I, too, would like to add my voice to that of those who have borne testimony to the skill with which the Minister of Transport has converted into actual legislative force the desire expressed by the Railway Representatives in the Memorandum issued by them on the 26th January, 1932, to the then Minister of Transport. I wish to quote paragraph 36, which says,

"If experience should prove that the diversion of traffic from the railway to road still continues, even though with abated vigour, it will ultimately be necessary to consider other possibilities. The alternative which will then have to be faced will be either to increase the rates on the heavy industries or to impose further burdens on the road industry which will have the effect of definitely adjusting the balance in favour of the railway industry."

Or again, to quote paragraph 25:

"The object in view, the Railway Companies submit, should he to relieve ratepayers and taxpayers altogether from providing and maintaining roads, and to place the whole expenditure equitably apportioned upon the road users as such."

The Minister has, unquestionably, during the course of the proceedings upstairs on Standing Committee A met, to some extent, objections from those of us who have felt that the road users were being badly treated under the Bill. But really and truly what he has actually done is to lessen the force of the blow which was originally intended to fall upon the road users as such. In other words, instead of the 20 strokes with the birch, we have only had 15. I really cannot help thinking that:

"He hides a frowning precipice

Behind a smiling face."

But after such a demand made by a powerful organisation such as the railway organisation there is unquestionably in the Bill a definite blow struck at an extraordinarily efficient industry which has met a popular demand. I should like to emphasise this point particularly, because road transport as such could not possibly have developed to the extent to which it has done in this country were it not for the fact that it fulfils a very definite function in the trade of the country. After all, our manufacturers, traders, shopkeepers and all those who have the need for distributing the produce of their factories and of their shops into the hands of those who want those goods could not possibly have survived unless they did, in fact, feel this public demand for quick and prompt delivery of their goods. If the railway companies had been able to cope with this demand there would have been no such increase in the road traffic as we understand it to-day. The object of the Bill, as has been so often suggested in this House and in Committee upstairs, has been in some way or another to fetter that very efficient industry, not only, as was evidenced in the Budget, by heavy taxation, in some cases amounting to nearly 400 per cent. increase in the licence duties which have to be paid by the industry, but even more so by the restrictions which are proposed by the Bill to be placed upon the road transport users.

If the Bill were to effect such an object as the co-ordination of traffic or were to make our roads safer in any respect for the other users of the roads one might support it with a certain amount of confidence. But I suggest that neither of those objects is fulfilled by the Bill. You have the type of man whose whole business is concerned with the transport of goods. He is not himself a merchant or a trader, but he is the servant, of trade carrying out part of the functions of distribution to the consumers of goods in this country. To such a man the Bill comes with particular force. It places him almost entirely—it would not be fair to say entirely—under the bureaucracy of, first of all, the individual, if I may be forgiven the Irishism, who is the area commissioner, and secondly, after he has faced the area commissioner, of the tribunal. Upon that one individual and upon that tribunal, subject to the authority of the Minister of Transport, now rests the entire prospects of that man's livelihood.

If the man were carrying on some trade or industry which was in itself detrimental to the public welfare and something could be done to do away with it, there might be something to be said in favour of such a proposal, but it is a legitimate trade. It is a trade which a man has to build up by careful administration, and it requires the constant care and attention of the business man in order to convert it into a paying proposition. It is a trade which has proved, by its widespread use, that it fulfills a public purpose, and yet, under the Bill, no man can be sure that the business which he has built up with so much care and assiduity is certain of the continuity which is enjoyed by almost any other trade or profession in the country. If it should happen under the whim of an area commissioner that this man's trade is deemed to be no longer necessary on that road, for some reason or other, good, bad or indifferent, that man's livelihood will be wiped out with a stroke of the pen. He will be left high and dry, with no possibility of carrying on.

It has been said that it is not the intention of the Government to create a monopoly value for the road transport people. That monopoly value has not been asked for or sought for by the road hauliers. It has been forced upon them by the Government. The Government have said: "You shall no longer go out in free competition on the road. You shall be forced into a monopoly, and because you have been forced into a monopoly you shall have the possibility of your livelihood being taken away at any moment under the provisions of this Bill." That is a grossly unfair attack upon a perfectly legitimate trade, which has been been carried on to the benefit of the public and of trade generally. The people who are really most concerned by this Bill have been least consulted in its provisions, and that is those who actually use road transport as such. If there was no demand for road transport it would cease to be.

Yesterday the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) spoke of the virtues of this Bill and said that as an act of pure justice railway stock should be saved by such a measure, as it had been recognised by the Government as a trustee security. I can think of nothing more feeble to advance in support of the Bill than such a statement. Has the hon. Member no memory of the position of the 2½ per cent. Consols which depreciated in value to such an extraordinary extent. Was there any suggestion made that because they were trustee stock there should be a public subsidy made to raise them in value, so that their trustee security should remain? If the object of the Bill is, as the hon. Member stated, to save the security stock of the railways, it stands self-condemned at once, because it is obvious that the Government are merely carrying out the behests of a very powerful organisation, extraordinarily and efficiently banded together to oppose an industry which, by virtue of its youth, has not had an opportunity of having a similar organisation to defend its interests.

The House would do well to give careful consideration to certain aspects of the Bill before endorsing its provisions. Something was said yesterday which is deserving of consideration, as are most things which are said in this House. It was said that this Bill might be the foundation of something for the future. I feel very strongly that in a good deal of legislation in this House we are just living from hand to mouth. In regard to unemployment, for instance, we are not facing the future. In regard to transport we are only tinkering with the job instead of getting on with it. It cannot be denied that our railway system as it exists to-day is extraordinarily inefficient and that it does not fulfil the purposes which it should be carrying out. In the railways we have some of the finest highways in this country, direct routes between the big centres, and I should like to visualise some sort of plan towards which we could work, by which the whole system of railways as we understand it could be destroyed and its place taken by another form of transport which has proved itself to be efficient in experience. I would suggest we ought to have some co-ordinate plan in our mind under which road transport would be enabled to use the roads freely without licence and without undue supervision.

The hon. Member is dealing with some future Bill and not with the Bill now before the House.

I was making the point that this Bill only seems to be tinkering with the job and not getting on with the main principle, and I was trying to visualise a time when road and rail could be co-ordinated; but I bow to your ruling as being entirely just. I could have wished that the Opposition had tabled a Resolution which we could have supported in the Lobby. I am against the principle of the Bill because I believe it, to be fundamentally bad and wrong, a hindrance to trade, and a direct blow at an extraordinarily efficient industry. The blows at that industry have fallen from several directions—through the Budget, the heavy fuel tax and now through this Bill. It seems as if there is a determination in this House to stop the wheels of progress and to prevent this industry from developing as it would in the ordinary course of free and open competition.

When the Opposition table a Resolution which proposes to replace our present competitive system by a nationalised system, then, with the experience of every attempt that has been made at nationalisation, one has to support the Government against such a foolish, absurd and inefficient method of handling our transport system. Although one cannot support the Opposition Amendment, I do want to enter a very strong protest against the provisions of the Bill and particularly with regard to the methods adopted by it for preventing a man from carrying on a business which breaks no law, which fulfils the requirements of the law, but which, at the whim and fancy of an individual, the area commissioner, or the tribunal can be stopped forthwith.

There is also objection to the method under which the licences are to be issued. I should have thought that it would have been wise to act upon the principle that the test of the traffic required on the road should be the demand, but one finds that the people who can object to a licence being granted are the rivals of the road haulier, and not those who in their ordinary trade interests would wish the service to be placed on the road, and would prefer road traffic to rail traffic. The proposed method is fundamentally bad, and for that reason also I enter my protest against the Bill as it stands and I hope that in another place some alterations may be made that will make it more fair and equitable to the road users, whose case I am endeavouring to put, very feebly I am afraid but with heartfelt interest. I protest against the Bill in the belief that it is a thoroughly bad Bill, of which this Government some day will be ashamed, not perhaps because of what happens immediately but because of the developments which may occur under its provisions should the Government be replaced by a Government of the party opposite. With their nationalism ideas, they would probably take immediate advantage of the Act. They have praised the Bill in Committee and in this House because they realise that in it there is a great step forward towards the socialisation of the means of transport in this country.

When I heard that part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) in which he emphasised the necessity for a co-ordinated system of transport, I thought that he was going to conclude by saying that he would vote for the Amendment. He managed to get out of the difficulty by using the same argument as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir J. Ganzoni), that the particular panacea put forward in our reasoned Amendment had failed wherever it had been tried. I cannot understand that argument. Where in the world is there a co-ordinated system of transport under Socialist control?

Russia.

One of the most backward countries of the world—[Interruption]—until recently, but since the change took place in the government Russia has made more rapid strides in a progressive direction than any other country in the world. The cheers were somewhat premature. The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry had no other argument except that which we usually hear on these occasions. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) made an interesting and somewhat critical speech of the Bill in general, especially of the licensing system proposed. Apparently he does not understand the political philosophy which he has embraced and which makes him carry on what I regard as a hopeless struggle against industrial and transport development in a modern world. He and the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry will be driven by force of circumstances to modify their attitude. The hon. Member for Wrexham wanted the Government to create such favourable conditions—this was also the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry—that transport will be able to organise itself. It is a curious thing that hon. Members who put forward that argument are those who repeatedly come to the House and ask Parliament to assist industry and agriculture out of the chaos and confusion into which they have fallen. They seem to imagine that if only Parliament will create the conditions the transport industry will satisfactorily organise itself. I beg to differ very strongly from that point of view.

What is the history of this process of development; and here may I say that I appreciate one note in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry. He said that this new form of transport should be given a fair chance of development. He made himself an avowed supporter of technical progress, and I do not dissent, but, obviously, if you leave the units in the transport industry, just as you left the units in industry and agriculture, even if you do create favourable conditions for their operations, to struggle against one another they will inevitably create chaos and confusion, and if the process is carried far enough it will result in mutual destruction. The only remedy is for the community to deal with the problem which these units create, and the question is whether or not this Measure will clear up the chaos and confusion which admittedly exists to-day in the realm of transport in this country. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) reminded us that on Second Reading he hoped the Bill would go upstairs to Committee and have its dirty throat cut. He tried his best, but his razor was not sharp enough, and we did not assist him in his task for the simple reason that, although the Bill does not go as far as we should wish, it is better than nothing at all. The Minister of Transport smiles. During the Committee stage he handled his case very well indeed, and I should like to join in the compliments which have been paid him for the manner in which he guided the Bill through the Committee. The interesting thing to those who did not take much part in the discussions was to witness the fight which went on between the various interests. We have heard their discordant voices in this Debate. The railways have had their case stated, and the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry consistently in the Committee raised his voice in the interests of road transport.

The hon. Member will remember that I also spoke in favour of removing the restrictions from the railways. I have no bias against the railways, I should like to see them develop, and I did not confine my remarks to the interests of the roads.

I accept the correction, but nevertheless these rival interests were persistently struggling with one another throughout the Committee stage, and the task of the Minister was to try and reconcile divergent and conflicting interests. Up to a certain point he managed very well indeed. We are now trying to get out of the chaos and confusion brought about by the rapid changes which have taken place in a relatively short space of time. We do not live in a static society. We have not seen the end of changes in transport. I think we are only at the beginning and that there will be revolutionary changes in all kinds of transport. The Bill is only a stage in this process, and, despite the political philosophy of hon. Members who find it difficult to square a system of regulation and licensing with their own political philosophy, they will be driven by the sheer force of events in technical development in the future to go much further than they are going in this Bill. Therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry agrees with me he ought not to hesitate to join us in the Lobby in support of our Amendment. He is scared of the word "nationalisation". The word we stress is "co-ordination". The method of handling that co-ordination, the machinery by which it. is brought about, we do not attempt to define on this occasion.

We merely call the attention of the House to the fact through the process of development which will take place social control of transport, sooner or later, will become an absolute necessity.

I think the last few sentences of the hon. Member who has just spoken are extraordinarily illustrative of the attitude of some Members opposite, and of the way in which they would spread the snare guilelessly for the bird. He said that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) is afraid of the word "nationalisation," which is used in the reasoned Amendment which hon. Members opposite have moved, and he added that the word they wanted to stress for the public use is the word "coordination". Of course, those are very naive tactics on the part of the hon. Member. I will vary a certain rhyme—

The merchant to convey his treasure

Conceals it 'neath a borrowed name,

Euphelia serves to grace my measure,

But Chloe is my real feame.

It is as if the Socialists to procure their measure alter the name; "co-ordination" is to grace their Amendment but "nationalisation" is its right name. That exactly expresses the whole of the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken.

I am sure that the Minister of Transport must be glad that he is at the last stage of his journey with the Bill through this House. Yet I am also sure that he, with the compliments paid to him, will be ready to admit that the voyage of the Bill has at least been facilitated for him by the fact that there has been no obstruction at any stage. Though there have been very serious and sincere differences with him both on the larger questions of principle and on the smaller questions of fact and detail, yet every Amendment has been a legitimate Amendment and every criticism a legitimate criticism, with no endeavour to take up time or spend the activities of the Committee or the House to no purpose. I think the Minister will admit that. Yet we all admit the skill with which he has piloted the Bill. He has used a judicious mixture of persuasion and force that has proved very effective. He is rather like one of those Arab sheiks who go amongst their tribesmen when there are signs of unrest—go down to them on a camel, with gunpowder in one holster and soothing syrup in the other. A judicious application of the one or the other, according to circumstances, is very effective.

In one aspect I am sure that every Conservative will admit that the Bill is admirable, and that is the way in which it introduces order into an industry in which conditions have previously been chaotic, so far as wages and hours are concerned. Everybody desires conditions ensuring safety on the roads, conditions ensuring that proper scales of wages are paid, and conditions ensuring that the hours of work should be regulated—all the conditions which obtain in good and well-regulated industries. I would stress the point that it is the introduction of 'such conditions which stands in the line of the best Conservative tradition. From the time of the elder Peel, through the time of Shaftesbury and Disraeli, the Conservative tradition has always been something quite different from Socialism in undertaking the State management of business; something quite different from the old laissez faire Radicalism, which has allowed free competition to do its utmost and the devil to take the hindmost, a thing which the devil often did. The Conservative tradition has been to lay down limiting conditions of work which shall be observed by everyone, though at the same time, provided those conditions of work or wages or hours are observed, the Conservative tradition has been that individual initiative and competition shall have free play. In that respect the Bill is admirable. In other respects I think the Bill is fundamentally mistaken. I believe that the Minister likes Latin quotations. If I were alone—

Vox elamantis in deserto

the voice of a person crying alone in the wilderness—

Like a pelican.

Like a pelican, but I would never do anything unkind to my young. I feel compelled to raise my voice on the last stage of this Bill to point to what I think are the fundamental mistakes in the Bill. As I go about the House I find that there are more persons than myself who have a very uneasy feeling indeed that the Bill is a mistake. It is not a question of difference in ideals. It is a difference rather as to the methods that are employed and the measures which are taken with the hope of arriving at the realisation of those ideals. So far as the ideals are concerned, I agree entirely with the expression to which the Minister has given publicity. He said that the Bill had as its ultimate and only object the provision for the people of this country of the best and most economical form of transport which modern science and technical development were capable of providing. I quite agree. I think that the first and overriding ideal that we ought to have in mind is that the British public and British industry should have at their disposal the most economical and the most efficient form of transport. The Minister again quoted from the Salter Report—

"It is essential that sooner or later we should come to some division of function as between road and rail."

Again I quite agree. What is wanted is that the proper functions of the railways should be developed to the full, that the proper function of road transport should also be developed to the full, and that it should be ascertained what those functions are, and how they can best he encouraged. Further, I agree that they should be co-ordinated. As the Minister said in his opening speech, co-ordination is a good word; but as we know from the hon. Member who spoke last it can be used in a very ambiguous sense, and one has to remember some of the implications that may be involved. In some respects I would go further than the Minister has gone along the same lines. On the Second Reading the Minister referred to some of the handicaps under which the railways have been suffering, as contrasted with road transport. They have to provide a regularity of service which road transport has not to do to the same degree. There has been the question of the concealed subsidy said to have been enjoyed by the one industry and not by the other. I will not stop to argue this. I think that there are further fundamental difficulties of the railways that ought to be dealt with in any Bill. That is one of the reasons why I think this Bill is defective.

There is the fundamental difficulty under which the railways suffer owing to the manner in which the law of the common carrier has been interpreted in their case. Of course, there are many other common carriers in the country besides the railways, but the railways are in a peculiar difficulty in this respect—that the whole railway system of the country, all the different railway groups are said to form, from. the point of view of carrying, one unit. If anyone wants to convey a piece of goods, say, from John o' Groats to Lands End, it is one piece of common carrying which he can demand to have placed at his service all the way. That places on the railways a disability which does not apply to any other form of transport. The railways are also subject to another great disadvantage. Suppose there are two places equally distant from one point from which goods are sent. Suppose the starting-point to be Glasgow. The same rate has to be charged for the same class of goods whether they are being sent, say to Manchester, on a route where there is heavy traffic both ways and where they can be carried under the most economical conditions, or whether they are sent to some remote place in the Highlands where the nature and conditions of the traffic are entirely different.

Then the railways suffer from what is called the law of undue preference which means that while they give a great number of special rates any rate which they give to one person automatically has to be given to everyone else—at any rate up to the date of this Bill—even though the bulk of goods carried for the one person is entirely different from the bulk carried for the other. Combining all these factors together, they put the railways in a position of extraordinary difficulty in competition with road transport. That is why we have arrived at the present situation which is the cause of this Bill. There are 22 classes of goods in the general railway classification. The lower group consisting of classes 1 to 6, represent coal and heavy traffic and the upper group consisting of classes 7 to 22 consists of merchandise. Below class 7 there is practically no competition between the roads and the railways. The acute competition between the roads and the railways begins with class 7 and extends upwards to class 22.

I think the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) who is interested in this subject will agree with what I say. The consequence of the disability which is put upon the railways by the interpretation of the law of common carriers and by the law of undue preference, means that while they are still carrying the greater bulk of the goods from class 7 to class 22, a great part of what the roads carry to-day has been taken from the railways. The railways find it almost impossible to meet that situation. If they try to cut rates in order to recover that traffic from the roads, of course they have to extend those cuts to all the rest of the goods in those classes. They are faced with the necessity of losing existing revenue in order to get some of the traffic back. The table given in the report of the Royal Commission on Transport shows how the roads have gained at the expense of the railways, and it is not surprising under those conditions. Taking the more recent period, from 1907 until 1930, while the production of goods in the certain classes of merchandise increased by 19 per cent. the actual amount carried by the railways has gone down by 17 per cent. That is what has put the railways into such a terrible dilemma and reduced them to their present plight.

What is to happen? The Minister alluded to this question in the course of earlier Debates, and I think he said—and I would agree with him, though I think some reservations should be attached to the statement—that you could not envisage the railways being reduced merely to carry coal and heavy traffic while all the rest was taken from them. The remedy is to develop the functions of each and to co-ordinate them. What is the method employed by the Government. It is 'a two-fold method. One part of it consists of increasing the taxes on road transport. It would not be in order to develop any criticism on the taxation side of the problem this morning. We asked during the Debates on taxation, on what principle these taxes were calculated, and we got no answer, but those who have examined the question as some of us have, cannot agree that either the amount, the nature or the method of calculation of the taxes is satisfactory.

Taxation of road transport cannot by itself remedy the situation which has arisen regarding the road transport vis-a-vis the railways. All it can do is to add a little to their costs of carrying; to raise the limit within which they can compete effectively with the railways from, say, class 7 to class 8 or class 9. Above that level the difficulties in which the railways are placed will operate to make them lose traffic and to hand that traffic over to road transport. Therefore that method by itself cannot provide a remedy for the situation. What is more, to leave things like that would be to leave the fundamental difficulty of the situation unmet. You have one class of transport in which there is what might he called a single price system and in which, whatever the emergency may be, they can apply to it a uniform charging system. On the other hand, you have the railways bound up with their own system whereby they have definite standard classifications to which they must adhere, while they can and do give a number of special rates.

What is the other side of the Bill? It. is to restrict new entrants into the road transport industry and thus prevent what is called excessive competition. I can well imagine that there are some people in the road industry who would welcome the regulation of new entrants. A person engaged in any industry will, naturally, find his difficulties lessened if new entrants who would constitute fresh competitors, are restricted. Similarly, I imagine that hon. Members opposite welcome this limitation on new entrants into the industry and, indeed, think it does not go far enough. It puts some control on the industry but they would like more. Half-a-loaf at any rate is better than no bread, and to that extent they support the Bill. I think I have heard a little badinage between the Minister and the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) as to who was giving the greater contribution towards Socialism—the Minister by his Bill or the hon. Member for Barnstaple by his support of certain Amendments. I think if hon. Members opposite were to express their opinion they would say that the more handsome contribution was being given by the Minister.

Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

I think if those contributions were measured accurately, it would be found, to use a Scriptural analogy, that in this matter the little finger of the Minister was thicker than the loins of the hon. Member lot Barnstaple. I can imagine that, but on what other grounds can this really be supported? There is a sort of feeling to-day that you have to tidy up industry and take away excessive competition. It is not at all a new idea. I remember reading long ago the work of a man of the euphonious name of Professor Jeremiah Jenks, devoted entirely to the purpose, but on what ground can it really be substantiated? The Minister made the statement on the subject that the only suggestion of real hardship to the industry was in the discretion to the Commissioner to prevent excessive facilities, and that it certainly was surprising to him that so many hon. Members whom he had heard advocating the prevention of uneconomic competition in other industrial spheres should say that a similar arrangement in the sphere of road transport should be so burdensome to the industry concerned.

Why should it be burdensome? In the first place, is there any congestion on the roads caused by lorries at the present time? I said yesterday on the Report stage that if anybody would really take note of the number of vehicles that passed a given point, they would not find that on the highways of this country, outside the big towns, there was really any serious congestion due to lorries. On the other hand, is there really any waste involved, either waste in effort or waste in capital? I can understand that in some industries you may have excessive competition, and waste caused by it, which ought to be avoided. I know that the Minister may pray in aid the authority of Sir Arthur Salter in saying that excessive competition ought to be avoided in this case. I have very great respect for Sir Arthur Salter, but he is not the only economist in this world, and there are other economists who have analysed the conditions under which competition may be excessive. It altogether depends on the kind of industry with which one is dealing.

Supposing that you have a question of iron and steel production, there must be an enormous investment of new fixed capital, or for example, take this new production of petrol from coal. In order to produce it at, all on a commercial scale, it. would need an huge amount of new fixed capital, and if there is too much invest- ment of this kind in competing units, of course, if the demand is not expansive, some of this huge amount of fixed capital may be wasted. In a case like that you may well have excessive competition, but the road industry is entirely at the opposite end of the scale. So far as waste in the road industry, viewed as a domestic problem, is concerned, the industry consists of a large number of small, mobile units, not naturally of a long life, wearing out comparatively quickly. Therefore, it is the industry of all industries in which the statement that excessive competition should be avoided, is least applicable.

What is going to happen as a result of preventing re-entrants into the industry? I submit that you will have, quite clearly, first of all, amalgamations among road companies. Then there will be a rise in the agreed rates. Further there will probably be absorption by the railways, and in the end we shall have the railroad system having absorbed road transport, and there will be an end of the development of the proper functions of either. We have the history of canals in front of us. I will riot diverge upon canals except to say that for five long years I sat with a canal map of Europe opposite me. This country is not so adapted for canals as Europe, but from the point of view of transport rates, which for five long years I was considering, I wish we had anything like the canal system that they have abroad for the sake of the benefit which it confers upon industry. That is the development to which this Bill quite naturally will lead.

This is a subject on which I feel peculiarly deeply, but I shall not detain the House much longer. What are the real functions of the railway which ought to be developed, and how does this Bill develop them? The function of the railway, I think, has been obscured by a kind of dictum which has passed for gospel in railway circles for many years. It is that the railways have for years carried coal and heavies at unremunerative rates, if not at an actual loss, and that they have been able to recoup themselves by the higher charges which they have obtained on the higher classes of transport. For many years that has been the traditional gospel for the railways, but it is now proved, I think, that that is absolutely contrary to the facts and that the railways obtain most of their profit from the six lower classes, the coals and the heavies, and that it is the carriage of the top classes under present conditions which has proved unremunerative.

I sent some figures to the Minister to consider. I would have them amended slightly, but at the same time there are the facts, and they prove them up to the hilt. This is corroborated by what one hears from those who have to deal with the management of pits and the carriage of coal. It is proved by the experience of the London and North Eastern railway. That railway carries more coal and heavies in proportion than any other of the big railways systems. If coal had been an unremunerative item of transport you would have supposed that, because of the falling-off in coal freights, it would have been least hurt of all the great railway systems in the slump. On the other hand, it is the London and North Eastern which has probably suffered most—the one with most of the heavy transport. It is by the carriage of the heavy traffic that the railways have made most of their profits, entirely contrary to what up till recently has been more or less the accepted tradition.

Frankly, it comes to this, that the function of the railways particularly is to carry the big hauls, for the longest distances, by trains with the trucks filled as far as possible, but at the same time with big train loads. They have been losing over the short hauls of merchandise, because of the extra clerking and the extra shunting involved and because of the handling at the stations and at a number of points which are inseparable from such short carriage hauls. The function of the railways is to develop long haulage and full loads, and the function of road transport is to do the short hauls, the collecting, and some special kinds of hauls which are needed and which for particular reasons the railways cannot supply.

I submit that, while this Bill has contributed a little under Clause 30, which is a very welcome advance, that Clause is hedged about with restrictions. I have no doubt the Minister may say that, as an experiment, at the very outset, it has to be very carefully restricted, but I submit that this Bill is conceived on a fundamental error and that what is really wanted is to have a complete overhaul of the whole system under which railway transport is carried on at the present time, the difficulties under which it has laboured, and the degree to which those difficulties can be relieved. I am not entitled now to go into any of the points with which any reform should deal. I should, indeed, be reluctant to prescribe anything, because at least I know this much about transport, and that is the extraordinary intricacy of the subject when anybody attempts to go into the intricate problems of a railway system.

Those whom I have consulted, men of really broad practical experience as well as economists who have specialised on this type of transport, all say to me that the subject has never yet been properly overhauled and gone into. We are sometimes told that it has been investigated, but they assure me that it was not fully investigated by the Royal Commission on Transport and certainly not by the Salter Conference. A complete inquiry into the subject is needed. Here we have a system that was started some 80 years ago or more. Is it not natural that it should be overhauled at the present time? If we were to try and run an express train with an engine built 60 or 70 years ago it would be the laughing stock of the countryside. What is true of engines is probably true of the charging system, since the whole conditions have altered; the whole of the monopoly has gone and a competitive system has been raised up. That is why I would say to the Minister that I think this Bill is founded on a mistake. He has carried this Bill through, as everybody would testify, with ability. I think, to use another Latin phrase, he has a damnosa hereditas. He is inheriting from those who have gone before.

When he has got this Bill through I hope that he will follow it up by getting a real inquiry into the whole of the transport system, an inquiry that does not shirk going into the facts. To say that the railways should simply have their restrictions removed is, we are told by the Minister, the "argument of the lazy and the idle." To go into it is not the work for anyone who is lazy or idle or who has not courage. I truly believe that it ought to be done. The Minister has here a great opportunity, and I hope he will not neglect it. I believe that without it we shall never reach the proper functions of the railways and the roads, and we shall never get a proper co-ordination between them. I believe, too, that until it is done British industry stands in the danger of having to pay freights which will be much heavier than need otherwise be the case. After this depression is over, British industry will have to meet extraordinarily acute competition, and everything possible should be done to decrease and not increase, the burden of costs which it has to bear.

Twelve months before this Bill was introduced a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House were continually urging the Government to introduce a Measure which would equalise the conditions between rail and road transport. We knew that it was not an easy task that we were asking the Government to undertake, but this Bill is definitely a step in the right direction and a necessary preliminary to that ideal of complete co-ordination between the different forms of transport. During the Second Reading Debate I welcomed this Bill for that reason, and I ventured to congratulate the Minister of Transport both on the merits of the Bill and on the tone and substance of the speech in which he recommended it to the acceptance of the House. Since then the Bill has been in Committee and through the Report stage, and it has been improved in a number of its details. I would like to preface my brief observations by saying that I, too, would like to pay my very sincere tribute to the extremely able manner in which the Minister has piloted this Bill through all its stages. His extraordinary grasp of a most intricate subject and his tact, reasonableness and helpfulness made it possible for all sections of the Committee to co-operate in improving the Bill. It was a very remarkable Parliamentary triumph on his part.

The provisions of Part I of the Bill, which deal with the regulation of road transport by a system of licensing, should go a very long way towards enforcing the existing law, and it will be a considerable benefit to the road transport industry itself and to the trade of the country.

I verily believe that the provisions will establish the carriage of goods by road transport on a basis that will ensure its operation in the public interest. In regard to Part II, which confers upon the railways the power to make "agreed charges" subject to the overriding authority of the Railway Rates Tribunal, the Amendments which have been made safeguarding the interests of trade and industry, dock and harbour authorities and coastwise shipping have resulted in general satisfaction, but I still regard it as regrettable and very unfair in principle that uncontrolled coastwise shipping should be given the right to object to the charges to be made by the controlled railways. What is more satisfactory is the agreement which has been reached between the railway companies and the Canal Association, which provides for the greatest measure of co-operation between these transport industries, and which I hope will pave the way for much closer co-ordination between railways and canals in future than has ever been realised in the past.

In Committee the Minister stated fully and clearly what were to be the functions of the Transport Advisory Council which is set up under Part III of the Bill. I cannot resist the conclusion that the existence of this very representative body must be of the highest value to the State. By reason of its representative character it will be in a position, not only to tender to the Minister the most useful advice, but also to exert a considerable influence towards the greater co-ordination of the different forms of transport and provide a future co-ordinating ground for the transport industry as a whole. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) stated that road goods transport was a perfectly legitimate industry. Of course it is. I do not think any hon. Member wants to belittle its importance. At the same time, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to bear with other Members who have the temerity to think that the railways are also a perfectly legitimate industry. He said that the Minister was imposing intolerable fetters on road transport, but the main opposition to this Bill has come to Part II, which has sought to relieve the railways of one of the fetters under which they have had to operate in the past.

What would the hon. and gallant Member himself say if the Minister had introduced a Bill to put the railways in the same completely uncontrolled, unregulated and unfettered position as the road transport industry is to-day? My hon. and gallant Friend made the extraordinary statement that the Minister of Transport had not consulted, as he should have done, the principal operators of road transport in regard to the provisions of this Bill. I gather from what my hon. and gallant Friend said that the effect of this Bill might well be to cripple the road transport industry.

The hon. Member has rather misunderstood what I said. I said that the last people the Minister consulted were the traders, not the road hauliers.

I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps he will confirm the views that have been expressed by the leading operators of the road transport industry. In the "Leicester Daily Mercury" of the 18th April, when the Bill was in Committee, there was a report which stated:

Leicester members of the Road Haulage Association express themselves as satisfied so far with the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill. 'The Bill,' said one member to the 'Leicester Mercury' trade commissioner, will tend to eliminate the man who does not look after his lorries and is consequently in a position to cut haulage rates. It may result also in some increase of employment.'"

Then Mr. Donaldson Wright, a member of the National Council of the Road Haulage Association, speaking at a meeting of the East Midland branch on the 17th May, 1933, was reported in the "Leicester Evening Mail" to have said:

"Some form of regulation is necessary, and we feel that if the Bill is going to cleanse the industry you will bless the day when it came into operation. The Bill may be the means of saving the industry from itself. The industry will be protected from the price-cutters and those who may go bankrupt at any moment. The contractor who complies with the provisions of the amended Act and consolidates his business will find it a charter which will set the industry up as one of the most important in the country."

That is the considered view of a member of the National Council of the Road Haulage Association on the Bill to which we are going to give the Third Reading to-day. I have in my hand a number of other similar testimonies which have been paid by members of the Road Haulage Association and kindred associations to the efforts of the Minister in producing this Bill.

In conclusion, I would say that I believe the passage of this Bill into law will herald the dawn of a new era in the transport affairs of this country. In the development of the transport industry the Advisory Council which is to be set up will be closely concerned, and I sincerely hope that their efforts towards Vile coordination of the transport facilities of this country will be distinguished by con spicuous success.

Before we finally pass this Bill I am very anxious to say a few words, as it is a Measure in which, from the commencement, I have taken a very deep interest—not an interest of any personal kind, because I have no interest of that sort in either road or rail, or any other transport organisation, but because the proposals in this Bill seem to me of considerable public importance, and, either for good or ill, are likely to have far-reaching consequences in connection with the traffic and trade facilities of this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) seemed to agree in considering that, on the whole, this was a bad Bill. I do not take that point of view. I believe that it is a Bill which has much to recommend it, and that it is, on the whole, a sincere attempt to co-ordinate the transport resources of the country, and to deal with a problem of very great and increasing complexity and importance. I also agree that it is right that Parliament, through the Minister of Transport, should exercise some control, but whether the Bill will be completely successful in achieving those objects, time alone will show.

At all events, I would endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth when he said that, although a large number of Amendments had been moved, they were not of an obstructive or a destructive character. Certainly I would like to claim that, so far as regards any Amendments with which I was personally concerned, they were not designed in any way to impede the Minister in his task, or to prevent the Bill passing into law. They were moved for the purpose, if possible, of clearing up legitimate doubts and difficulties, and of removing legitimate apprehension, because I do find myself in agreement with a remark made last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts), who has also taken a considerable part in the discussions on this Bill, when he said that, in his view, it was somewhat significant the amount of apprehension that the proposals in this Bill had roused in various directions.

We all know that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to free the railways from restrictions and safeguards which were imposed in the public interest at the time when railways largely possessed a monopoly of transport, and before they were faced with the intensive competition of the roads. But it is strange that the proposal, not unreasonable in itself, should arouse so much fear lest the railways, if given these wider powers, may abuse them in order to stifle legitimate competition. Perhaps, as has been pointed out, the history of the canals is not altogether forgotten. Also, I believe, it is true to say that the railways themselves forfeited some sympathy, and that many people took the view that some of their troubles they had brought on themselves, because, until competition arose within comparatively recent times, I believe it is true to say that the railways did not take all the steps they could have taken to put their house in order, to bring their business up-to-date and to move with the times, and that it is the stress of competition which has brought about more improvement on the railways in the last few years than in the previous two or three decades. Since those apprehensions were felt, it was only right that they should be faced, and, if possible, removed during our discussions, and I think it is true to say that the Minister has tried to meet the position very fairly, particularly in his own Amendment with regard to the protection of coastwise shipping. We regret, of course, that he was not able to go further in regard to certain other points which, I venture to think, might have improved the Bill. At all events, I do fear that the effect on transport may be such as to raise costs, because the tendency of the Bill will be to restrict "A" and "B" licences, and this will have a reaction on the agreed charges of the railways. That is a danger to be guarded against.

In conclusion, I trust that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, all the transport resources of the country, road, rail and shipping, will regard themselves as partners to a very large extent, and not merely as competitors scrambling among each other for business. The Minister in this Bill has been given enormous power in some directions—far greater power than is appreciated by many hon. Members who have not followed the discussion in detail. I believe that the success of the Bill largely depends on the way it is administered, on the spirit of fairness with which the licensing authorities approach their task and on the nature of the regulations issued by the Minister. We on this side all have the utmost confidence in the present Minister, but he is carrying out his present duties so successfully as to make it absolutely certain that he will soon be given other spheres to conquer, land that he will not always remain in his present position. Therefore, we shall have to anticipate what will be the action of some other Minister of Transport in whom we may not have the same confidence. But we hope that this Bill will achieve the beneficial results which the Minister has in mind, to preserve order on the roads, save life and prevent chaos in regard to our national transport. It cannot be a finial solution. We must regard it as a first step, but, I believe, a step in the right direction. Therefore, in opposition to the views of some of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I wish without hesitation, and, indeed, with a certain amount of enthusiasm, to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

In rising to support the Amendment, I do not think I can proceed with my remarks without first of all paying a tribute not only to the Chairman of the Committee, and the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, but to practically the whole of the Com- mittee who have tried to be reasonable upstairs with a view to improving the Bill. The last speaker said he had hoped that some of the other Amendments would have been accepted. I congratulate the Minister on not accepting them, because they would have destroyed the real purpose of the Bill, but I offer him my congratulations on the tact and ability he displayed in Committee, and his handling of the Bill, with the help of a Chairman of long experience, resulted in its getting through the Committee stage without an unreasonable number of sittings, considering its size and importance.

Last night the Parliamentary Secretary said the Minister took pride in his offspring. I think it is right that he should have a pride in it, but I do hope that we shall still see something better, and that this Measure will be found to be a stepping-stone in the direction of the state of things outlined in our Amendment. This Bill cannot be accepted as the conclusion of things—it is only a step forward towards a co-ordination of these three transport services. It strikes me as rather ridiculous that so many Members speaking in this House should express a deep desire for co-ordination but should never go into the Lobby against a Bill which does not provide for coordination. Whether we like it or not co-ordination under national control is coming, and will have to be faced in the near future. It has happened in other spheres. The Electricity Board is under national control. Who would have expected the great developments in electricity which we have seen in the last ten years? We may look forward to similar developments in road transport, and as a result we shall be compelled to deal with the transport question as a whole and not with one part of it, and eventually we shall find that the three services will be co-ordinated under national control.

One of the speakers last night, I think it was the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Aled Roberts) said we must create the conditions for the co-ordination of the industry—create them by law, I understood him to say. I think it would be better to bring in common sense to secure co-ordination rather than to depend on the arm of the law. It is not always desirable to bring forward Bills to do something which can be done by goodwill among the people concerned. The road, the rail and the coastwise shipping interests all have their own problems, and they are all growing, and sooner or later they will have to work in greater unison, not from the point of view of self-interest but to secure the greater good of the community as a whole.

A point raised last night, which is deserving of more attention is how long we are to suffer having larger and still larger vehicles put on the roads. They are becoming a greater menace to the travelling public every day. Some of these vehicles are when loaded 20 to 25 or 30 tons. Roads were never built for that purpose, and such vehicles are a danger to the community, who do not expect to have to meet such monsters on the highways. I hope the Minister will take up the question of limiting the size of these vehicles.

There are one or two questions which we have already raised and on which the Minister has not been able to meet us, but I am not going to speak for many minutes. I understood this was to be a morning of short speeches, though the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A Steel-Maitland) seems to have based his speech on the length of the railway line from London to somewhere and took about as much time as any other two Members. But that is by the way. He set out to demolish the whole case for the Bill and to uphold the privileges of the railways, but I do not think he achieved either object, and when he had finished his speech I had difficulty in understanding whether he was in favour of the Bill or against it. The first point I wish to deal with concerns fair wages for the men. I shall not say much on the point now, because I have had a letter from the Minister saying he has already made an appointment to meet Mr. Bevin, of the Transport Workers, for a discussion on the question of fair wages and conditions for the workpeople. I charged the Minister the other night with having met the employers' but not the workmen's organisation, and I am pleased to know that he has conceded my point and will now consider the position in consultation with people who really do understand the conditions of the workers.

It is very necessary indeed that the interests of the drivers of these vehicles should be looked after. The job of a railway engine driver has always been looked upon as a difficult and arduous one, but I think it is more onerous and nerve racking work to be a driver on the roads al, the present time. In any case, both railway and road drivers have great responsibilities, and their interests ought to be protected, and from the point of view of public safety we ought to see they are fit for their work. I say that in view of the many cases we have had recently of drivers being the subject of seizures. We ought to be sure that they are physically and mentally fit for the work. There was a case sometime ago in which a driver who had been five times before the court was found to be mentally deficient. We cannot allow such things to go on in the interests of safety; because safety is one of the great things to be borne in mind. I think that on Second Reading I put forward a suggestion that a safety council ought to be set up amongst the owners of vehicles with a view of placing upon them some responsibility for the people they have under their charge.

Another point I wish to bring forward concerns the "C" licences. The conditions attaching to "C" licences provide one of the great reasons why we object to the Bill. The largest number of the licences issued will be "C" licences, and the men working those vehicles will be outside the conditions of employment for regular drivers. We do not believe that "C" licences ought to have attached to them conditions which differ from those attaching to the "A" and to the "B" licences. Conditions of employment and wages ought to be national in character. Seventy-five or 80 per cent. of the vehicles on the roads ought not to be worked under privileged conditions. As a result of this Bill it is probable that many of the smaller industrialists will cease to let out their cartage work to proper haulage contractors and will get their own vehicles on the roads, with part-time drivers in charge of them. I still maintain that it is wrong for a man to be half-time employed as a driver of a vehicle and halftime employed as something else. If a small man has two or three lorries he may allow a driver to drive them on a full-time basis. Just as the driver of a passenger vehicle has to have a special driving licence, so, in the interests of public safety, should that also apply to men engaged in goods transport.

The last point with which I wish to deal is in regard to the representation upon the Traffic Advisory Council. The Minister has given further opportunities to that Council by increasing the representation, but Labour is not yet fully represented. Labour has only three seats out of 30. The Council represents a large number of big organisations and a tremendous number of people who are employed, not only dockers, but railway workers, goods, passenger and road drivers and practically everybody employed in transport, except with regard to "C" licences. Those people are to have their interests watched by their own agreements. I believe that in every industry there should be agreements to cover the whole of the workers in that industry. In view of the large number of people who are to be represented, I wish that the Minister had gone a little bit farther and had given one more representative for Labour upon the Traffic Advisory Council. As the Minister said, it is not as if that Council were going to have a large amount of work to do, or as if the decisions of the Council were to be accepted, because that will be a matter for the Minister to decide. The more minds which can be brought to bear upon this great problem in its varying aspects, the better.

In the Amendment which we have moved, we oppose the Bill because it shows insufficient regard for the public safety, because of its failure adequately to protect working conditions and to recognise the urgent necessity for a nationally co-ordinated control of transport. I hope that the Bill may be passing along the line of progress; I believe that it is. I believe that it is a forerunner of something greater and more comprehensive. I hope that it will take the line which has been taken in regard to the great electricity undertaking, in which there is a national board and national control, and that we may move forward not only to a co-ordinated system of transport, but to a system that shall be vested in this House and operated through some body or board that shall be responsible to the Government for its work.

Within a few minutes we shall have completed the passage of this Bill through this House, and, like Othello, my occupation will temporarily be gone, but, unlike Othello, however, I shall not burst into blank verse from any regret at the prospect. I should like to pay my tribute to the assistance that I have received from hon. Members upon the Committee. It is quite true that it was not a spirit of obstruction, although one might call it a spirit of persistent inquiry, which moved hon. Members to put forward something like 600 Amendments to the Bill. I can claim that, as a result of this careful investigation, the Bill which left the house after Second Reading returns to it now mainly unaltered. The principles of the Bill remain exactly as I proposed them to the House on Second Reading, although I freely admit that in matters of detail the assistance of hon. Members has led to the improvement of the Bill.

Let me say a few words about the Socialist Amendment upon which we are to be called shortly to divide. I can only find one excuse for that Amendment, and that is that it is an attempt by hon. Members of the Opposition to justify themselves in voting against a Bill of which they are in favour. I do not think that any hon. Member has not said that this is a Bill which, if it does not do all that they want, does something; but, as it would have obviously been impossible for them to have a division at all if they had accepted the Bill, they have had to give reasons for opposition. Let us examine the reasons. The first is that the Bill does nothing for the worker. I think that the House realises that if the licensing conditions in this Bill result, as we hope they will, in the enforcement of the existing provisions with regard to the hours of drivers and the safety of the vehicles which they have to drive, we shall, in a practical way, have done more for the worker than a, great deal of the spectacular promises which hon. Members opposite exclaim about upon political platforms.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me. I do not think that he can read into the Amendment anything which indicates that the Bill will do nothing for the workers. What we say is:

"This House declines to pass a Bill … which shows insufficient regard for the public safety."

I only wanted to say this, that if hon. Members who make speeches in this House would express themselves in the Lobby it would be better.

I hope that hon. Members will not think it discourteous if I do not give way any more. I have only a short time in which to make my speech. I would just like to observe that if the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) had continued reading the Amendment he would then have reached the point to which I referred. I think that no-one complains that this Bill, if it results in the enforcement of those conditions will not have been of great service. Hon. Members seem to ignore the fact that with regard to "A" and "B" licence holders at any rate the Bill will regulate the conditions of their wages. I know the importance that hon. Members attach to the omission from this Bill of a similar provision for the holders of "C" licences. I will ask them to keep the matter in proper proportion. It is true that the number of drivers of vehicles who would be excluded as a result of this omission may seem large, but I would point out that a great many of them would in any case have been excluded by the Amendment which hon. Members opposite were prepared to accept in regard to the small man. Among those who are excluded, are a large number in industries where trade organisations exist, and where fair wages conditions of this kind are therefore not so necessary.

Now we have got to the second part of the Amendment that calls for national coordination—that is another word, a parliamentary word, for what is called, on the platform, "nationalisation." So short were hon. Members of argument to support their Amendment, that they had to call in aid a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) some considerable time ago, on the question of the nationalisation of railways. Surely hon. Members have learned by now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping is like the soldier—what he says is never evidence. The hon. Member opposite was very wise in saying that he would not, on this occasion, deal with the machinery by which he intended to arrive at his desired result. It is, I am afraid, a common habit on almost all occasions for hon. Members to say that they will leave such a discussion for another time. I would recommend to the hon. Member, before he comes to fulfil his promise, just to read an account of the only place where this system has been attempted in a recent speech made by the Commissar of Transport in Russia. When he does that, he will find that what that gentleman has said about the railways in Russia will make the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland)—who, having completed his speech, has now left the House—look like the remarks of one of Sir Josiah Stamp's "Yes-men." I had intended to deal, though not at great length, with the speech of my right hon. Friend, because I had been warned for a long time that during the Debate on the Third Reading the Bill was to suffer a violent attack from him. My scouts on all sides warned me of this imminent danger, and only last Saturday my right hon. Friend went through what one might describe as a battle practice, in the congenial atmosphere of Coventry. I only hope his hearers understood him; it is quite obvious that the reporter did not, because the only thing that he picked out from my right hon. Friend's speech was the sentence:

"The right Hon. gentleman said that the railways were using engines 60 years old."

I think that hon. Members who have listened to my right hon. Friend's speech will agree with me that the barrage, if prolonged, was not very intense; and, in fact, I feel considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend opposite, who said at the end that he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman supported the Bill or opposed it. As far as I can see, the greater part of my right hon. Friend's speech was devoted to certain limitations which were imposed upon the railways, and, indirectly, therefore, was a compliment to Part II of the Bill for removing them. He then went at considerable length into an analysis of the present rate structure of the railways. In the short time at my disposal, I cannot enter into a detailed discussion of these figures, but would only say that I regard his premises as in- accurate, his figures as based partly on assumption and partly on omission, and his conclusion as incorrect.

Perhaps my hon. Friend would state to the House that I sent him the figures provisionally eight weeks ago, saying, however, that they might be incorrect, because railway statistics are extraordinarily difficult to analyse. I sent them provisionally, and asked my hon. Friend if I might have a chance, between then and the Third Reading of the Bill, to go into them with him.

I would also explain that my right hon. Friend has not told the, House that the delay in doing that was due to the serious:illness of one of the railway representatives, who was, from the railway point of view, checking the accuracy of those figures. Had I had more time this morning, I had intended to deal with them on this occasion. I may say in passing that I think the inaccuracy of my right hon. Friend's figures largely arises from the fact that he has omitted to take into consideration at all the question of the shortness or length of the haul. As far as I can see, his conclusion was that the railways, in order to prosper, must abandon all other kinds of traffic and concentrate on carrying heavy traffic—coal and minerals—for long hauls. I think I have correctly stated it. But I would point out that that is a contradiction in terms. As a matter of fact, the statistics which I have prove that the coal traffic is responsible for the shortest haul, and the mineral traffic for the next shortest, while the general merchandise, which my right hon. Friend says the railways should abandon, shows an average length of haul over double that of coal. Even if it were not impossible to concentrate on these two forms of traffic—

I did not say that in each case it had to be a combination, but that either you wanted to have a greater bulk of traffic going in one direction, with well filled wagons, like the ordinary transport from a colliery to a port which may not he far away, or, at any rate, longer hauls, it may be of merchandise, where there is regularly a large bulk of traffic to and fro.

I am afraid that I am still not very clear as to what it is that the railways should concentrate upon, but I would ask my right hon. Friend this question: When they do concentrate, when they have decided what they will concentrate upon, is he going to see that their competitors on the roads do not enter into that field of competition? If, for instance, it be decided that the proper function of the railways is the carriage of coal and minerals, and that upon that, and that alone, their prosperity can be allowed to depend, would my right hon. Friend say that, as far as coal and minerals are concerned, he would not allow competition on the roads? That seems to me to be the logical conclusion from his speech, and, if that be so, I cannot see how he can really base it on the great Conservative tradition to which he referred, and with which, apparently, he thinks this Bill is in conflict.

I should like to say a word about Part II of the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening speech, dealt with Part I, but I have a special interest in Part II, which deals with railway charges, and, therefore, I should like to say a word upon it to the House. In the first place, I should like to make it clear, as I did in Committee, that these new arrangements with regard to agreed charges were put before the House on my responsibility alone. I had no time beforehand to have proper consultation, not with one interest, but with all the interests concerned, and, in those circumstances, I thought it was better to put before the House something which could serve as a basis for agreement, and trust that in subsequent stages we should be able so to amend it as to make it an acceptable and beneficial Measure. I think that my view has been fully justified, because during the passage of the Bill we have been able so to alter that Clause that, while leaving untouched the advantages which it offers to the railways, it provides safeguards for those interests which were fearful of its results. In this connection it is only right that I should pay a tribute to those responsible for the management of the railways, who have shown every desire to meet the interests that were alarmed at the prospect of this Clause; and in particular I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) for the great assistance which he gave. One rather interesting result of the Clause —interesting to those who desire co-ordination—is that, as one result of the fears expressed by the canal companies as to the effects of this Clause, an agreement has been entered into between them and the railways, on just the sort of lines on which one hopes co-ordination will develop, arranging for regional and central conferences between the railway and canal companies in the various districts for the settlement of matters in competition between them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Aled Roberts), who has played a prominent and helpful part in the discussions on the Bill, said it was significant that the Clause gave rise to such great apprehension among all sections of the community. It is, therefore, a matter of some pleasure that a Clause which created such apprehension should, in fact, have passed through Committee and through the Report Stage in this House without a single Division being taken upon it. That, perhaps, is some proof that during its passage those apprehensions were to a large extent allayed.

One of the things that has struck me most about the speeches on the Third Reading of the Bill has been the general expression of a desire for some further step in the way of co-ordination. It has come from all Members, and from those representing all interests. I confess that I think the desire expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) is for the kind of co-ordination that was desired by the man who said to another man, "Let us divide this joint of meat fairly; you have all the bone, and I will take all the meat." I think there is a general realisation in all parts of the House that you have now in the motor industry a great new industry which has come to stay, and that you have also in the railway industry a great industry which still, now and in the future, will be of value to the producers and traders of the country and that some modus vivendi will have to be arrived at to enable those two great competing industries to fulfil their proper functions in the transport world. I have great hopes that the Advisory Council which will be set up, and to which I shall refer the question of road rates, will give a lead to some form of division of functions between the various providers of transport and finally to a more settled form of transport co-ordination. I do not believe that this increased co-ordination, not only in transport but in other spheres, is the result of a change of political opinion by one side or the other. I think it is forced upon us by something that we are all very apt to ignore, and that is the change in the vital statistics of the country. A system which, both politically and economically, may have been admirable for the development of a country whose population was steadily and persistently growing may cease to be so adequate or so admirable in a country whose population has become stationary and is even starting to decline. I believe it is far better that this kind of coordination, which has got to come, should

I beg to move:

"That this House approves the proposals of His Majesty's Government as respects the Twenty-year 5½ per cent. Gold Bonds payable on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, as set out in Command Paper, No. 4388."

I rise to move a Resolution of an unusual character designed to deal with altogether exceptional circumstances. In 1917, in the last year but one of the War, the then British Government raised a loan in the United States of 250,000,000 dollars. Part of that loan has since been extinguished, but there still remains about 136,000,000 dollars, of which the principal is repayable in 1937, and meanwhile the interest which it carries is at the rate of 5½ per cent. The Bond which secured this indebtedness contained the clause which is commonly known as the Gold Clause, the terms of which will be found in the White Paper which has been presented to the House. It is or was quite a common clause to be inserted in contracts made in the United States, and it provided that the principal when repaid and the interest as payable, if paid in New York as the holders have a right to demand, should be paid in gold dollars or gold coin of the United States of the standard of weight and fineness which existed on 1st February, 1917. The effect of the contract after the United States had gone off the Gold Standard was that the holders of the Bonds could demand, not the number of dollars which were ex- pressed in the Bond, but that number of dollars increased in the proportion that paper dollars were depreciated in terms of gold. After the United States went off the Gold Standard that was the position under this Clause if there had been no further legislation, but there was further legislation. By a more recent Act the United States Government abrogated the Gold Clause. They provided that

"any obligation expressed in gold or in coin or currency of the United States shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency of the United States which at the time of payment is legal tender for public or private debts."

The passage of that legislation created a situation with regard to these bonds to which the Government have given very careful and anxious consideration. The legal position, I think, is perfectly clear. The obligation which the British Government undertook in 1917 had been abrogated by an alteration in the law of the land under whose jurisdiction the Bond was issued. That alteration, it is true, was adopted as part of a general policy directed to meeting the internal needs of the United States. At the same time, I think that everybody will agree that, in view of the passing of that legislation, there is no legal obligation upon us to resume a liability of which we have been lawfully relieved by the Government of the United States, nor is there any reason legally for us to take any action in relation to these Bonds which might be held to be in opposition to the general economic objects of the United States Government. So much for the legal position.

But there are other than legal considerations connected with this debt. The circumstances, as I have already said, are exceptional. I think I might almost go further and say that they are unique. You will not find them applying to any other obligation of this country, nor can they be exactly paralleled in the circumstances of any other country. Just observe what these circumstances are? It is not our practice in this country to use New York as a banking centre. We do not made a practice of borrowing money in the United States of America. This particular loan was a War loan. It was raised in War time and therefore the circumstances which attended its raising were quite exceptional. But there is another point. Although it was raised in America it must not be assumed that the bond holders are all Americans. The bonds are bearer bonds, and therefore we have not precise information as to where they are held, but we have good reason to believe that a very considerable part of these bonds are held outside the United States. Therefore we had to consider this position, that our obligations to these bondholders, whether British or foreign, were until a short time ago that they had the right to demand payment in gold. Until a short time ago they had every reason to suppose that those rights were valid. Thinking it over, and considering the circumstances, we came to the conclusion, and we could not resist the conclusion, that we have some moral obligation, apart from the legal obligation, towards the people who had lent money to the British Government and Who find that some of the considerations on which they had lent that money have been taken from them, not by the British Government, but by action taken in another country.

There is another feature which is peculiar about this loan. As matters stand at present our legal liability is to repay the principal, when it becomes due, in New York in American currency. We are liable to find in 1937 136,000,000 dollars in New York. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is quite possible that it might be inconvenient to us in 1937 to find that large amount of foreign currency in New York, and it would therefore be advantageous to us if we could be rid of that liability by means of some scheme for repatriating the loan, such as a scheme under which the holders of the loan will accept an offer for repayment in sterling instead of in dollars. Combining these two features, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be met by an offer to the bond holders for an exchange on the lines and on the terms set out in the White Paper.

Put briefly, those terms are these. The holders who accept the offer will receive until February, 1937, 2½ per cent. interest instead of 5½ per cent. To that extent it is less advantageous to them than the present rate. On the other hand, in 1937 instead of a bond of 1,000 dollars, which is now worth at par £206 in sterling, they will receive sterling bonds to the face value of £260. It would be impossible to make the arrangement in connection with this offer in time to deal with the coupon which becomes due on the 1st August next. Therefore, that bond will be paid in paper dollars in accordance with our legal liability. Any holders who do not accept the offer made to them by the British Government and who prefer to retain their existing dollar bonds will in future be paid both as to interest and principal in paper dollars, or they have the right if they choose to be paid in sterling at the fixed rate of 4.86½ dollars to the £. I hope and believe that the holders of these bonds will consider that we have given them what we have tried to give them, namely, a square deal. On our side the net effect is that in 1937 the actual net amount of the debt will be increased by about £7,500,000. Against that must be set the fact that the interest payable in the intervening period is reduced by £650,000 a, year, or, say, £2,250,000. At that cost, that is, the difference between those two figures, we shall have discharged our moral obligation and we shall have repatriated our loan to the extent to which the offer is accepted.

One word in conclusion as to why we are asking the House to pass the Resolution. As a matter of fact it is unnecessary to do so, in this sense that the offer could have been made under the existing law, but the Government, upon a review of the circumstances, felt that this was an altogether exceptional and unusual transaction and one on which the House of Commons ought really to have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter and of expressing upon it any opinion which it thought fit. In view of that strongly held opinion on our part, we have thought it right to publish the terms of the offer we are making and the circumstances' in which that offer is made, in the form of a White Paper. We have presented that White Paper to the House, and we ask hon. Members to express their approval of what we propose to do by passing the Resolution. Accordingly, I move the Resolution.

I rise to oppose the Resolution. I am not surprised that the Government have thought it proper to bring this matter before the House. The only unfortunate thing is that it has been brought before the House on a Friday afternoon when many of those whom I hoped would have resisted it are not in their place. This is a matter which we regard as one of immense importance and of vital principle. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is the first time that we have sought by ingenious argument to convince ourselves that we ought to pay more than we owe. It seems to us that if we are going to embark upon that principle there are much better recipients than the bondholders of this particular issue. The right hon. Gentleman stated that this money was lent for the purpose of prosecuting the War, but it is perfectly obvious that the vast majority of these bonds by now are in quite different hands from those who originally lent the money in 1917. It is merely now an ordinary stock exchange security in New York.

The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement has been seen by the fact that there has been a 10 point rise, in the middle of a catastrophic fall in prices on the New York market, in this particular security, which means that since this announcement became known last night the right hon. Gentleman has given a bonus which, quite frankly, as he has stated, is a bonus amounting to somewhere about £5,000,000, to the holders of these bonds. The position before the announcement was made yesterday was that these bonds were being paid in paper dollars, that was the only way in which they could be paid under the American law, or in sterling at 4.86½ dollars to the £. On either of these the gift which is being given to these bondholders will amount to something like 14 per cent. per annum extra during the rest of the life of these bonds. It was always possible, and strictly within the terms of the bond it- self, quite apart from American law, to pay these bonds in sterling money at a fixed rate of 4,86½ dollars to the £. Quite apart from any American legislation we should be entitled to pay in sterling calculate at the ordinary dollar exchange rate.

The option is the option of the bondholders, not that of the Government.

I read it as being the option of the Government, but if it is the option of the bondholder he would not accept it if he was going to lose by it. So far as American legislation is concerned, I understand that the legislation was passed for the purpose of relieving the debtor of the burden of the gold dollar; that is to say, in order that the load upon the debtor should be lessened, and, indeed, the special provision which the President of the United States made with regard to the repayment of Government debts to America was specially designed to lighten the burden with regard to dollar debts. Indeed, we ourselves, who are now so generous over this loan, and were too impecunious to pay the American Government loan, now say to them "We take advantage of the special legislation when we are paying the Government debt to the American Government, which we can only pay to the extent of 10 per cent., and we are legally entitled to pay in paper dollars".—as we propose to impose upon ourselves a moral obligation.

The right hon. Gentleman in the White Paper says that there are very special circumstances which surround this particular case. I should like to ask him whether one of the very special circumstances which surround this particular case is the fact that a large quantity of these bonds are held in the City of London? It is generally known that a large quantity of this issue has, in fact, been purchased in the City of London, and it looks as if this has nothing to do with the question of American holders of these bonds, but has something to do with British holders of these bonds; that this is a device by which British holders of these bonds, who have gained enormously during the period we have been off the Gold Standard up to the present time, by reason of our having to pay interest in gold, are now saying, "Things are going against us in the United States, although we have had the benefit of this gold clause for years; we demand that something be done for us to put the position right." And the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying: "Well, it would only cost us £5,500,000. We will do it for you." It is much the same type of transaction as the Austrian loan, where, in order to reimburse the Bank of England the millions which they have lent to Austria, we guaranteed a fresh Austrian loan which went straight into the coffers of the Bank of England to repay the loan which they had lent.

We strongly resent this special finding of £5,500,000 for the City of London, because that is what it comes to. There are plenty of other good causes. There are public works, which the President of the Board of Trade says cannot be undertaken because of economy. These £5,500,000 would be a useful little contribution towards works in this country. There are the social services, education, which has been cut, the unemployed, the low wages and salary rates in the Government service; there are even the Judges, whom the Lord President of the Council turned down so summarily the other day when they asked for the reinstatement of their salaries. There are hundreds of cases, some better than others, which some of us would support in preference to others, but I cannot believe that hon. Members, at a time when they consider that we have to embark on every kind of economy, will seriously consider going outside our legal obligations to pay £5,500,000 to the City of London.

We have not a soft corner in our hearts for the City of London like the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have not observed any great reason why they should have this very special treatment; which is absolutely without precedent. For years and years they have had the benefit of getting their money paid in gold dollars, whereas other people in this country had to get it in paper dollars, and now because the ordinary risk of investment in purchasing securities issued in a foreign market turns out, temporarily, to be against them they are to be pampered and paid this money from the taxpayers' pockets. It seems an extraordinary thing on the one hand to apply the means test to the unemployed and, on the other, to come forward with a bonus of £5,500,000 to the City of London.

Having put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago, at what must have been an embarrassing moment to him, I desire to thank him for the statement he has made to the House this afternoon and the explanation he has given of the manner in which this difficult technical problem has now been dealt with. I always listen with the greatest interest to the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) on questions of finance. He has accustomed himself to talk in big figures. He is frequently put up by the Opposition to talk on these questions but he suffers at times from lapses of memory; and he is suffering from one to-day. Like myself, the hon. and learned Member was not in the House during the period of the first Labour government in 1924, in fact, I do not recall his name as an active protagonist of Socialism in those days, but if he had been here he might recall, when he accuses my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of finding ingenious excuses for paying more than we owe, the fact that by the 4½ per cent. conversion loan, issued by the first Socialist government in 1924, holders of the five per cent. War Loan were offered a conversion scheme by Lord Snowden, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the basis of 4½ per cent., for which they received £103 for every £100 of war stock.

Also he might have recalled the action of the Government of which he himself was a Member. I know that often hon. Members opposite protest against the iniquity of the State paying five per cent. to any of its stockholders. The Government of which the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was a Member were kind enough to issue in November, 1929, a conversion loan under which they converted 5 per cent. War Loan into 5 per cent. Conversion. It cannot be dealt with until 1944, and it is one of the chief obstacles to further conversion schemes by the Government. It was on that occasion that the late Labour Government were mindful of the City of London and treated the City very generously. They placed a large amount of that stock at 99½, or Ms. discount, with special financial houses of the City, and it was calculated that they gave a very handsome bonus to the City at that time. So if the hon. and learned Member is anxious to attack this Resolution, as, of course, it is his duty to do, he has chosen a rather unfortunate jumping-off ground when he accuses the Chancellor of the Exchequer of finding ingenious excuses for paying more than we owe.

At least I think the House will agree that the technical position with which the Government were faced was one of very great difficulty. The Government followed what after all is the very sound proverb, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They have dealt with the matter according to the law of the land in the United States, and they have given the bondholders what at the present time is a very real and useful opportunity of converting their holdings into sterling and out of the dollar. That is a very useful contribution and a very sound solution. It is quite true that the hon. and learned Member has suggested other uses which might have been found for the money. I understood him to advocate the restoration of the judges' salary cuts.

What I said was that it might even be used for that. I understood that hon. Members opposite wanted it so used.

The hon. and learned Member gave us a choice of alternatives. He suggested that the money might be used on public works, on the Roosevelt scale, I take it, which has led very largely to the present situation in America. He suggested a restoration of the cuts in civil servants' salaries. He suggested further expenditure on education—financial education, I hope, for the benefit of hon. Members opposite; and he suggested also that the £7,000,000 might be used to restore the whole of the unemployment benefit cut. A little mental arithmetic might cure that suggestion. At the end of the list there was the suggestion that the cuts in the judges' salaries might be restored. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will also bear in mind his colleagues in the House of Commons, and Cabinet Ministers, if we are going into the question of cuts. Judges have been mentioned, but let us remember all of us. Those are the arguments which it is the hon. and learned Member's duty to bring forward whenever these questions are raised. They will, of course, read well in the "Daily Herald" in the morning, but as that paper does not circulate in circles where education has penetrated, no great harm may be done.

So far as the suggestion and policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are concerned, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, at a time when prices are crashing in New York owing to the application of a policy which may well be compared to that of his Labour colleagues in 1929—an unbalanced Budget. expenditure on public works and financial recklessness—in. the midst of it all the loan which is linked to Great Britain has risen by eight to ten points, which is a great tribute to the opportunity which people have of exchanging their holdings into sterling. I have no hesitation in saying that I think my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated and I hope the House will pass the Resolution by a large majority.

It is always interesting when one has a concrete example given of an abstract opinion. Last evening I happened to be with a stockbroker and I was talking to him about this. He said: "You must not think that stockbrokers know anything about finance." It is nice to have that confirmed.

Is the hon. Gentleman under the improssion that I am a stockbroker?

I took the information from "Dod." If the statement is wrong, of course I withdraw it.

I am a stockbroker in the same way that the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir. S. Cripps) is a solicitor.

The hon. Member may be a jobber or a broker, but it makes no difference, as my friend's statement applied to all members of the Stock Exchange. When I saw the hon. Member rise I thought we were going to get some explanation of this Resolution, but the weakness of the case has been quite extraordinary, for all that the hon. Member can rake up is number of instances of conversion loans in which, by a reduction of interest, the indebtedness of this country has been increased. But he did not give us any explanation of this extraordinary conversion loan, for which the interest payment is to be reduced from £1,540,000 odd to £886,000 odd, a magnificent saving of less than £700,000 in four years, while we are going to have an increase in our capital indebtedness of nearly £7,500,000. I never had the pleasure of doing business with the hon. Member, but if he thinks that that is good business, I am prepared to deal with him. I should be quite content with those terms. It seems to me extraordinarily good business to be able, merely for a temporary cut in interest, to make more than twice as much at the end of four years. I do not know whether that is the practice of persons of great experience and authority who lecture to us on finance, and who operate in some way or other on the Stock Exchange.

I was certainly surprised at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that this is done on account of very special circumstances. But he gave us no very special circumstances. The most he gave us in the way of very special circumstances was that these bonds were now held outside the United States. He was rather reticent and did not go further. He obviously had some information; he knew they were held outside the United States. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will go a little further and tell us where he believes they are held. This proposal is equivalent to the House voting a large sum of money from the taxpayers. Who are the beneficiaries of the Chancellor? I cannot believe in this extraordinarily sudden access of philanthropy on the part of the National Government. I have never noticed any tendency to philanthropy on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a very different cry from that which the right hon. Gentleman has put up during the past two years. Every time he has stood at that Box to talk finance he has been as poor as a church mouse, but he is now prepared in this case to scatter largesse on the just and the unjust alike, without inquiry as to means or anything of that sort.

I do not know whether the people who are to receive this largesse are people who ought to receive it. This House is not here for the purpose of considering the interests of bondholders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is slot here, or at least he ought not to be here, in the interest of bondholders. He is here to protect the interests of the taxpayers and of this country. I am bound to say that this is only another example of the wonderful way in which the Members of the National Government cling together. The President of the Board of Trade takes exactly the same line. He is going to enormous pains to ensure that the workers of this country shall make a handsome donation to the people who grow our food in the Argentine, and, probably, also a good deal to the people concerned in the transport of the food as well as the dealers in it. This bondholder philanthropy has now spread to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What is the tangible advantage that this House as representing this country is going to get out of these proposals. On what possible financial principle does the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify this proposal? If a body of clerks or other employés in a Government Department find that by some means or other they are going to get less than they expected to get, we do not find the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming forward voluntarily and offering to make them a donation. It generally requires a tremendous agitation in the country to get anything of that kind. Here we are told that there is a moral obligation. I did not understand that there was any consideration of "moral obligation" in business circles in the City, and I certainly never observed it in. Treasury deals. Quite apart from the personalities of those who compose the Treasury or the personality of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury has a tradition of being extremely hard in these matters and of sticking very strictly to the letter of the bond in every case. Exceptional circumstances are, therefore, required to justify the proposal, and we should like to know what is expected to be the result when we have to pay off these bonds in 1937. Is this really the explanation that cannot be put forward directly—that this is going to be some wonderful gamble, or something based on that gambling with the currencies which now takes up so much of the time of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The right hon. Gentleman said that it might be very inconvenient to pay this in American paper dollars. But it might be equally inconvenient at that time to pay it in sterling. I understood that the House had given the right hon. Gentleman about £500,000,000 to play with in foreign currency. Its use is kept secret. Nobody, except the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) knows what is being done. But we understand that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to put his hand on the currencies at this time or at that time and to engage in equalisation operations. Yet he says that he would be or might be seriously embarrassed if he had to pay these people according to the letter of the bond. He does not say whether or not he is going to be seriously embarrassed in paying them off in 1937.

In view of the present state of the world, in view of the extremely contradictory statements made by all the high financial pundits whether in the City or abroad and in view of what the course of financial affairs is likely to be, this at best is a gamble and at worst a ramp. It looks as if it was a ramp in the interest of some private persons or private firms of which this House knows nothing, and I think that the House certainly ought to refuse to accept a proposal like this, brought forward all in a hurry and without warning, on a Friday afternoon and in a House where except for the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite) most of our great financial authorities are conspicuous by their absence. While it may be creditable to the right hon. Gentleman that he has brought this matter to light to some extent, and has at least sought to give it the colour of having been put through publicly, we object to the proposal and to the manner in which it has been presented.

It is with considerable diffidence that I intervene because this conversion offer has only been in our hands a very short time. There are, however, certain points with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary will deal in replying on this debate. First I would join issue with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on two main points. He suggested that it was a ramp on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make such a favourable offer. I think everyone on this side has followed the right hon. Gentleman's dealings with the national finances with the utmost admiration, and although some of us may feel that this offer is unduly generous, we are convinced that the right hon. Gentleman, in making it, is acting in good faith and in the interests of the nation and of nobody else. I also wish to contradict the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with regard to the increased capital which has to be paid off as a result of this offer. He seemed to think that it was practically without precedent to increase the capital amount of a loan when making an offer of conversion, but it is very often advisable, in return for a very low rate of interest, to increase the capital amount to be repaid. That is an ordinary practice which has been followed in innumerable previous cases.

There are certain points however on which I must confess I have grave doubts. It seems to me that the difference between the existing interest and the new interest results in a saving of £654,000 a year. I give these figures with all reserve because I have had to work them out in a hurry. But the capital sum is increased by £7,500,000 and consequently the saving in interest is reduced to £468,000 a year. Against this, we have to amortise in a period of about 3½ years, the increased capital resulting from this conversion of £7,500,000. That costs something like £2,000,000 a year to write off—the increased capital amount. Thus, if you compare that amount of £2,000,000 with the saving of something under £500,000, it would appear that the country is by about £1,500,000 a year worse off on balance. There may be great compensating advantages. The hon. Member for Limehouse referred to one which is very important. It may be extremely inconvenient in a few years time to be obliged to find a large amount in dollars in New York. The hon. Member for Limehouse said it might equally be difficult to find sterling in London, but I do not agree with him there. If your currency is sterling it is always easier to find sterling than some foreign currency.

There is one other point on which I should like the view of a representative of the Government. It appears to me that we are assuming that dollars will rise over the period of the next few years. I think that is an extremely doubtful assumption. It is at least possible that dollars may fall and in that case we might be able to obtain the dollars required for paying off the capital sum considerably cheaper than we consider possible at the moment. That is merely a question of view. Nobody but a fool or a prophet would venture to prophesy the future course of exchanges over a period of years, and therefore I think it is rather dangerous to take that particular view, that by converting this loan into sterling we shall be better off. I should be most grateful, before coming to a decision as to what to do if there is a division on this very important point, to have the views of a member of the Government on the points which I have raised.

We have had a statement put before us this morning which it is very difficult to follow. During the course of this Debate it has been inferred from this side that a number of these bondholders are in London, and it is apprehended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing something for people in the City of London. Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell us how many of these bondholders actually live in London? If there is a doubt on this side that we in the House of Commons are doing something for certain people in this country, we have a right to know the facts, and if the charge is unfounded and these bondholders are all in America, there will be some understanding why the Chancellor should put the point of view that, on moral grounds, he wants to do something for those people. It will leave a great doubt in our minds, however, if we find that a large majority of these bonds are held in the City of London. If any money is being given away in this country on moral grounds, the unemployed are entitled to some of it. Owing to financial stress, the unemployed have had to suffer a cut. They are people in this country, and, as I say, if any money is to be given away on moral grounds, the unemployed ought to have it. There must be some knowledge at the Treasury as to those who hold these bonds, and I shall be glad to know what the Financial Secretary can tell us on that matter.

Perhaps I may say one or two words in reply to some of the observations that have been made. In reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I say frankly that I do not know in the least where the holders of these bonds at present live, because if the bonds are bearer bonds, they can pass from hand to hand without any registration taking place of the name or address of the various holders from time to time. Therefore, the hon. Member will see that it is quite impossible to have specific and precise information as to where the bondholders reside. At the same time, as I said before, I have some reason to suppose—I have been informed, at any rate—that a very considerable number of the bonds are held outside the United States of America, which means, no doubt, that some of them are held in London and that others again are held in various places on the Continent.

But we are not addressing ourselves to that particular point as to where the bondholders live, except in this respect, that if we were quite certain that all the bondholders were Americans, I should not feel the same moral obligation on behalf of people who are affected to some extent by reason of the action of their own Government, but the circumstances are different in the case of a bondholder who is not an American, who bought these bonds in good faith of the Gold Clause, and having not the slightest idea that the Gold Clause was likely to be abrogated. That is the reason why I particularly mentioned, as one of the exceptional circumstances, that to a very great extent the bondholders were not Americans, but, so far as I knew, the bonds were largely held elsewhere.

With regard to the rather cheap point, if I may say so, that if there is money to give away, it ought to be used for some other purpose, I think it is sufficient to say that as a matter of fact there will be more money available in the course of the next few years in the Budget by reason of this proposal than there would have been otherwise.

indicated dissent.

The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, hut everybody admits that there is a reduce- tion of interest payable, amounting to £650,000 a year, for the next four years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman making no provision at all for repayment? If not, anyway a greater loan will have to be raised at the end of four years.

Quite. That is the point that I was coming to. It has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrhyn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), for whose general approval I am grateful, as well as for that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. G. Braithwaite). I do not propose to provide for the amortisation of the extra amount of principle which will be involved in this offer, and, of course, hon. Members will see that if the repayment had still to be made in gold, as it originally was when we undertook these obligations, there would have been a very much larger amount to pay in 1937 than there would be even under the arrangement that is now in front of us. What we do under this proposal is to make some sort of compensation to the bondholders for loss of rights, and it is not the slightest use for the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to leave out of account altogether those circumstances when he is dealing with the case, and to speak of it as though it was a bonus given, quite gratuitously, to people who have no claim, either legal or moral, upon us.

You cannot get away from it that in the actual circumstances of the case those circumstances must include consideration of the rights which bondholders had before the abrogation of the Gold Clause in America, and while we have not attempted, and do not profess to have attempted, to put the bondholders back in the same position as they were in before the abrogation of the Gold Clause, we have attempted to recognise what we believe to be a moral obligation, and we believe that it will redound to the credit of the British Government and nation, and that we have provided a fair compensation to the bondholders.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to make out a case as clearly as we should have liked. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) both tried to make the House understand that this was an entirely new departure, for which, so far as we know, there is no precedent, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be called upon to follow in other cases. Already the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) is continually asking about the German loan of £90,000,000 and asking the right hon. Gentleman to face up to his moral obligations in regard to it. When I was in the Government with Mr. Snowden, vigorous appeals were made on behalf of people in this country who held stock in France for £50,000,000 worth of which they only received £10,000,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when. I say that I have not questioned his sincerity about this matter at all, but I do question his judgment. Every word that he said to-day was said again and again to Mr. Snowden—and it was done from the right hon. Gentleman's own Benches—that we ought in honour, and from the point of view of morals, to come to the aid of those bondholders, who received a pittance for their holdings.

The right hon. Gentleman is on the slippery slope in this matter. He has taken a line of action the end of which no one can see. We very much resent this care for the bondholders by the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend who spoke just now, together with other lion. Members, speak for people who are robbed of their compensation. This House has passed a law that workmen should have compensation. Over and over again they are robbed of it owing to certain conditions, and we come to the House and ask that the House should implement what it has said regarding the rights of these people. I contend that this is a much more justifiable appeal than the one which the right hon. Gentleman made to-day. We shall register our vote against this Resolution because we are certain that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have not realised the extent to which they will be called upon to follow the principles that he has laid down this afternoon.

On Wednesday last, my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) put a Question on the Order Paper addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with reference to the prosecution of the Allied Newspapers for running a racing competition. Owing to the unsatisfactory position disclosed by the answer, my hon. Friend gave notice that he would raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Unfortunately, he is unable to be present to-day, and I have been asked to raise the matter. Let me briefly recite the circumstances which caused my hon. Friend to bring this question to the notice of the House. On 24th April this year the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Express" and the "Daily Mirror" announced a racing competition on the Derby with £2,500 as prize money. On the following day, the "Daily Herald" announced a similar competition, and on 26th April the Allied Newspapers followed suit. On that same day the "News Chronicle" also announced a similar competition, but with prize money amounting to only £1,000. It will be observed that the offer made by the Allied Newspapers was the last offer to be made, and I am credibly informed by the management of the Allied Newspapers that they would not have run a competition on such a scale were it not absolutely necessary for their own self-preservation.