumably certainly not nationalisation, because there is no example in the world—I speak with bated breath before hon. Members opposite—of nationalisation of transportation which has been run on an economic basis. It has always had the help of subvention of some sort or another. I remember, when previous Bills were being discussed, there were continual demands by hon. Members who then sat on these benches that it was necessary to reduce fares and to extend services and to do all kinds of things which certainly would not pay. I do not know whether the Minister is a great student of ecclesiastical matters, but I added up the number of times the Ministry of Transport is brought into the Bill for executive action, and it is exactly the same number as the number of Articles in the Book of Common prayer—39. What chance will there be for any board to operate freely as an independent body when on 39 different occasions it is possible for the Minister to step in and do something either to curb their endeavours or to induce them to go faster?

The framework of this Bill is fundamentally wrong, because you set up a screen in front of a business board and all the time, behind the scenes, you allow circumstances to exist which will hamper the board in connection with this service. With regard to the present system of transportation in London, it is one of the most marvellous things in modern life that you have in the centre of this great area a diminishing population. You have an intermediate ring where people are now going. This ring is increasing, and, as you improve transport facilities, the tendency more and more will be for people to go further out. The rush-hours about which we complain are largely due to the need of everybody having to arrive at their different jobs at the same time. I have often thought that if only it could be arranged in the City for certain clerks to arrive half-an-hour later than others, and for certain shops to open half-an-hour later and to keep open half-an-hour later, it would immediately relieve the tremendous congestion with which all forms of transportation have to contend.

Under the original system of surface communication, it took a horse omnibus about the same length of time to go from Hammersmith Broadway to the Bank as it now takes an omnibus, taking into consideration the rush hours and the congestion on the surface. The only way to get over the congestion is to burrow underground, and the only way to burrow underground is by means of tubes, and each tube costs from £850,000 to £1,000,000 a mile. If you are going to make tubes, you must have a management which has the confidence of the investing public, otherwise you are not likely to get the vast amount of capital required for the construction of tubes and the establishment of the necessary services. The problem which the underground combine had to face was that until recently there was unfettered competition on the surface, when it was possible to have any number of omnibuses running without let or hindrance. The invested capital required to carry 1,000 people by omnibus is about £5, and the invested capital required for operating a tram is, I think, round about £23, whereas to carry 1,000 passengers on the tubes involves an expenditure of £136. Therefore, there is an enormous gap to be filled.

When we were sitting for many weeks upstairs on the Road Traffic Bill, I understood that the whole purpose of that Bill, in providing for traffic commissioners, was, by means of licensing, to regulate to some extent the number of surplus vehicles. Nobody was more emphatic than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport. He stated that in regard to London, he wanted only one traffic commissioner, because it was his intention to introduce this Bill, and he thought that it was better to have one traffic commissioner who would be better able to act in concert with his colleagues in areas abutting upon London and to fit in with whatever authority operated the transport services. The present Bill proceeds to undo entirely those provisions in regard to the Road Traffic Act, which was passed only last year. It is very extraordinary that it should be necessary to amend the Road Traffic Act to the extent proposed in one of the Schedules to this Bill. Quite apart from the amendment of that Act, I fail to see what the Bill is going to do to regulate the amount of traffic except through the machinery of the Road Traffic Act. There is nothing in this Bill which does anything towards regulating the traffic. We must rely all the time upon the licensing powers of the traffic commissioners set up under the Road Traffic Act. I believed that there would be a diminution of undue and foolish competition under that Act, and that by means of the licensing authorities we should have been able to operate services in those areas where housing development led to the need for improved transportation. I thought that we should have been able to spend money and make the eight or nine miles of tube railway so urgently required, and for which capital would be necessary.

In the raising of this vast amount of money, something like £8,500,000, surely, the investing public are interested. I should like to know what there is in this Bill, if you take the provision in Subsection (4) of Clause 3, to inspire the investing public with any considerable degree of confidence? It all depends upon the public and the existing shareholders believing that the operation of the services will be as efficiently carried out by the new board as it is to-day carried out by either the Metropolitan Railway, or the management of the Underground Group, or the London General Omnibus Company, and so on. The House ought to consider very seriously what can be the advantage to any Government in taking over the London traffic problem. If you set up a board of five gentlemen and create 39 occasions during which you can butt into their business—and the Ministry is really going to have that power—you are doing something to frighten the main line companies. It has already been stated by an hon. Friend behind me that the Bill as framed is entirely unacceptable to any of the main line companies. If you want to make it acceptable, you will have to realise that the main line companies want something rather more than a political body to which to appeal. They must have a body which has a legal status and is in the nature of a Court of law. Such a body does not exist in the Bill as it is now framed.

Perhaps I am prejudiced—and hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel that I am prejudiced—but I make no secret of the fact that I am connected with one of the main line companies. I believe that the Railways Act, 1921, has, on the whole, worked pretty well. I believe that the four groups of railways have carried out services for the benefit of the public. By operating the railways under the terms of that Act, labour has been provided with tribunals and a method of organisation infinitely better than that to be found in any other industry. I fail to see in this Bill any similar arrangements to deal with labour in regard to matters arising in the London area. I admit that it is no use offering a direct negative to this Bill. You have to be constructive; you have to face a great problem. I contend that the method of trying to solve the problem on Socialistic lines is entirely odious. Frankly, I bitterly regret that when we were in office we did not create, for the London area, a fifth group on the lines of the four groups of railways, for then we should have had a very much smaller problem. We should have had a national co-ordination of traffic. Since the 1921 Act, the four main line companies have been empowered to operate road services. The analogy is now complete. If we could work out something on those lines, it would mean that the public would be protected, fares would be protected under the rates tribunals, labour surely would be protected under the organisations set up, and I believe that the confidence that you would get from the investing public would enable the co-operation of investors to provide funds for the benefit of the travelling public in London. There are other means which are perfectly obvious. There are arrangements now existing between one main line company and another, and, if that machinery could be extended to a central London fifth group, I believe that it would enable similar arrangements to be made for the benefit of the public.

In considering this Bill, we have to realise that the Government were faced with a problem that they had to tackle. I can imagine that it was difficult for the Minister of Transport to bring in a Bill that was not socialistic, or tinged with Socialism. I can understand that there are hon. Members opposite whose complaint against this Bill is that it is not socialistic enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, if hon. Members feel that strongly, I trust that they will vote with us in the Division Lobby. There is nothing like voting against things that you do not like. I believe that this Bill is thoroughly abhorrent to certain hon. Members opposite.

There is a very small proportion of the whole of this vast machinery for transporting people about the London area which is owned by the ratepayers. By far the greatest amount of the machinery for handling the public and moving them from point A to point B is owned by private enterprise. It is not realised what a tremendous contribution the main line companies make to the daily movement of London people, and it is essential in any scheme that is going to be really comprehensive—this Bill is not only going to deal with matters of to-day, but it looks forward to to-morrow and the day after and for several years ahead—that the form of control of traffic should be such that there can be co-operation with the main line companies.

We are well aware that, if you electrify a main line, it has a curious effect. The Southern Railway has done an enormous amount of admirable work in the development of their service lines. Every hon. Member opposite, although he may dislike private enterprise, will realise that the management of the Southern Railway has been very public-spirited, that they have taken chances in developing their service lines and that it has been of great benefit to the public. The result has been that there is a reasonable service and certainly no excessive fares. The interesting thing is this, that, if you electrify, say, 10 miles of service line and you make a calculation as to the population that will use this electrified service, you have to add 100 per cent. to that calculation and make your calculations on that basis; but the evidence that has been obtained already shows that you have to add something like 300 per cent. to any normal calculation, because the effect of electrification attracts to the area housing and an enormous population.

We are talking of practical things, and the outstanding facts of the present situation are; (1), that we must improve the traffic conditions of London and Greater London; (2), that we want a system in which we can have the co-operation of the main line companies; (3), that we must have a system which will have the confidence of the City and the investing public; and (4), this Bill, if it gets a Second Reading, will have to go through the stages of a Select Committee. I am certain that in its present form there is absolutely no guarantee to the ordinary stockholders of the omnibus companies or the underground railways which would enable the management of those concerns to go to the stockholders, with their hands on their hearts, and say: "We believe that your interests, would be as well safeguarded under this Bill as they are with us to-day," for the simple reason that, unless the Board are successful in operating this vast concern, and are immune from all those recommendations from the 39 different quarters, inevitably we shall find that the management will deteriorate, that it will not be possible to pay the terms that are laid down in the Bill for the exchange of stock, nor will it be possible to build up those reserves against depreciation, and so on, which are so vital if you are to have a successful system.

9.0 p.m.

Finally, there is no reason for us to be anything but proud of the way in which the transport services are run from the point of view of the staffs. I believe that hon. Members opposite will agree with me, and certainly the hon. Members on this side will agree with me, when I say that under the present system in London we have the finest omnibus drivers in the world, and we have the most courteous conductors in the world. The same remarks apply to the men who work on the tubes and on the trams. It is all very well to say that under the Clauses of this Bill their interests are safeguarded. I believe that one of the great advantages of private enterprise is that it does give greater scope for a man to get to the top. What we want to-day is to inspire every man with a love of his job and to give him the feeling that, if he is efficient, he will get to the top. Under all the systems of nationalisation that I have seen, it is not as easy for a man to rise by sheer merit as it is under the system of private enterprise. Why is that? It is surely that if each man is contributing under private enterprise to show some good result, that result is reflected in dividend, but if under the proposed system you are going to give some sort of general idea that you are working for the benefit of the public—which we all ought to do irrespective of Socialism; whatever job we are doing we are surely trying to do it for the benefit of the public—you are going, I fear, to take away the great incentive to the individual, be he a shunter on the line or whatever occupation he follows, who ought to feel that he is part of a great system which works for the public, which is reflected in returns which the whole world can see and which has the confidence of the investing public and, I believe, the confidence of the travelling public as well.

The municipal elections have been mentioned. The hon. Member who preceded me was, I believe, a member of the London County Council. I believe he fought a very gallant fight for his seat, and I have no doubt that he talked about London transport. Unhappily, he will not be able for the time being to occupy a place in the Council and to express his views.

I know nothing about that. I think he made an admirable and a most reasonable speech from his point of view. The real fact that remains is that this matter has been an issue at the elections, and it is ridiculous for anyone on the opposite side to say that there is a mandate for this Bill from the ratepayers of London, the travelling public of London or from any of the interests which are represented by the shareholders in the big concerns. I hope that those who do not believe that this Bill goes far enough, will vote with us, and I trust that we shall have a large number of hon. Members in the Lobby who believe that Socialism is the doom of efficiency, and that efficiency is essential for London transport.

The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) is illustrative of a long succession of speeches from that side of the House. Hon. Members opposite realise that in the present condition of traffic affairs in the metropolis it is necessary to take some action, and there is a desperate fear that that action must by the very nature of the case be some form of Socialism. They are trying to struggle free from that unfortunate necessity and are only getting deeper into the difficulty from which they are vainly hoping to escape. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon tells us that there is at stake—and we are to be duly alarmed at the prospect—about £130,000,000 of shareholders' money, but there is not one word about the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 people who are put to enormous inconvenience, not to say great risk to life and limb, in the present chaotic conditions of London traffic. Take another example to show the difficulty from which the hon. and gallant Member is vainly trying to struggle. He says that these unfortunate shareholders are to have their shares taken away and that there is to be foisted upon them a document behind which there is the credit of the State showing probably 5 per cent. interest. That is an outrage upon shareholders! I should have thought that most shareholders in traffic concerns would have been pleased indeed to get this new stock—

Just as the Electricity Board received millions of pounds on Government terms because the public knew that the Government were behind them so in this case the Government will be behind this concern, and the money will be raised on the best terms upon which money can be raised.

I do not think the hon. Member need trouble about it. We are told that this board will not inspire confidence. Will it be believed that a great deal of the money that has been raised, fortunately, for the benefit of my numerous constituents has been raised under the aegis of the Government: a good deal of the money that has been raised for railway transport extension has been raised under the Trade Facilities Act, and a good deal of money has been raised by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, the interest of which has been guaranteed by the Government. What is the use of saying that a board which has the Government at its back will not be able to raise money with the same ease as railway companies can raise money at the present time? What is the very essence of the case? It is that at the moment private enterprise has failed entirely to meet the requirements of London transport. Take my own constituency, what do you find there? You have had a great passing out into Essex of a population which at one time was crowded in the East of London; it has gone out to Essex.

Has private enterprise kept in line with the needs of that population? No. If it had not been for the action of the Government, the present overcrowding in the trains would have been a great deal worse. Fortunately, the railway is being doubled, but not through private enterprise. It has had to be stumulated, almost driven to do it. It is the same with the line which serves the southern part of my growing constituency, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and we have had a representative of that body speaking on this Bill to-night. It failed entirely to do what was the obvious thing. When 100,000 people in the course of 10 years got out into a part of Essex which had been almost entirely uninhabited, did the railway companies show the slightest sign of meeting the requirements of the new situation? Sir, they put not an extra train on, and the two lines to the docks at Dagenham and Tilbury are running on the same timetable as they did 14 and 15 years ago. What is happening now owing to the better forethought and preparing of the Minister of Transport, who is supposed to be unsafe as a controller of the solution of the traffic problems of London. Under his aegis, stimulated by him, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, or the electric railway which works in combination with them, has doubled the line to Upminster and is now prepared to do what should have been done years ago, and is providing an electric service for the teeming workers in that particular district.

A great deal has been said about private enterprise and competition. Competition is impossible in this matter of traffic, in the same way as it is proving itself impossible in many other directions. It is an old exploded nineteenth century idea. Let me give an illustration. Suppose you had an unregulated competition on the streets of London, and suppose you doubled the width of the streets and you still had an unregulated competition and allowed everybody who could scrape together £100 to put a conveyance on the streets. What would be the inevitable result? In the course of time there would be so many fast-going vehicles on the road that it would be far quicker to walk. That already happens in London. Slow-going vehicles, pulled by horses which have long survived their prime, are no longer allowed on certain streets, they are reserved for internal combustion engine traffic. If you go across London Bridge at certain hours of the day it is so crowded with this fast-going traffic that everybody who is in the habit of using London Bridge, as I was for many years, and wants to get to the Bank, never thinks of getting on an omnibus, because it is far quicker to walk.

Hon. Members opposite have tried to dodge the issue. I do not mind what you call the solution. You may call it co-ordination. It is only another word for the same thing. Co-ordination, of course, sounds better; the only difference is what hon. Members did in their Bill. When we had their Bill, what did we find? They went in for this blessed thing, co-ordination. They believed in it; they knew it was necessary. They were driven by the necessities of the situation. But what did they do with it? They made the municipally-owned trams subordinate to the private companies. They welded them all into one mass in the way that this Bill proposes, but they took good care that the municipally-owned trams should be under the control of the companies. What have we done? We have simply reversed it. We have said "No, the publicly-owned system of transport shall be in public hands and the other shall be subordinate to that, and in order to clear them off the field we will pay the shareholders off and control the whole in the interests of the public at large." That is a clear way of dealing with it.

What is the use of telling us that the shareholder is a public benefactor? We have long outgrown any such ideas. One hon. Member said that if we got this co-ordination or Socialism or collectivism, in other words if we applied common sense to the problem and brought about this control in the hands of a few responsible and well-equipped individuals, we should stultify all development, that all incentive would go and that there would be no invention or bringing things up to date. The reverse is the case. Anyone who is a student, as I am, of municipal development, knows that in such a matter as electricity municipalism has gone ahead. Why? Because municipalities are forced by Act of Parliament to amortise their capital. In such matters as changes in machinery or the application of new principles to dynamos it has been the municipality that has been most ready to scrap its plant, while the company, which has never written off a penny of its share capital, has hung on to its old plant. All these things prove that the principles of public ownership are best.

In this case you are establishing a board which will have the duties of establishing a sinking fund. Although the period is too long in my estimation, the board has to do what the companies did not do, and that is write off its capital piece by piece. With what result? If at any time you get some form of transport which is obviously more economical and efficient than the one in which you have sunk your money, you will be more ready than any company that has not provided for such an emergency to scrap the existing plant and replace it by new. In every way the principle of the Bill is the correct one. I am not here to give any bouquets to the Minister of Transport. On the contrary I am here to show him how I can respect him and his Bill by voting for the Bill. On the other side of the House they are full of respect for the Minister and his speech, but they all wind up by saying that in obedience to their masters who own the money and want a return on their capital, and want the door left open for the exploitation of the needs of this great Metropolis—on the other side they applaud the Minister's speech and announce in their perorations that they intend to vote against the Bill. I shall say nothing about the Minister of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. He is only delivering to us what we expected him to deliver. We have been waiting for it and we have got it. I think that this Bill is infinitely more businesslike and more calculated to deliver the goods to the people of London than the futile botched-up effort to preserve the interests of opposing parties to which so many references have been made to-day. I am glad the day has arrived when I have the opportunity of voting for this Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) on a most energetic, stimulating and enthusiastic speech in support of the doctrine which he holds.

Of course. I think the hon. Member spoke with complete sincerity, and I am extremely sorry that he did not just extend that eloquent exposition a little for a few encomiums of the Minister of Transport. It would really have made the right hon. Gentleman's head still larger after all the kindly things said to-day about his speech. But I would remind the hon. Member for Romford that if it had not been for private enterprise and the risks taken by shareholders, and the many sacrifices made in the development of every branch of invention in this country, our condition of progress would be far behind what it is now. I think it is quite unworthy of the hon. Member for Romford to make, by implication, an attack upon the private engineering and electrical concerns of the country, and putting them in contrast with what he believes to be the more progressive municipalities. As a matter of fact those who are acquainted with the progress of electrical research know that in the main it was private enterprise which made possible the rapid development that has taken place, and that some of our most prominent electrical manufacturers are the persons who really took the responsibility and made the financial sacrifices that made possible the place that we have in the electrical world to-day.

The particular point to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister is dealt with in Sub-section (3, c ) of Clause 3. It reads: include in the Bill a provision which inevitably will have serious effects upon the great work at present being done in the development of motor omnibuses and coaches by the various manufacturers. He knows perfectly well that during the last three or four years a considerable amount of research has been done in that direction. Manufacturers have put a considerable amount of capital into preparations for providing these vehicles, and it would be very unfortunate, indeed, if in the creation of this monopoly he were to strike a blow at the opportunities which these great enterprises should have for providing, on competitive terms, motor coaches for the whole area of traffic included in this Bill.

More than that, if you are to deprive the private manufacturers of motor omnibuses and coaches in this country of their share of supplying the needs of the London passenger traffic area, you are at once preventing further progress in research for the production of still more comfortable and efficient motor coaches. By limiting the home market, as inevitably this will do by excluding the London traffic area from the competition of the private producer, you are limiting his power to compete in the foreign market as well. At the present time there is a considerable trade being built up by manufacturers in the export market. I submit that all this launching of municipal concerns, based on municipal organisation, into private enterprise of this kind cannot but result in serious harm to the advancement of the industry. I am very sorry, indeed, that the Minister, in his devoted attachment to his old Socialistic obsessions, should embody this particular Clause in the Bill. I hope that during the Committee stage he will be convinced that, while the reorganisation of London traffic on carefully conceived lines is an abounding necessity at this time, and although he has taken great trouble and put a great deal of thought into the development of his great project, which we on this side regard with a good deal of doubt and suspicion, and though we give him full credit for all he has done in its promotion, this is the real blot on the scheme, providing as it does a further monopoly in the manufacture of motor omnibuses and coaches shall be set up under the Bill.

I am sure that in these days nobody desires more than the Minister, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, that nothing should be done which would in the slightest degree affect the vigour of private enterprise. If you are to hand over this right to provide all the vehicles necessary for this vast scheme of passenger transport in the London area, you are taking out of the hands of the highly organised producers of these articles the opportunity of supplying a very large share of the home market. That is a provision of the Bill which must be fought with all the energy we can bring to bear during its passage. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in the retention of this particular Clause. Of course, he took the opportunity this afternoon of reminding us on this side of the some-time tendency towards Socialism which we occasionally displayed. But none of us on this side have ever so far advanced along the lines of his delusion as he is advancing in the construction of this Bill and his scheme for the transport of London traffic. Without detaining the House further, I appeal to him to take the Clause out of the Bill.

I suggest that if the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) were to go to Birmingham and utter the same speech as he has done this evening, he would certainly find himself in trouble, for he knows quite well that in his own city, industry, whether in regard to rolling stock or otherwise, is run efficiently to the highest point. He knows quite well that every kind of up-to-date means of production is always adopted by the city council, which is competent to produce its own rolling stock and make a good job of it. Therefore, I cannot see for a moment why he goes to the extent of telling us that municipal authorities are not competent to do it.

Does the hon. Member say we are making our own rolling stock under the Birmingham Corporation?

They make parts of their own rolling stock and put it together, and do it very well. So we do in Sheffield, where we make our own tramcars. I did not rise to take that line, however. I believe the Bill before the House, rather than lead to Socialism, may well lead from it. It has been said from both sides that here we have an excellent means of approach to Socialism so-called. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that this was a dose of "Socialism in our time." The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading, however, said that this Bill would not add a civil servant to those now employed by the State. Obviously, as far as our Civil Service is concerned there is to be no approach even of a very limited type of Socialism, let alone Socialism of any true kind. The Bill does promise a great achievement in efficiency in this area. It promises co-ordination and competency from almost every angle. On the other hand, it promises other things that are not palatable to me. In the first place, it seems to me to frustrate all our old doctrines about municipalisation and of inducing our local people to take an interest in running their own local industries on democratic lines.

The Minister of Transport has told us that he could not depend upon handing over all the traffic in the Metropolis to the county council, because the county council is reactionary in its elements. He told us that though he had considered the idea he could not see his way clear to hand over the business to the joint undertaking of the municipal authorities throughout the London area. That is a rather alarming attitude for a member of a party which, for a generation or two, has insisted that the right line of approach to collectivist enterprise is through municipalisation. I expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) would have pointed out how the most efficient industries in the Midlands are to-day being run by municipal authorities as such. In the second place, it is clear that this Bill must, more or less, obliterate all semblance of democracy in this connection, and that, too, is an alarming proposal coming from this side of the House. We are not even to have that approach, that reach to democracy which we have in the case of the Post Office, in our time. It seems to me that we are going to have less than we have in the case of the Board of Control and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and everyone knows that we have had great difficulty in getting anything done by those bodies.

Thirdly, it seems to me that this Bill creates a great joint stock company which, will be run on competent lines in the interests of shareholders—holders of Government stock—up to 90 years. The receipts are to be used first in covering all charges of redemption and interest up to 90 years. Fourthly, we are to make certain that the board shall ensure fixed rates of interest for this time on privately-owned stock. In Clause 25 we read: very different from those given by hon. Members opposite. I firmly believe that we are creating one more of those close and unapproachable public corporations like little Fascist dictatorships which have no relationship at all with democracy and place the workers in the hands of higher business interests.

With the permission of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge), who seemed rather critical of hon. Members on this side who paid compliments to the Minister, I should like to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman not only on his speech of this afternoon but on his attainment of Cabinet rank. I feel that I can do so with special pleasure and responsibility, because he happens to be a constituent of mine and no doubt assists to return me to the House of Commons. Indeed, my friends in Woolwich are doing very well just now. My old colleague who represented the East Division of Woolwich has become a baron and now my constituent, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, has become a Cabinet Minister. What fate may ultimately happen to myself I do not know. But having said a few kind words about the Minister of Transport, I feel that I must turn to a more unpleasant side of his character and record.

I remember, very well, speaking on the question of London transport some two years ago when the right hon. Gentleman was the instrument of the Government and of his party in killing the Bill which was then before the House dealing with London passenger transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fine work;"] Yes, but what a contrast between the position and the prospects of that Bill, and those of the Bill now before us. That Bill, whatever we may say of its merits, was largely based on the recommendations of the most expert committee of that day on the subject, the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and it came up for Third Reading in this House with the warm approval and strong support of the great majority of the local authorities of London—the only exception being what we may call the Socialist boroughs. It had the support of the private operators of undertakings in London. It was supported by the heads of the great trade unions which were affected, and in fact the only opponents of that proposal were the Labour Government and the people who supported them. It is only fair to say that, whatever the merits may be, and it cannot be controverted that in the long history of this almost endless controversy concerning London traffic, never before was there such a large degree of substantial unanimity achieved and translated into acceptable Parliamentary proposals.

I paid the most careful attention to the speech of the Minister of Transport this afternoon, and I was anxious to see what support he claimed for this Bill. The only active support that he claimed for it was that of a number of local authorities, which he was careful not to specify. Let me repair that omission. As I understand it, the only local authorities to give active approval to this Bill are the metropolitan borough councils of Poplar, Shoreditch, Stepney, Bermondsey, and local authorities of that order. The position is reversed. While the Bill of two years ago received practically unanimous support, to-day the Minister comes forward and can only claim the support of those particular well-known and notorious London borough councils.

I was also very interested to see whether the Minister of Transport would give any explanation of the fact, as I know full well, having been associated with municipal and national politics in London now for some time, that he has abandoned—and why it was so satisfactory to the Labour party—the policy for which he has fought all his life, so far as I know, in connection with London politics, the policy, namely, that London transport should be guided, directed, and governed by the London County Council and other local authorities. I must again supply that omission for the right hon. Gentleman. I think the reason why he has done it was to be found in a speech which he did not deliver in this House nor refer to to-day, but which was delivered in the country, in which he said that this scheme which he had presented to the House of Commons was one of the greatest Socialist schemes ever placed before Parliament.

Many hon. Members may think that that is enthusiasm for this scheme by an enthusiast, but he is not the only Minister who has said that. No one would accuse the President of the Board of Trade of enthusiasm. I have noticed that this week-end, in going up and down the country and delivering speeches, he has given a good deal of time, not, as we should expect, to the Tariff Truce, but to this London Transport Bill, and he thrilled his audience at Huddersfield with a description of these proposals. There he stated, in his turn, that he believed this Bill to be a real practical form of Socialism.

I was surprised to hear the description which the Minister of Transport gave of the parentage of the Bill. It seemed to me a very mixed one. He says it was partly occasioned by the Yellow Book, partly by some inspiration of his own, and partly by odds and ends which he had happened to pick up in the course of a long and varied career; but I am assured—and I think it can be proved—that the real father and author of this Bill is the Fabian Society. It was some considerable time ago that the Fabian Society outlined very much the proposals which are contained in this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman has gone one better than the Fabian Society, because the Fabian Society did propose that local authorities should nominate representatives on the Board of Control. Whoever may be the father of the Bill, I want at once to say that, in my opinion, its twin brother is the mess-and-muddle Coal Mines Act, and I think it belongs to the same disreputable family as the Trade Disputes Bill and the Education Bill.

I am not surprised that this particular Bill, however much the right hon. Gentleman may desire to deny it or avoid it, was decisively rejected at the last London County Council election. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech to-day, seemed to have forgotten all about the incidents of the London County Council election. He seemed to forget all the publications which he himself issued, and how be brought this particular scheme most prominently before the citizens of London. I have no doubt that a very large number of Members of this House saw big placards on the walls about the London traffic scheme. It was No. 6 point of the London Labour party, and Londoners, only a few weeks ago, were invited to answer the question: This very touching and pathetic document contained these words:

The Minister of Transport, I thought, was very sensitive about his own position as Minister, and particularly in relation to the Traffic Control Board. He did not deny, and I do not think any speaker on the benches opposite has denied, that nationalisation is intended and, it is hoped, is being achieved by these proposals. I have not, like some of my hon. Friends, counted the number of duties and powers which have been conferred on the Minister by the Bill, but you have only to read it to see in very plain terms what is really intended and what would be the result if the Bill ever reached the Statute Book. The Minister of Transport is to be the sole arbiter as to the withdrawal or reduction of traffic services of London. He can require the board to provide new or improved services; and he is given—and this is very significant—very considerable power with regard to the finances of the board.

One of the most interesting features of the Bill is the super-optimism which is shown in that provision where it is laid down that on no account must revenue be exceeded, and that all charges must be met out of revenue. The Minister has declared in resolute terms that no subsidy is to be given, and this board is commanded to pay its way—a most delightful injunction to any body of men at this particular time. The astonishing part of it is that the Minister of Transport is really the only man who is exempted from the full implication of that stipulation. He is given power, for instance, to say what shall be carried to reserve if there be any question of difficulty. It is said that the question whether this board is paying its way or not is not a matter which anyone can question so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, for it is a matter that must rest in his opinion. In other words, no one can question any action which the Minister may desire to take. If a question were raised in the House, for instance, on the interference of the Minister, and he was told that he would ruin the transport system of London by the direction he had given, and that it was a monstrous infringement of the stipulation laid down in the Act of Parliament, the Minister might say: "That may be your opinion, but it is not mine; under this Act, I am the judge in that respect." Such a power in relation to the finances of a great service has never been given in an Act of Parliament without a power of appeal.

10.0 p.m.

Great play has been made by the right hon. Gentleman with the business board which he says is to be set up to control the great passenger traffic service of London. What is the relation of the Minister of Transport to this board? It is certainly a very interesting one, but one which the Minister has failed to clear up, not because he was not able to do so, but because he did not desire to do so. The Minister of Transport is to appoint this board. There is a very curious phrase in the Clause which deals with the power of the Minister to remove a member of the board. It is said that the Minister can remove a member for inability. I see that the First Commissioner of Works trembles at that word. What would happen if any Cabinet Minister could be removed for inability? How many would remain on that bench? It is certainly a very curious phrase to use, and what it comes to is this. The Minister can appoint these men; he can remove them for the reasons set forth in the Clause, and he can appoint others in their stead. We shall no doubt hear from the President of the Board of Trade in one of his inspiring speeches which will follow this, that this is a method by which we are going to reorganise the London traffic system on the lines of public ownership run by five commissioners or trustees, who will be responsible to the Minister of Transport, who, in turn, will be responsible to the Government. That is a very significant statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny it?

That is the statement which appears in most of the newspapers to-day. It may be said that the removal of a member of the traffic board through inability simply means, not what a suspicious mind may suggest, but that if by some failure of business capacity an occasion arises by which a man can obviously not fulfil his duties, the Minister simply appoints somebody else in its place. But what about the position of the Minister of Transport with regard to the five sound business men who are in office and carrying out their duties? The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) put a significant question to the right hon. Gentleman. He said, "You have to answer for these men in Parliament; you have to define their policy. What will happen if you disagree with them, or these men disagree with you on certain important questions of policy?" The right hon. Gentleman gave a humorous reply, but not a very satisfactory one, by saying that there would be no disagreement. This question has been debated before. It was a matter of considerable interest to me when I was at the Ministry of Health with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). We had practically a similar state of affairs in respect of the Board of Control for mental deficiency. This matter was fully discussed later on when the present Minister of Health had to answer in the House as to what his position was in relation to that Board. He gave some significant replies. On the 17th February, 1930, he said:

"When questions are asked about the Board of Control, and they can be asked, they are answered by the Minister of Health; when their Estimates come before the House, those Estimates are defended by the Minister of Health. When their legislation is before the House, unfortunately it is introduced by the Minister of Health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1930; col. 967, Vol. 235.]

The Parliamentary Secretary, who like all Parliamentary Secretaries is a little more free than the Minister, described the Board as being in the position of a Department of the Ministry of Health. But that was not the end of the argument. The Minister of Health was engaged in considerable controversy as to whether a particular part of the work should go to the Board of Control or to him as the Minister of Health, and a very large number of hon. Members opposite were urging that it should go to the Minister. What was his reply?

"Lastly, I would say, whether this kind of work remains where it is"—

that is, with the Board of Control—

"or whether it is decided that it should come under the control of the Minister of Health, the Minister is equally responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April 1930; col. 2554, Vol. 237.]

So it comes to this, that in the end it begins and finishes with the Minister himself. Therefore, to suggest that any independence should be achieved by the board is certainly against constitutional practice. In other words, the board, if they are to remain in existence, so far as their personnel at the moment is concerned, have to come to an agreement with the Minister of Transport, or, I conclude they would resign, or be removed on the ground of inability. The Minister of Transport has endeavoured to defend his scheme on many grounds. He has said that the difficulties, so far as London transport are concerned, are too many for the work to be entrusted to the local authorities. That is a strange alteration. It is a new policy for the right hon. Gentleman because only a short time ago he was saying that he would any day prefer local government to Whitehall government. He said.

"With all the admiration which I have for the Civil Service, I am not prepared to allow them to take over the government of London."

I must confess that I seldom met a man who changed his coat so quickly. Speaking in this House on 28th March, 1924, he said:

"We cannot be a party to one more step in the direction of the reduction of London to the status of a Crown Colony."

Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will say a word or two on this. He is a man who can remember all these things, and I hope he will not forget that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"We do not want to be handed over to the Minister of Transport. We might as well be handed over to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and be done with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1924, col. 1741, Vol. 171.]

I do not see the Secretary of State for the Colonies here to-night. We should like to hear his views on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has dealt with the statement of the Minister about the advisory committee. We were told this afternoon that the advisory committee would save the situation so far as London government was concerned; that the representatives of local government in London were to be on the advisory committee, and therefore all would be well. It is sad to remember that only a comparatively short time ago the Minister of Transport was saying that the advisory committee was "a farce," and "a sop to local government." They were words so painful that I will not repeat them. As one final effort in defence of his Bill, the Minister says: "Well, after all, I may have said this about the advisory committee, and I may have hinted that London ought not to be a Crown Colony, but, after all, you have always got me to rely on. I am, as the Minister of Transport, subject to the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. You can always ask me questions." There is another very sad thing I have to report to the House. On the same occasion as that to which I have referred the right hon. Gentleman said:

"It is said that the Minister is responsible to Parliament. That is somewhat true in the political circumstances of the day, but I have known times when Ministers were only nominally responsible to Parliament. As it is, the means of Parliamentary discussion on the acts of Ministers on local questions are quite ineffective."

Then there follow these words, to which I particularly invite the attention of the Members of the Liberal party, and specially the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

"As a matter of fact there will be no real control over the Minister of Transport at all. Therefore, the proposal is ineffective. Even if it were effective, with all respect in the world I resent the idea that London questions are to be controlled by Members of Parliament representing Scotland, Wales, or Lancashire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1924; col. 1741, Vol. 171.]

Now I would like to say a word or two, with great respect, to the Members of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) made a most interesting speech. Throughout a long life of very useful service to London he has always supported the principle of municipal control for London traffic. On the 6th November two years ago, at a meeting of the London County Council, he and the five other Liberal Members on that body voted for a proposal in those terms; and only four or five months ago, in speaking on the proposed London passenger transport board in the London County Council, he described these proposals as "retrograde proposals." A good deal has been said about the Yellow Book. It has been my fate to advertise books that have been written by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green recently wrote a book on London and its government.

A very good book, as the hon. Member has said. I have no doubt he has purchased a copy.

It is a 7s. 6d. book. I warn hon. Members about this. This book has followed the Yellow Book. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has evidently failed to make a careful study of the Yellow Book. This is what he has to say so far as this particular proposal is concerned. I invite hon. Members who listened to the speech of the hon. Member to reconcile this passage in his book with what he said this afternoon:

"We are faced with another even more objectionable alternative. The Government proposes to set up a Traffic Board consisting of some five or six gentlemen nominated by the Ministry of Transport, in whom will be vested the tramways, omnibuses and all local railways. They will have no responsibility except to themselves, though there will be an appeal to the Minister if services are unduly curtailed, or to a tribunal if fares are arbitrarily raised, but the people who live in and around London, whose daily movement is so dependent upon cheap and efficient transport, will have little chance to influence policy or to ventilate grievances."

Then there is a very touching passage which says:

"When a tired woman, after a long day's work, has to fight for a place in a crowded omnibus, or hang by a strap in a carriage in a crowded train, she will not have the satisfaction of grumbling at an arbitrary company or complaining to a local councillor. Her fate will be in the hands of five or six clever middle-aged gentlemen, no doubt supremely qualified for their jobs, but very far away from the humble folk who travel by their trains and trams and omnibuses. This may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly not local government. The very last thing that is wanted is to put more responsibilities on a State Department. And this is exactly what the proposal to set up a London Traffic Board will involve. In the last resort the Minister of Transport will be responsible, and the only way to get at him is once a year on the Vote for his salary, or on the adjournment Motion at 11 o'clock at night, when Members are only thinking how soon they can get back to their homes."

I adhere to every one of those words. I made it clear that, if the character of the board was not changed, I should vote against the Third Reading.

That is not my own reading of the situation. I am thinking of the poor woman hanging on to that strap. Let me say, in conclusion, for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman who may reply to our objections to this Bill, that I think it is a particularly crude and crazy method of nationalisation. Secondly, I think it a most undesirable precedent to concentrate in a Department of State such a measure of control of a service of such vital importance as London traffic. And, thirdly, I think this Bill establishes a bureaucracy which can fairly be said to be beyond the reach of effective Parliamentary and public criticism. It undoubtedly takes the property of private owners out of their control, and gives them no option in connection with their undertakings. Finally, there is no guarantee to the public—and I think this is a very vital matter—that in such a State trust, following the general experience of Government undertakings, in the long run and in the short run, the public will not be heavy losers if this scheme is adopted. After all, this scheme is a most dangerous leap in the dark. It is a most undesirable precedent. It establishes the worst kind of bureaucratic autocracy, and it flouts the emphatic verdict of the recent London County Council election. I believe that just as London, in no uncertain terms rejected this scheme, we can, with confidence, ask the House of Commons to endorse that overwhelming rejection to-night.

The House, and certainly the Government, will not complain of the spirit of the Debate, and least of all of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). It was really a delightful speech to listen to, although I wish that he had made a little more reference to the Bill. I am afraid I cannot promise him that inspiration and eloquence for which he asked, at all events at one part of his speech, because my instructions in this House have always been to avoid eloquence and stick to the facts. I should like also to acknowledge the generous words which have been used by Members in all parts of the House regarding the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and the references to his inclusion in the Cabinet. If one personal word may be permitted, my right hon. Friend is now the youngest member of that body, although, I must point out in selfdefence, only by a few months.

We are dealing to-night—and I am afraid I must speak very hurriedly—with what the right hon. Gentleman has just described as the age-long problem of London traffic, and the central proposal of this Bill is to establish what we regard as the businesslike method of a public corporation for this purpose. That corporation will consist of five persons, who must be persons of business experience and capacity, and I take this opportunity to reply to one or two questions which were put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden) as to the constitution of this corporation. There is no question here of the political record of any of the applicants. As a matter of fact, if any man of capacity were available, he might be chosen from any political party, or, at all events, he might be the owner of any set of political beliefs. The real test is to try to get the necessary experience, a disinterested outlook on public affairs, and a desire to act as steward and trustee for the community in a matter of very important concern.

My hon. Friend also asked me what kind of arrangement would be made regarding the regulation of wages and working conditions. It is quite true that, under the Railways Act of 1921, there were set up a central and a national wages board, and it is suggested that corresponding machinery might be included in this legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and other Members of the Government have every desire to encourage the establishment of all possible machinery for the peaceful regulation of working conditions, but there is a certain distinction in this case as compared with the Railways Act of 1921. Under that Act four separate railway undertakings were amalgamated. Here we have a form of mixed transport—railways, omnibuses, trams and certain other services, with trade unions outside the three unions that are found in the railway world. Accordingly, it is very largely a matter for agreement among trade unionists themselves as to whether they can suggest to the Minister any plans under which machinery analogous to that in the Railways Act, 1921, might be included in this legislation.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am giving no pledge or undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend. It may be that differences of view among the unions themselves would make such a course under this Bill undesirable, if not impossible, but I indicate at this stage that the question is very largely one of Labour organisation. Certain of them might take the view that they would prefer to operate independently rather than be linked up in any form of wages board in this connection. There were certain other questions relating to working conditions, with which I must not now detain the House, as to the terms of compensation for displacement, whether the period of five years mentioned in the Bill would be unalterable or whether there would be some kind of elasticity such as is found in legislation covering the servants of local authorities who are deprived of office by amalgamation or as the result of other changes that are introduced. These things are all capable of analysis and friendly discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill, because it goes to a joint body where every conceivable point of view will doubtless be presented.

I turn to what are the central features of this, legislation. The broad object is to set up this public corporation, and a description of the structure will be required to answer questions which hon. Members have asked. There will be transferred on certain terms to this new public corporation the combine, the Metropolitan Railway Company, the municipal trams of the London County Council and other local authorities, and a large number of privately run undertakings which are set forth in detail in one of the Schedules. That is the broad structure of the corporation. Before I turn to the financial terms which have been directly and indirectly discussed in the Debate, I should like to refer to two important points that were raised by hon. Members who spoke from the point of view of the railway amalgamation and hon. Members who had more particularly in mind the position of the municipal tramway undertakings. As regards the suburban lines of the four railway amalgamations, the position is perfectly plain under the legislation as it is now drafted. My mind goes back, more particularly in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), to the long Debates on the Railways Act in 1921, when there was a direction to the Rates Tribunal so to fix the freights and charges as to give those amalgamations as soon as may be the revenue of the last pre-War year, 1913, together with certain allowances for expenditure, past and future.

At that time several questions were asked regarding the position of those suburban services, more particularly if plans were to be evolved for the complete control of the regulation of London traffic. But it is now clear as noon that there are to be always insurmountable physical difficulties in disentangling those suburban parts of the great railway amalgamations from the rest of those undertakings. Of course, those undertakings are all the more difficult of being, disentangled when, as in the case of the Southern Railway Company, they rest very largely upon passenger traffic. In any case, they are bound up with the regulation of rates before the Railway Rates Tribunal and with the position of those amalgamations. I do not think that any effort, even if it were possible, so to disentangle them is necessary when we have regard to what my right hon. Friend has proposed in this Bill. There is set up here machinery under which there may be a joint committee representative of the corporation on the one side and those railway amalgamations in their suburban services on the other for the purpose of arriving at a joint arrangement in order that the local London effort of the amalgamations may be dovetailed into the work of the London passenger traffic corporation.

That sets up the possibility of co-ordination and even the forming of a pool, but I imagine that the real difficulties between the two sides of the House, in so far as there is a difference on this point, is rather the desire for an understanding or something on compulsory lines to bring in the suburban traffic, and, it might be, to give it some form of protection as far as the new public corporation is concerned. For my part, I refuse to believe that it will not be possible for the great railway amalgamations to arrive at a suitable working agreement with the new corporation. To a substantial extent their services are competitive, and the House must remember, on the other hand, that a very large part of the work of the new London passenger traffic transport combination will not be competitive. It is of the nature, if you like, of a complete monopoly, but a monopoly in the hands of a public corporation. I think that there will be every opportunity for effective co-ordination and agreement, and accordingly the Government cannot take the view that there is any serious difficulty in the point which hon. Members raise.

On the other question, the position of the tramway undertakings, the Bill is equally explicit. There is no question here of transferring those municipally-owned tramway undertakings to the new traffic corporation by exchange of stock and the rest, save to the extent to which that may be done by the corporation taking over, or making itself responsible for, the debt charges of those municipal tramway undertakings as they fall due from time to time. It has to be remembered that those tramway undertakings were established for the purpose of providing a cheap and efficient service. They did not set out to be profit-making concerns. It is perfectly fair to the tramways to have them absorbed in this great enterprise on a basis of having their debt charges met.

The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) sought to draw a distinction between the particular position of the tramway undertaking of Ilford and other tramway undertakings and the terms afforded by this transaction. His case, in substance, was that in Ilford matters have been rather more prosperous than they have been in regard to many other tramway concerns, and he considers that the equity of the bargain would be met by their undertaking being valued at £250,000. Presumably, though he did not say this in definite terms, he thinks that there should be some kind of special consideration in this Ball for Ilford. We have no hesitation in saying that any plan of that kind is altogether impossible. It would be impossible to began to provide specially for any particular tramway undertaking or group of undertakings without being involved in a proposition applicable to the far reaching question as to the prosperous tramways undertakings on the one side, and the large number of other undertakings which I am afraid have operated under difficult conditions within recent times. The basis of the Bill is to take over these tramway concerns by providing for the due payment of their debt charges until those debt charges disappear.

May I endeavour to meet other points of criticism by saying something of the financial structure of the Bill. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken was very witty and entertaining in regard to certain Socialistic principles, or what he regarded as Socialistic principles. In imagination, he turned to the House, and said: "What! No subsidy from public funds." Certainly, no subsidy in this proposal because, according to the speech of one of his right hon. colleagues, the right hon. Member of the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) there is a gold mine in London transport, properly managed. No Government would think of providing any subsidy, even if we were agreed in principle with a proposal of that kind, because in our view if this transport is efficiently managed, it should be able to pay its way and meet all the charges, and I should hope that it will be able to do something for development and the reduction of fares. It is no part of Socialism to run any great enterprise on other than business lines. Many of us have always made it perfectly clear that if any great public utility or other business undertakings in this country passed into public ownership and made a great demand upon the taxpayer, it would very speedily put an end to Socialist practice. The whole system would crumble under the weight of pressure from the public. Our object is to try to come as near to businesslike management as possible, whilst safeguarding the interests of the undertaking, and at the same time safeguarding the interests of the public as a whole. There is no need for a subsidy.

Let me turn to the terms of transfer. I should like to say, with very great conviction, that I consider that they are reasonable and fair. The scheme is not reeking with the bureaucracy that the right hon. Gentleman described. There are many striking analogies between this legislation applicable to London traffic and the proposals contained in the Railways Act of 1921. It will be remembered that that Act was passed not by a Government of Socialists, but by the Coalition Government, which turned down many of our proposals designed for the protection of the public during the Committee stage and Report stage. Here, we set up, first, the public corporation, and then we establish the tribunal which is to determine the terms on which this capital transfer is to be made.

The House will expect me to explain briefly, but I trust clearly, the idea that is in mind regarding the transfer of stock. There are several Clauses, many of which are technical in character and cannot easily be described, at all events in a short compass, but in substance it comes to this, that there will be A stock; then there will be the Trade Facilities Act stock and B and C stocks, and the central and guiding principle for all classes of stock under this legislation in the transfer is that these stocks should be fixed interest bearing securities. Here we get the direction to the Rates Tribunal, and for this purpose the Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act of 1921 is extended to include a representative of local authorities and of finance; in other words, to make it rather more representative in character. The direction to the Rates Tribunal is substantially the direction which we find in the Act of 1921 applicable to railway traffic in this country as a whole. It is, in effect, a direction so to fix the fares, because this is overwhelmingly a problem, of passenger fares with a very small percentage of freight, as to yield year by year that revenue which will provide for the various charges described in the Bill. These are, inter alia, the working expenses, the service of the debt of local authorities in their transferred undertakings, and the fixed interest charges on the different classes of stock.

That will require to be worked out, as regards capital transferred, by the tribunal for that purpose under this Bill, which also will be representative in character. The Railway Rates Tribunal, will determine the fares to be charged to yield that revenue, and the board in due course will determine, in consultation with the Treasury, the rate which these fixed interest bearing stocks shall carry. That is the broad outline of the financial plan of the Bill. Of course, there are various safeguards in the application of a vast scheme of this kind. The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and other hon. Members were quite properly anxious as to the facilities or services that would be provided it may be as the result of representations of the Traffic Advisory Committee to my right hon. Friend and any appeal which he felt disposed to make to the new passenger traffic corporation. The Bill provides, or the scheme will provide, the fullest facilities for the purpose; and in point of fact it could never succeed on any other basis, but it must be observed, and this is of great importance, that there is a definite restriction on representations if by the provision of some service or the duplication of a service these undertakings could not earn the revenue designed to meet the charges enumerated in the Bill.

That of course is linked up with the direction to the Rates Tribunal but in this connection, as under the Railways Act, 1921, there is always one important underlying consideration. It is not merely a matter of anything which is fixed by the Rates Tribunal, it is always also a question as to what the traffic can bear. All these things must be carefully considered together in the adjustment of the financial arrangements under this Measure. They will be worked out in due course. I have not the least doubt that the transfer will be effected on terms which are satisfactory to the large and important interests concerned. But in any event we have passed definitely to a form of public corporation, and in the remainder of what I propose to say I shall try to reply to certain of the criticisms which have been advanced to-day. We do not deny for a single moment that this, in our judgment, is a Socialistic proposition. No doubt the stock remains until it is redeemed, but the ownership and control pass to this body. The present stockholders are the holders for the time being of these fixed interest bearing securities, until they are eventually redeemed.

What is the first question, and perhaps a very important one? Hon. Members opposite, in attacking this as a socialistic Measure, ask what will be the relation of the new passenger transport corporation to the Government, and in particular to the Minister of Transport? They have been good enough to quote some passages from speeches delivered in the country. That is undoubtedly a very difficult question in any transition to public ownership in this country. We may be perfectly clear to-night that we do not propose to come along at every stage and import politics into the management or direction of this concern. It would be impossible to get five representative people, whom I might describe as stewards and trustees for the public, to run this concern on business lines, if they were to be exposed to every wave of feeling in this House and to any form of prejudice or misrepresentation which might come along. They will be left, and must be left, with a large measure of freedom to run this undertaking on business-like lines, subject to those financial and other conditions which are laid down in the Bill.

The public is protected to a reasonable extent by the activities of an enlarged Traffic Advisory Committee, in which a much more extensive place is found for the representatives of the local authorities. There must be some Minister who will be able from time to time to pass information to this House or to make representations, and to work, I should think in friendly co-operation, with this new public corporation. Even under existing conditions, in regard to privately run businesses, Ministers are asked all kinds of questions. They make innumerable representations, and all Governments have perhaps a considerable measure of interest. If this corporation is run on business-like lines, and with a desire to serve only the interests of the public, I should imagine that no real difficulty in the relationship between this corporation, and my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government of the day, will emerge. So much for the question of relationship to Parliament and to the Government.

In the second place, we listened very earnestly this afternoon for the alternative which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to recommend. It was only when the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Transport spoke that it was quite clear that what the Opposition had in view was not a de-fence of the existing state of affairs, because everybody is agreed that co-ordination is necessary, and it is admitted that some form of monopoly is inevitable; what they had in mind was something like the conditions of the Bills of 1929. It might be a common fund, or pool, or co-operation, but leaving the transport interests in London in the hands of the private undertakings, or in the hands, as regards tramways, of the municipal authorities. This House has already pronounced on that question. I do not think hon. Members opposite deny that even if that had been carried to a point more effective than they contemplated in 1929, it would not have given the complete monopoly or complete scope which is necessary if there is to be anything like adequate provision for the 10,000,000 people or more affected by London transport. In our view there would still have remained, under such a scheme, considerable conflict of private interests and a good deal of friction and overlapping. In other words, it could never have become a thoroughly efficient proposition. That is the view, with great respect to hon. Members opposite, which we take of that plan. Accordingly, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting out boldly, beyond the limits of the proposals of 1929 which were rejected by this House, into a large, comprehensive plan in which the question of ownership is embodied for all practical purposes in this new corporation.

That leads me, in a final word, to speak of the public corporation itself. Hon. Members have described this as definite Socialism, nationalisation and bureaucracy. We find it very difficult to understand how they apply the term "bureaucracy" to this plan. The old idea of bureaucracy was the running of industry from Whitehall through the Civil Service by a Government Department. While we have always the greatest regard for civil servants, I have met very few of them who have thought, however sympathetic they may be to such proposals, that that was the way to make the great transition to any form of public ownership in this country. That is the practical reply to the danger of bureaucracy, if there is any danger at all, because here the business experience is incorporated in this body which is related to the strict facts of the case. It has the elasticity of a small and capable organisation, and without the endless review of committees and Ministerial direction. It should be able to respond to the infinite variety of the demand of the public view from time to time. Nationalisation, if you like, in the sense that ownership passes to the people, but not nationalisation in the sense of some great State machine.

A word in passing as to the position of the municipal authorities. We have not departed from our faith that a very large measure of public ownership must be accorded to the local municipal authorities, but here you are dealing with a bewildering variety of authorities in this area in which there are 10,000,000 people—probably almost one quarter of the total population of this country. You cannot speak of individual municipal authorities. You can only speak, in terms of some comprehensive body, in which they find their legitimate place and in which their needs and aspirations and those of their people are suitably represented, through

this Traffic Advisory Committee. That is the plan.

I suggest, also, to hon. Members opposite that they will find it very difficult to drive any real wedge between the Government and hon. Members on the Liberal Benches on this subject, more particularly if they have regard to the strict terms of the Liberal industrial report. I am not going to say that the Government and the hon. Members on the Liberal Benches are locked in one another's bosoms, but I take the view that between us there is a large amount of common ground in, at least, this part of our industrial policy, because their book has made it perfectly plain that where you have great public utility services, or services which have become out-and-out monopolies, or quasi-monopolies, you have a very strong case for some form of public control, and others have gone beyond that, and said some form of public operation. In substance, that is the reply which we offer to the criticisms of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In our judgment there is no practical alternative to this plan. You have here a vast aggregation of people in and around the City of London. We are all aware of the chaos and difficulty of the existing transport arrangements notwithstanding the substantial measure of progress and co-ordination which has been achieved. We are, if I may say so with all modesty, proud of this Bill, as a practical solution of that problem. We are proud of the fact that it confers a measure of public ownership, and, not the least proud of the fact that this is a little instalment of Socialism in our time.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 224.

Division No. 202.]

AYES.

[10.59 p.m.

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

Barr, James.

Brothers, M.

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

Batey, Joseph

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

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Burgess, F. G.

Alpass, J. H.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Ammon, Charles George

Benson, G.

Caine, Hall-, Derwent

Angell, Sir Norman

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cameron, A. G.

Arnott, John

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Aske, Sir Robert

Bowen, J. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Chater, Daniel

Ayles, Walter

Broad, Francis Alfred

Church, Major A. G.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Clarke, J. S.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Bromfield, William

Cluse, W. S.

Barnes, Alfred John

Bromley, J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Kirkwood, D.

Romeril, H. G.

Compton, Joseph

Knight, Holford

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Cove, William G.

Lang, Gordon

Rewson, Guy

Cowan, D. M.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lathan, G.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Daggar, George

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Dallas, George

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Dalton, Hugh

Lawrence, Susan

Sanders, W. S.

Day, Harry

Lawson, John James

Sandham, E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sawyer, G. F.

Devlin, Joseph

Leach, W.

Scrymgeour, E.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Scurr, John

Dukes, C.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sexton, Sir James

Duncan, Charles

Lees, J.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Ede, James Chuter

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Edmunds, J. E.

Lindley, Fred W.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sherwood, G. H.

Egan, W. H.

Logan, David Gilbert

Shield, George William

Elmley, Viscount

Longbottom, A. W.

Shields, Dr. Drummond

Foot, Isaac

Longden, F.

Shillaker, J. F.

Freeman, Peter

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shinwell, E.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lunn, William

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Simmons, C. J.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

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

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anylesea)

McElwee, A.

Sitch, Charles H.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs Mossley)

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Gill, T. H.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Gillett, George M.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Gossling, A. G.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Gould, F.

McShane, John James

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Sorensen, R.

Gray, Milner

Manning, E. L.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Mansfield, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

March, S.

Strauss, G. R.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Marcus, M.

Sullivan, J.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Marley, J.

Sutton, J. E.

Groves, Thomas E.

Marshall, Fred

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mathers, George

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

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

Matters, L. W.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Messer, Fred

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Middleton, G.

Thurtle, Ernest

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Mills, J. E.

Tillett, Ben

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Milner, Major J.

Tinker, John Joseph

Hardie, George D.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Tout, W. J.

Harris, Percy A.

Morley, Ralph

Townend, A. E.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

Vaughan, David

Haycock, A. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Viant, S. P.

Hayday, Arthur

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Walkden, A. G.

Hayes, John Henry

Mort, D. L.

Walker, J.

Healy, C.

Muff, G.

Wallace, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Watkins, F. C.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Murnin, Hugh

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Wellock, Wilfred

Herriotts, J.

Naylor, T. E.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

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

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Noel Baker, P. J.

West, F. R.

Hoffman, P. C.

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Westwood, Joseph

Hollins, A.

Oldfield, J. R.

White, H. G.

Hopkin, Daniel

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Horrabin, J. F.

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Palin, John Henry

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Palmer, E. T.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Isaacs, George

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Jenkins, Sir William

Perry, S. F.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Johnston, Thomas

Pole, Major D. G.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Potts, John S.

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

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

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Wise, E. F.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Raynes, W. R.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Richards, R.

Kelly, W. T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Ritson, J.

Kinley, J.

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

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

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

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Albery, Irving James

Astor, Viscountess

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Atkinson, C.

Balniel, Lord

Beaumont M. W.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

O'Connor, T. J.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Ganzonl, Sir John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

O'Neill, Sir H.

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Bird, Ernest Roy

Gower, Sir Robert

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Grace, John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Boyce, Leslie

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Purbrick, R.

Bracken, B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Ramsbotham, H.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Brass, Captain Sir William

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Briscoe, Richard George

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Remer, John R.

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

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Buchan, John

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hanbury, C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Ross, Ronald D.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hartington, Marquess of

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

Butler, R. A.

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Haslam, Henry C.

Salmon, Major I.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Campbell, E. T.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Carver, Major W. H.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Savery, S. S.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Skelton, A. N.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Christie, J. A.

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Smithers, Waldron

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Iveagh, Countess of

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colman, N. C. D.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Colville, Major D. J.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cooper, A. Duff

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Tinne, J. A.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Lymington, Viscount

Train, J.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Macquisten, F. A.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Dawson, Sir Philip

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Meller, R. J.

Wells, Sydney R.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Moore Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Withers, Sir John James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Womersley, W. J.

Ferguson, Sir John

Muirhead, A. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Fermoy, Lord

Nelson, Sir Frank

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Fielden, E. B.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)

Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Sir Frederick Thomson.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved,

"That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Education, Colwyn Bay

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

I wish to raise the question of the sanction for a Roman Catholic school in Colwyn Bay given by the Department of the Board of Education. Last year the Roman Catholic authorities of Colwyn Bay made application to the local education authority under the Act of 1921 to have an elementary school for 140 pupils. The application was opposed by the finance committee of the Denbigh Education Committee, and this opposition was confirmed later by the unanimous resolution of the whole education authority, with its co-opted members; that is to say, all parties represented in this House were unanimous in opposing the application.

The Ministry held an inquiry on 14th July under Section 19 of the Act of 1921. The local education authority opposed the action on three grounds. The first was the question of the interests of secular education in that area. Evidence was submitted that there were already 14 schools in the area with a total accommodation for 2,557 pupils and a total prospective accommodation, when a new school, the plans for which had been sanctioned, was built, of 2,957. As against that the total average attendance for the same period was 1,476. That shows that at the time when the inquiry took place there was available a surplus of accommodation of 1,081 places, and, including the new school, the surplus amounted to 1,481. It was admitted in evidence at the inquiry that all those schools were well staffed and well equipped, and geographically were very centrally situated; they were central schools where efficient teaching could be gained as against the multiplicity of smaller schools.

There is a second point, and that is the wishes of the parents. The Roman Catholic party had submitted evidence from 13 parents, two of whom were not in the area of the school applied for, but came from another area and another county, whereas the local education authority had received petitions from 500 parents against the proposal. The third point is economy and the rates. The cost of maintenance in this proposed school will be £1,100 a year, and of course £550 of that sum will fall on the local rates, in addition to the question of equipment and furnishing. This is a very serious matter for a town like this, which is already highly rated for educational purposes and already supplies a very substantial quota of the county rate. An inquiry was held on 4th July, and the Minister promised school places for 110 pupils, but I submit that the position was overwhelmingly against the weight of evidence. If any hon. Member will read the report of the public inquiry which was held, I think he will agree with me that on the evidence produced the decision of the Minister was somewhat unreasonable. First of all, they sanctioned a school entirely different from that which was applied for. The application stipulated for a school in the urban district, whereas a substantial amount of the provision which has been made came from outside that area.

The next point to be considered is the wishes of the parents and I submit that their case is well-founded and that it is necessary to hold an inquiry. The leader of my party has received a very large number of petitions against this decision. I will not enumerate the petitions of religious bodies, because I do not want to bring in any sectarian or religious feeling into this issue, but I would emphasise the fact that the local education authority unanimously objected and refused to consent to it, and a very old Member of this House said the other day in a speech in Wales that never in his Parliamentary experience did he remember a Ministry of Education so flagrantly flouting the wishes and decision of a local education authority. Moreover, the executive committee of the Federation of Education Authorities in Wales unanimously protested against the sanctioning of this school. Lastly, to show that this is not a matter of sectarian feeling, but purely one of economy in rates, two substantial ratepayers' associations in the urban district have protested. I submit that the recognition granted has not been based upon the facts of the case but as a palliative gesture to the Roman Catholic community, and I ask the hon. Gentleman earnestly to reconsider it without opening the floodgates of religious controversy on which he knows only too well Wales can and will speak with an overwhelmingly united voice.

I am in hearty agreement with my hon. Friend in hoping that this subject will not lead in any way to a revival of bitter and acrimonious religious discussion, either in North Wales or elsewhere. I agree, in the main, that he has presented the facts of the case as they appeared in the evidence at the inquiry last year. As the time is short, I wish to apply myself to the three main considerations which have to be kept in mind and weighed by those responsible when an inquiry of this sort is conducted. The first is, whether or not the proposal would lead to a saving of rates; the second is, what are the wishes of the parents; and the third is, what is the bearing of the problem on the interests of secular education?

With regard to the question of rates, I need not argue it, because it is obvious that, if you establish a new school of this sort, it must mean some extra burden on the rates of the district, although I do not think it is as heavy as my hon. Friend seems to indicate. I will not, however, stress that point. The inspector who conducted the inquiry agreed that there must necessarily be some extra burden upon the local rates. As to the question of the wishes of the parents, like my hon. Friend, I am not a lawyer, but he will agree with me that there is a point at issue, and, as far as I know, it is an entirely new point, as to what exactly is the interpretation of the words used in Section 19 of the Act of 1921.

It is submitted, on behalf of the local education authority, that the parents referred to in Section 19 are the parents of all the children of the area. On the other side, it is submitted that the parents referred to have a narrower connotation, referring merely to the parents of the children who are affected by this particular application and who are going to this particular school. Obviously there is a wide scope for difference, and I am not going to argue the legal merits of the point one way or the other. It is true, I suppose, if I accept my hon. Friend's point of view, that it might seem unjust to ignore the wishes of the parents of the whole area; but, on the other hand, if the parents of the whole area are to be involved in that interpretation, clearly the Nonconformists and Church people, being, as they must be in this area, in an overwhelming majority, would easily submerge the application of the Roman Catholic community. I will not enter into that argument.

The third point is the question of the interest of secular education. What happened is this: There is a small temporary school called St. Joseph's School, and there are attending it a certain number of Catholic children. There are certain other Catholic children attending the council school and a certain number at convent schools and other schools. There is a demand that there should be a new school erected in that area for the Catholic community. The question is whether it is in the interests of secular education that that demand should be granted or rejected. It was laid down quite categorically by those who supported the Catholic application that, if it were declined, these Catholic children would still go to the make-shift kind of school which now exists. Therefore, the question for us to decide is whether it is better that there should be a school where these children could be properly educated, where they would have access to the best kind of educational opportunity within the limits, of course, of a small school such as that, or that they should be huddled into a school which everyone admits is hopelessly inadequate, having regard to the needs of education in these days. My hon. Friend has said that the whole weight of evidence was against the action of the Board. We sent an inspector to hear the evidence and report upon it, and I think that anyone who examines the report will agree with me that, if you assume that this school will still be used in the absence of endorsement of this application, the interests of secular education clearly justify the provision of a new school.

We did not grant the whole application, but we did what I think is a very wise thing. We said, "We will give you sanction to provide a school for 110 children," that is children up to 11 or 12. The other children we hope will enter the main stream of 11-plus educational effort. We hope that that will be accepted by the Catholic community, and then the children will have a more appropriate training for their educational work and the 11-plus children will join with the other children in that area. I finish where I began. I very much hope that the decision of the Board will now be accepted by all parties, whatever their particular point of view may be. We may have considerable objection to an Act of Parliament, but we want to implement the Act as an Act. We have done our best and tried to be strictly impartial to all interests concerned, and I very earnestly make an appeal that no one will do anything at all to exacerbate opinion on either side.

Is the Minister prepared to receive a deputation of the local authority on this particular question?

We have received representations from local authorities over and over again. All I can say is, that we very much hope the decision will be accepted by everybody concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.