asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further progress has been made towards the conclusion of an agreement on disarmament betwen ourselves and other great Powers?

As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancnas South-West (Mr. Mitcheson) yesterday, the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference only met that day for the first time after a long adjournment. I regret that I am unable, as yet, to make any statement in regard to the progress made at Geneva.

Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that, all efforts to secure a general agreement on Disarmament having failed, all that remains is to try to find the least disagreeable method of expressing the fact?

No, that is not quite the case.

On the contrary, does it not mean that His Majesty's Government are pressing in every way to bring about a solution?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the President of the United States that no further token payment on account of War debt will be made by Great Britain if, despite such payment, this country is to be regarded as a defaulting debtor within the meaning of the Johnson Act?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I have nothing to add.

Will this House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before any further token payment is made, in the circumstances set out in the question on the Paper?

Perhaps the hon. Member will renew that question a few days later, when he will see how the situation stands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to arrangements for transferring the Assyrians to Brazil or elsewhere?

According to a report submitted to the Council of the League on the 17th May by its Assyrian Committee, the mission which visited Brazil to investigate the scheme for the settlement of the Assyrians in Parana reported favourably on that scheme. The committee pointed out to the Council, however, that the transfer of so large a population raised problems more difficult than was generally realised; that it was too early therefore to express an opinion whether the scheme for settlement in Brazil could be put into effect; and that the next step would be to enter into detailed negotiations with the Brazilian Government in the hope of working out a plan acceptable to that Government. The committee is to meet again in Geneva this week to consider the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the reasons given by the German Government for the arrest of Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Berlin correspondent of the "Daily Express," on 15th May?

I understand that the occasion for Mr. (Stephens's arrest at Aken, near Dessau, on the 15th May was that of suspicion of being engaged in industrial espionage.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty for how many years the average canteen tenancy in Malta had been held before their transfer in June, 1918; and whether contracts were carried out satisfactorily prior to the War?

We are all very glad to see the hon. Member in his place again.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the transfer of the Mediterranean canteen tenancies to the Army and Navy Canteen Board in 1918 was a temporary war-time measure, and that the secretary to the commander-in-chief stated, on 8th March, 1916, this course had been decided upon on account of the scarcity of certain foodstuffs, the restriction imposed upon exports from Malta, and the increasing difficulties encountered by private firms in meeting requirements; and, in view of this, will he state what opportunities have been offered to previous tenants to tender for contracts since the War?

The canteens in the Mediterranean were taken over by the Navy and Army Canteen Board in 1918 owing to the inability of the Maltese canteen tenants to meet requirements satisfactorily under the conditions then obtaining. The statement attributed to the secretary to the commander-in-chief doubtless had reference to these conditions. In 1920, when the policy was reviewed by the three Service Departments, it was unanimously agreed that the tenant system should not be revived, and that all the canteens then managed by the Navy and Army Canteen Board should be taken over permanently by that organisation, which was reconstituted as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. As the tenant system has thus been abolished, no opportunity can arise for previous tenants to tender for agreements. Considerable purchases of provisions are made, however, by the Victualling Yard, by His Majesty's ships direct, and by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, from Maltese traders.

Do we understand from the First Lord that no opportunity is ever likely to be given to the previous holders of these tenancies to obtain the old business again?

No, sir, I do not think there is the slightest chance of going back.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of this expression of preference for private enterprise as against nationalisation?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report of the commission of inquiry into the administration of justice in criminal matters in East Africa has now boon considered; and if the report will be made available for Members of the House?

Certain questions arising out of my consideration of this report have been referred to the Conference of East African Governors. The report will be presented to Parliament in the course of a few weeks.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many disabled men were receiving a course of inpatient treatment at the end of April, 1934, and the number of applicants who have been refused treatment allowances?

At the end of April last, approximately 2,600 officers and men were in receipt of in-patient treatment, apart from cases in mental hospitals. The great majority of these would be in receipt of treatment allowances, but I have no record of the precise number who were found ineligible for them.

asked the Minister of Pensions bow many first claims to pension have been received during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1934; and of that number how many claims have been admitted and how many have been rejected?

3,550 fresh applications in respect of disablement were received during the year referred to. In the same period 300 claims were recognised by way of either monetary award and/or medical treatment according to the circumstances of the case.

May I ask whether those who have been rejected have any right of appeal to the appeal tribunal?

No, Sir, as the hon. Member knows, they have not, but the present Government, like their predecessors, feel that the present arrangement is best both in the interests of the State and of the ex-service men.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while disabled men have been receiving treatment and since their discharge their wives and children have had to be maintained by the Poor Law authorities?

That supplementary question arises out of the previous question, but not out of this question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to protect the British dairying industry from foreign competition, having regard to the fact that the imports of foreign butter were 1,233,000 cwt. in the first four months of 1934, as compared with 1,121,000 cwt. in the same period of 1933?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 22nd February last with regard to the Government's milk policy. The Financial Resolution covering the proposals I then outlined will come up for consideration by the House to-morrow.

As the right hon. Gentleman's statements have indicated that the trouble is due to increasing Dominion imports, and these figures show that there is an increase of imports from foreign countries, does not this call for reconsideration on his part?

I am not at all sure to what my hon. Friend is referring, but an opportunity for debate will arise to-morrow, and we shall then be very glad to meet that and other points.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the considerable increase in the imports of butter from the Netherlands, in view of the negotiations going on with that country?

Certainly, all those points are being borne in mind. The milk policy which has been outlined in the House is designed to raise the low level of prices, from whatever cause arising.

Is it not the case that there is a corresponding increase in the imports of butter from the Dominions as compared with the figures given in the question?

It would not be advisable to debate that matter at Question Time, but we can go into it to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are yet in a position to make a further announcement with regard to the relief of the derelict areas?

No Sir, not yet.

When does the Parliamentary Secretary expect to be in a position to make a statement; and is it the intention of the Government to hurry up the commissioners' reports, so that the House can debate the matter before the Summer Recess?

The reports have not yet been received, and it is obviously undesirable that the investigation should be unduly hurried.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is expected that the reports will be received, so that we can debate them?

When the investigation is completed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to introduce legislation to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in his report for the year 1933, that it should be made an offence for dealers in gold and silver articles to break up or melt articles brought into their possession within a stated period, such as seven days?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 15th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the official designation or title of those of His Majesty's Lieutenants for English counties who are not also peers is Lord Lieutenant; and will he notify the local authorities concerned when cases in which the correct designation is not employed come to the notice of the Home Office?

The title "Lieutenant" is statutory, being used in Acts of Parliament from the 16th century onwards, and the designation officially used in all cases is "His Majesty's Lieutenant of the County of" The style "Lord Lieutenant" is, however, commonly used colloquially and in general correspondence, and is applied to the holders of such office whether they are peers or commoners. I do not think it necessary to communicate with local authorities in the matter.

Am I correct in understanding my right hon. Friend to say that, in describing as "Lord Lieutenant" one of His Majesty's Lieutenants of a county who is not a peer, the correct legal title is employed?

That title is commonly used, I think. It has grown up through long custom.

asked the Home Secretary whether any and, if so, what action is now contemplated by the Government in regard to the wearing of political uniforms?

The Government have been giving careful consideration to the question whether it is necessary, in the public interests, to propose legislation for the purpose of dealing with certain undesirable new developments on the part of political organisations and, should the occasion arise, they will not hesitate to submit to Parliament such proposals as they deem necessary for the purpose of dealing with any activities, which constitute a threat to public order or security, by strengthening the law relating to the preservation of public order. Developments are being closely watched.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, if the suggestion contained in the question were carried out, it would merely have the effect of advertising a faction?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the example of foreign countries where political uniforms have been suppressed without any evil repercussions?

Would it not at least be more decent to limit the wearing of blouses to the female sex?

I beg to move,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred that they amend Part I of the Schedule thereto by striking out in the second column, paragraph (c), of Item 7, the words 'or the demolition thereof and the erection of a new bridge.'"

"the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge or the demolition thereof, and the erection of a new bridge."

Yes.

Are you satisfied that this is the best and most economical system of using the river—barges towed by tugs?

I think that the fact that this is how the traffic is managed is good evidence that it is the best way of it being conducted."

They also point out that it makes exceptional difficulties in navigating the bridges, and the bridges, of course, cannot be done away with. One has to try to reconcile the two interests, of the cross-river users and the up and down river users?

I do not think the Port of London Authority take up the attitude that they object to bridges. I do not want you to think, for instance, that I have come here as an advocate of the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. It is an impediment to the traffic on the river, but it is not so serious an impediment as to warrant the destruction of what I think, and I think most people think, is one of the most beautiful things we have get in this country, so I do not want you to think I have come here as an advocate of that. What I have really come here for is to impress upon you the necessity there is in our opinion for our having a voice in whatever is done in the way of building new bridges across the river.

I cannot conceive that we would make any recommendations ignoring the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for the user of the river. I think we should not do anything of the kind; but before we leave that point, that you yourself made, with regard to Waterloo Bridge, I take it that you regard it (I am assuming now that it is in its original condition, I mean not in its present partially blocked condition) as increasing the difficulties of navigation, yet you have not regarded and do not regard it as so serious an obstacle to navigation that you wish to see it removed?

That is so, but that brings me to say this, if I may; amongst the other proposals or suggestions that have been made was one that the bridge should be widened. … It is easy to imagine how the difficulties of navigating the bridge would be accentuated if it was increased in width.

In tunnel width, you mean?

Yes, in tunnel width. So that if any suggestion of that kind were made, of course we (the Port of London Authority) would have a good deal to say.

But granting that at all times considerable skill has been required to navigate this particular bridge, it has been successfully accomplished, has it not?

Yes.

And according to a return which we have received covering the period from April, 1921, to March, 1924— that is, up to the time when the new staging was erected in connection with the bridge—there were no accidents of any sort or description, either to vessels or to cargo or to crews of the ships?

None at all, according to this return.

And it is only since the bridge has been largely blocked by the repair works that there have been some minor casualties, not to life, but a few casualties in connection with vessels passing through?

There appear to have been three since May, 1924.

But until the bridge was partially blocked there were apparently no accidents of any kind?

Apparently not; we have no record of it.

Showing that although extra skill is required, it is within the accomplishment of the river navigators?

Apparently so.

And therefore does not have to be taken into very grave account."

"The bridge was a work of great stability and magnificence, and as such adapted to transmit to posterity the remembrance of great and glorious achievements, and that a name should be given to the bridge which should be a lasting record of the brilliant and decisive victory achieved by His Majesty's Forces in conjunction with those of his Allies on the 18th June, 1815."

"That from and after the passing of this Act the said bridge shall be called and denominated The Waterloo Bridge."

I beg to second the Motion.

In asking the House to oppose the Motion for the Instruction, I should like to draw attention to a number of statements which were made very ably by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). Those statements coincide with statements which have been very widely published in the Press, by circular to Members of Parliament, and by all manner of propaganda means, with a view to influencing the House on this matter. If I may say so with respect, the Mover of the Motion has done a disservice to his cause by introducing into what is essentially a matter of the good Government of London, and not a matter of party politics, considerations of a party political character. That it is not a party question is evidenced by the fact that the old council, like the new council, were unanimously of opinion that on its merits the building of a new bridge is the best method of dealing with this difficult and long-delayed question. It is inaccurate to say that on the London County Council there is a party division on the question of rebuilding and reconditioning. There is nothing of the kind. Both councils, old and new, are unanimous in their belief that, on the merits of the question, tactics aside, to rebuild the bridge is the best course. It is very unfortunate to convey the impression, which perhaps the hon. Member might not have intended to convey, that this is a matter of party politics on the London County Council. It is not, and I feel sure that it will not be a matter of party politics in this House.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member shakes his head, but, if I heard him aright, he inflated a figure of £750,000 into £2,250,000, no small increase, and in doing that he threw direct doubt upon the competency of the estimates of the Council's engineers and advisers. It has been stated that the cost of building the bridge in accordance with the design of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott would be £2,200,000. The Council are not committed to that design or any other, but that design has been used as the basis for estimate and on the basis of that design the estimates of the Council's engineers and advisers is not £2,200,000 but £1,295,000. Therefore, the hon. Member made a trifling inaccuracy of nearly £1,000,000.

Seven to nine years.

On the other side he said the time for reconditioning the bridge would be two or three years. Fortunately, I am in a position this evening to give the House, with the authority of the London County Council, some important facts which bear upon those quite inaccurate statements. The House will remember that in pursuance of a decision arrived at previously the County Council invited tenders for reconditioning the bridge. Owing to the great amount of detail which has had to be examined it is only possible for me to place before the House certain general particulars with regard to those tenders, but sufficient definite information is available— not on estimates, but on actual tenders to which the contractors will be bound —to show that the hon. Member's figures and estimates are very wide of the actual facts.

I did not quarrel with the £685,000. I said, on the contrary, that my advisers thought it was too high, and I understand now that it is too high.

I am afraid the hon. Member has not quite followed my point. My point is that if the council's engineers and advisers can forecast with such remarkable accuracy the cost of reconditioning the bridge, what reason have we to throw doubt upon their estimate for rebuilding, and what right bas the hon. Member to inflate their figure for rebuilding the bridge by nearly a million pounds? This inaccuracy in such a grave matter, because this has to be considered as an urgent business proposition, is even worse when we come to the question of time. Time is very strictly of the essence of this contract. The time which it will take to recondition the bridge has been estimated by the council as accurately as the cost. The council estimate that the time will be about five years, and the 29 tenders vary as to time from four to six and a-half years, the average being five years and four months. So that when the hon. Member speaks of reconditioning this bridge in two years——

I said three and a-half years.

Two to three and a-half years, I understood.

No, three and a-half years for reconditioning the bridge, but the rebuilding of the two defective fliers and arches will take only two years, and the whole bridge will be open for traffic the whole time except for three months.

The hon. Member will, no doubt, be interested to know that the tenderers require an average of five years and four months, so that he has not only been grossly inaccurate about the cost but is two years wrong as to time. Here, again, the council's engineers and advisers have been absolutely accurate. The hon. Member spoke also of the added obstruction to navigation which would be involved in rebuilding. No doubt he will be very interested to learn that none of the tenderers could undertake to fulfil the minimum requirements of the Port of London Authority. The Port of London Authority laid down certain minimum requirements of navigation. I need not trouble the House with a technical description of those requirements, but none of the tenderers was able to satisfy them.

Is this a public document?

I am quoting from information which has been supplied to me on the authority of the London County Council, and I suggest that the House must be in possession of this information if it is to come to an informed decision. None of the tenderers would be able, while reconditioning the bridge, to maintain the minimum navigational facilities; but the council's engineers, whose competence and accuracy have been established, I submit, say that they can maintain all that the Port of London Authority asks for while building a new bridge, and that they can build the new bridge within five years. Actually, therefore, the time involved will be less and the obstruction caused will be less.

I was not on the Committee.

The Charing Cross Bridge scheme together with the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge, that would provide 10 lines of traffic, involves expenditure of over £16,000,000. The suggestion of the London County Council is that six lines of traffic be provided at Waterloo Bridge, and the total cost of that will be £1,295,000. That, they suggest will provide for the traffic requirements in that sector of the river for the time being, and will meet the requirements as far as we can see ahead. While the Charing Cross Bridge scheme is not ruled out, it is felt by the council that money is wanted for urgent public needs, and that with the provision of six lines of traffic at Waterloo Bridge are more urgent, in point of time and in public consideration, than the Charing Cross scheme. The council feel, and I feel, that the House will support them in their proposal that, so long as adequate traffic facilities are provided, no money should be diverted from slum clearance and rehousing proposals. It is with the very great difficulty in mind of finding the necessary money for such purpose's which will be required, over and above the heavy expenditure of Charing Cross, that the council now make this suggestion.

Let us get on with it.

I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that. That is exactly what the London County Council want to do. If the hon. Gentleman will read the proceedings of the council, and I am afraid he does not, judging from a quotation which he made earlier in his speech——

I quoted from the "Times."

That was only half of it, and that was the unfortunate thing about it. If the hon. Gentleman had read the whole quotation he would have seen that members of the council unanimously affirmed their belief in that same resolution that a new bridge at Waterloo was the best thing. He did not quote that. If he had followed the proceedings of the London County Council, he would have seen that they had in mind to set about the job of replanning and redeveloping the south bank of the Thames. That is one of the necessary collateral developments, with this long-drawn out controversy of Waterloo Bridge, which should be settled once and for all.

"We are convinced that, if there were a bridge with six lines of traffic there"—

"the present fluidity of traffic is such that not only would congestion not happen but that the traffic would be admirably dealt with. The police report on congestion in the neighbourhood of the Strand since this experiment"—

"was tried is that it has resulted in a steady improvement in the flow of traffic … We are confident that by that method we have the answer to our friends who ask how we can deal with the six lines of traffic over Waterloo Bridge."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 1st June, 1932; col. 1277, Vol. 266.]

No.

Lord Ritchie is the chairman of the Port of London Authority, and Lord Ritchie claimed, the hon. Member said, to have the voice of the Port of London Authority heard when alterations of London's bridges were in contemplation. The voice of the Port of London Authority has been heard on this very matter which we are discussing today, in a considered statement——

indicated dissent.

Because the hon. Member does not agree with it, I hope he is not going to try to stifle it. The Port of London Authority have issued an authoritative pronouncement on this problem which we are considering to-day, but, as this is a highly technical question, I will leave it to another Member of the House, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke), who speaks with unquestioned authority as one who has personal knowledge of the problems concerned, to deal with the navigational aspect of the matter. In the few minutes that remain, might I refer to the various appeals which have been made for the preservation of the architecture of this fine old bridge, Rennie's masterpiece? I yield to no one in my love of and devotion to the beauty of London, and especially the beauty of old London, but I think we are bound to have regard to the necessities of a modem city. We are bound to have regard to questions of comfort and convenience and to the possibility of (modern trade and modern commerce. But, if I may say so to the hon. Member with all respect, we are not faced with the alternative of destroying a beautiful piece of architecture or of preserving it. The chance of preserving it has already gone; it has itself fallen down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It has fallen down. No one who looks at it to-day can do so without a feeling of sorrow and, indeed, of some shame. For more than 10 years that bridge has been in splints, with a bad and sorrowful crack in two of its beautiful arches, and I was thinking today, as I passed a school, that no child in that school has ever seen Waterloo Bridge in any other condition. The alternative before us is not preservation or destruction; the alternative before us is whether we will bow to the inevitable, realise that the bridge has served its purpose, and let it go, or whether we will so deal with it as to render it a mere shadow and distortion of its previous beauty.

"To overhang the footways would altogether destroy the architectural character of Rennie's bridge, which relies entirely upon the spontaneous and direct motive of arch and pillared buttress. The narrowness of the bridge emphasises its robust character, and to link the buttresses with any horizontal line that would throw into shadow the crown of the arches would completely mutilate the character of the original design, and would create, in fact, not only a new bridge, but an ugly one."

Before stating the case for the navigational interests so closely linked with the problem of Waterloo Bridge, I should like to tell the House how much I appreciate the work done by the London Committee and all those bodies concerned with the amenities of London. In doing this I know that I am voicing the feelings of all those organisations for which I speak. Surely no Englishman can fail to be thrilled by the romance and the historic memories which cling around our ancient monuments. Surely no Englishman would ruthlessly destroy any one of them. But I am certain that everyone here will agree that our country has greater historical and romantic interests than those connected with ancient monuments. Surely we hold more dearly the historic recollections and romantic traditions of our great industries and the lives of our countrymen who are carrying on those industries. If it was a question of saving one or the other, we should perforce save the livelihood of our people first. Suppose a beautiful country mansion were on fire, however wonderful and romantic its history, one's first thought would be for the people inside, and then we should preserve as much of the building as possible. I contend that this describes symbolically the problem that we have before us. Waterloo Bridge has certain aesthetic values for all of us but, as it stands to-day, it menaces the industrial development and the livelihood of thousands of our people. It is my privilege, as a practical freeman of the River Thames, to emphasise the views of the Port of London Authority, the Association of Master Lightermen, the Thames River Users Association, the British Chambers of Commerce and, last but not least, the men who work the river, men who by their skill and courage for many centuries have gained for themselves a privilege possessed by the men of no other river in the world

The hon. Member says that all experts are agreed that the bridge should come down. May I point out that Lord Ritchie states in evidence:

"I do not want you to think that I have come as an advocate for the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. It is an impediment to the traffic of the river, but it is not so serious an impediment as to warrant the destruction of the bridge."

It is true that Lord Ritchie made that statement before the Royal Commission, but it is nearly seven years ago, and the colossal increase of tonnage since that time has caused even Lord Ritchie to change his point of view. Practical men say most definitely that this brdige is the greatest obstacle on the River Thames. If one took the advice of a specialist as to having his tonsils out and he were advised to do so, he would not go to a veterinary surgeon afterwards. This subject has been very near getting into a party controversy. I was very disappointed to hear earlier in the day that various people were going to vote against the London County Council. I do not think that that is quite the right point of view on a big question of this sort which affects the lives of so many people and the great industrial development of those ports in the upper reaches of the River Thames. We must remember what the river means to us, and in this connection I will quote the words of the Poet Laureate:

"A thousand landmarks perish,

A hundred streets grow strange,

With all the dreams they cherish

They go the ways of change.

But, whatso towers may tumble

And, whatso bridges fall,

And, whatso statues crumble

Of folks both great and small,

The oldest thing in London,

He changes not at all."

I rise to support the Motion, because I think that it is unnecessary that anyone should go to the expense of building a new bridge when the present one can be adapted to fit in with the general circumstances of the area which it is intended to serve, notwithstanding what the two speakers who have just preceded me have said. The first hon. Gentleman stated that we have to deal with the merits of the case. He twitted my hon. Friend who proposed the Motion with not having dealt with the merits, but I am afraid that when he reads the OFFICAL REPORT to-morrow he will be compelled to say the same thing about the speech, however eloquent it was, which he himself delivered. After all, this is a practical engineering problem, and the question is, what are the merits of the case and what requirements are to be served by a bridge across the river at this point? Any work of this sort, whether the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge or the construction of an entirely new bridge of different dimensions, should form part of a co-ordinated scheme of development for its own and adjacent parts of the river. Anything that may be done on the site of the present Waterloo Bridge should fit in with a town planning scheme which would, in my view, necessitate the construction of a Charing Cross Bridge. The hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the first hon. Member who spoke in support of it, agreed that a Charing Cross Bridge was a desirable thing, but I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) say that the proposal was to deal with 10 lines of traffic. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman realised that these two bridges —Charing Cross and Waterloo—are not parallel bridges which, when crossing the river, would, as a consequence, serve different areas.

Perhaps I ought to point out that this was not my suggestion or the suggestion of the London County Council, but the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Whoever made it, let us deal with it as it is. These two bridges are not parallel. If they were parallel they would deal with different areas on either side of the river. On this side they would both debouch into the Strand, and on the other side it is conceivable that they would have two main arteries which would feed them, and to some considerable extent they might be regarded as independent, but that is not the case at all, These two bridges converge rapidly. Indeed, they converge so much that lines drawn along the centre of them would meet at no great distance on the other side of the river. They would meet somewhere opposite the present entrance to Waterloo Station. Meeting there, they would have one main artery leading away. That one main artery would feed the two bridges. The hon. Member is shaking his head. Here are two bridges crossing the river, and shortly after crossing the river there would be one artery leading away. They could have a lot of branch roads coming in down the New Cut beyond Waterloo Station. A big plage could be built such as was put down on the original plan with a whole series of roads leading into it. But it was meant by such a plage that one road would serve both the Waterloo Bridge and the Charing Cross Bridge. I know something about it because I put up the alternative scheme.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House for any length of time but I feel that as one who took some part in the discussions in this House two years ago, and has been connected with the controversy over this bridge for the last 10 years, that it is incumbent upon me to say something in this Debate. Two years ago I had the opportunity of speaking on behalf of the London County Council. To-day I have not that opportunity, but as one who has taken an interest in London administrative problems for more than a quarter of a century perhaps I may claim the indulgence of the House in saying a few words on this new attempt to bring the matter before Parliament. When the House decided two years ago to refuse the request of the London County Council we thought that the matter was more or less closed. At the beginning of 1933 we made representations to His Majesty's Government again and put forward our point of view, and the Government decided that no alteration could be made in the decision at which the House had arrived. The London County Council by resolution reluctantly acquiesced in the decision of the Government. We proceeded to take the necessary steps, as outlined by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), to secure tenders from various people for the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge on lines that were decided by the Government of the day.

I feel that we are being asked to look at what we have already looked at, and to come to a decision which this House has already made. After a considerable Debate, at which I was present, we came to the decision that Waterloo Bridge was necessary as a matter of economy, as a matter of necessity, and as being the best means of getting the traffic across the river. It is well known to everybody who has ever crossed Waterloo Bridge that it is placed at a very awkward point. It runs into the Strand at a narrow place, and traffic cannot get out into the Strand except by going right or left. The bridge will only carry at the present moment four lines of traffic, and it could not carry-more and empty into the Strand as it does at present. We are faced with the question of whether another bridge at that point will relieve the traffic and enable us to get six lines of traffic across the river at that point. We have evidence that that is an impossibility. You cannot get six lines of traffic into the Strand as it is at present. The question of cost is more important, because the new bridge will be an extraordinarily expensive one and a very useless one.

I do not wish to go over the past history of this case. It is well within the recollection of all hon. Members of the House. I should, however, like to state quite briefly how its past history has affected, and how the present decision may affect, the particular position of the Minister of Transport. It is, of course, true that the decision which the House took on 1st June, 1932, did not, technically, deal with the Road Fund grant. It operated only as a ban upon borrowing by the London County Council but my predecessor at the time accepted that resolution as an indication of the feelings and desires of this House and felt himself precluded by it from giving any grant for a scheme which involved the restruction of Waterloo Bridge, even if the London County Council would be able by other financial methods to raise their share. I, of course, feel myself under the same obligation to this House and I so informed Mr. Morrison when, soon after the county council election, he raised the matter anew. If to-night the House alters the decision which it took two years ago, I shall regard that ban as removed. I shall regard myself then as being in a position to offer a grant for a new Waterloo Bridge. As the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) explained, the London County Council itself has not decided and is not tied to any particular bridge. Therefore, my discretion is not in any way fettered nor am I in any way committed.

Oh!

My hon. Friend must remember that one's judgment of time when one is in a traffic block is rather like one's judgment of time when one is listening either to a speech with which one disagrees or to a speech from a chronic bore. But I do not think anyone who knew the Strand before the introduction of this round-about system and who knows it now will deny the immense improvement that has been made in the matter of traffic acceleration. I believe that even on the existing system we have a reserve capacity at the Strand entrance for more traffic crossing the bridge; but there are further possibilities by which I think we can increase the passage of the traffic into and over the Strand if we have to take it from the bridge. First of all, there are light signals. Undoubtedly, where they have been tried in London, they have produced a considerable acceleration of the traffic, and the possibility is that their installation at that spot would in itself provide us with a further acceleration.

I am sure the House is grateful for the very judicial and balanced speech which we have just heard from the Front Bench. I am one of those, and I think there is a fair number here, who voted against any change being made two years ago, and I propose to vote against the Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). In doing so I do not consider I am reversing my decision in any way. I think it is not right to suggest that the House is reversing its decision if it agrees to the proposal in the Bill. The majority of us voted as we did on the last occasion solely on the grounds of the financial position of the country at the moment. We thought then that economy had to be foremost, and we could not support a heavy expenditure of money. Things are different to-day. Moreover, we have had more information on this subject. Some of us have been able to study closely the pros and cons in a way we could not before. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that the House took its decision on the merits of the case two years ago. We have had the point argued very carefully from both sides with regard to road traffic, and it has also been dealt with by the best authority in the House, the Minister of Transport. He has made it perfectly clear that the fears entertained by a good many hon. Members about traffic blocks and traffic jams are unfounded and that the position is not feared by those who are responsible for the ordering of the traffic of this great city.

I welcome this opportunity to emphasise the case for the river users, which was very ably put by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke). The testimony that he gave to the House is worth all the opinions given by other hon. Members who have no practical experience. I have some little experience of river traffic. I spent 10 very happy days in 1926 towing barges through the Very bridge about which we are talking, during the general strike. I should like hon. Members to bring their minds back to the evidence given by Lord Ritchie, on behalf of the Port of London Authority. That evidence was given seven years ago when traffic on the river was very different from what it is to-day. There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of petrol traffic in tanks going up the river. Each of the barges conveying this inflammable freight under Waterloo Bridge carries 180 tons. There may not have been any accidents yet but there have been quite sufficient unpleasant episodes in navigation to make one rather afraid of what would happen if any of these barges were to get into collision with another craft.

As a representative of a division which is not connected with the London County Council but which is a riverside constituency I am here to support the London County Council in this effort. We have heard some fine language to-night about the beauty of Waterloo Bridge, but you ought to hear the language of the tugboat men, the watermen and the lighter-men in my constituency when they approach Waterloo Bridge. It is more forcible than descriptive. It may not be recorded in history, but it is recorded in the memory of the men who have to work on the river day after day and night after night. Some people fail to realise that the traffic on the river is becoming more and more important as the days go by. We have on the riverside a great station for supplying electricity for the underground railways, and there are big gas works to provide gas for the West End of London, although, no doubt, the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) could provide it with all the gas wanted. The men in the East End of London who come up the river from Purfleet bringing commodities for the use of the inhabitants of London are in favour of a new bridge and against the reconditioning of the old bridge, because they feel this would make it more difficult than ever for them to carry on with their jobs. I wonder what the hon. Member for South Kensington would think if he got up one morning and found that he could not have his breakfast because the electricity supply had failed or the gas had "gone west." He would talk as he did on the barrack squares in the old days when he was a general.

If I understood my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport aright, in his inimitable balanced speech he introduced a fallacious innuendo. I had decided to vote in favour of this Instruction, but as I listened to my hon. Friend's suggestion that if he could avoid the banking of traffic on the northerly bridge-head between Somerset House and the Strand, that would be a very great asset, I began to wonder whether I was still correct in supporting this Instruction. I was mesmerised only for a few moments, because it came to me quite clearly that my hon. Friend was not at all right in connecting a six-line roadway just south of the Strand with a six-line bridge. The bridge can very easily remain a four-line bridge, and when you get on to the bridge-head, past Somerset House and between Somerset House and the Strand, you can widen out in order, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that a longer line of traffic could go down the Strand, and the other two lines could go down Aldwych. I trust that any hon. Member who felt, as I did, that the argument of the Minister was a very cogent one, will agree that it is by no means essential, if we are to have six lines immediately south of the Strand, to pull down Waterloo Bridge. On the contrary a four-line bridge could continue to pour out enough traffic to block the Strand, never mind the question of the traffic proceeding east and west.

After the most admirable speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), who put the council's case completely and eloquently, there is no need for me to detain the House. The riverside problem has already been dealt with, and the Minister of Transport has once more put the traffic case completely. I should like to deal with the atmospherics of the case. I am taking part in this Debate upon the proposals put forward by the London County Council because it is essential to let the House realise that this is not merely a party question. I have been connected with the council for a long time, dealing with municipal affairs, and the longer I have done so the more sure I have become that when politics get mixed up with administrative matters, commonsense goes out of the window. I hope that the House on this occasion will not allow itself to be led astray by any political suggestions which may enter into the minds of Members or which may have been made.

I join with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) in hoping, and, indeed, believing confidently that this important question will not be decided with reference to any consideration other than the merits of the case with which we are confronted. I, for one, would deprecate, as most hon. Members would, I am sure, any attempt to consider the matter on political party lines. I am reinforced, if it is necessary, in that view by the great diffidence I feel in regard to my capabilities in following the tortuous maze of London County Council politics. It appears to me that it is a matter devoid of political significance in the ordinary party sense, because it is only two years since we had the same proposal put up by an opposite party in the London County Council. We came to a decision upon it then, and now to-night we are asked to reverse that decision. I feel sorry that we have to interfere at all with the arrangements made by the London County Council for the good government of this city. It would be an easier task for us if we had not to interfere in any way with the decisions arrived at by that well-informed and public-spirited body, but that is no excuse for us to-night shirking what is our duty, namely, to discharge the function of saying whether or not this proposal is to go forward in its present state. If anything were needed to add to the necessity of our examination of this proposal, it is the fact that, as far as the matter stands at present, about 60 per cent. of the cost of the proposed bridge is to come out of public funds for which we are all responsible.

"The Port Authority submit that in considering the form of construction of any bridge that the question of river navigation consideration should outweigh all others."

"Lord RITCHIE: That brings me to say this, if I may: Amongst the other proposals or suggestions that have been made was one that the bridge should be widened. Now, I have always understood that Waterloo Bridge in its present condition is the great test of a waterman's art. It is easy to imagine how the difficulties of navigating the bridge would be accentuated if it was increased in width.

In tunnel width, you mean?

Yes, in tunnel width. So that if any suggestion of that kind were made, of course the Port of London Authority would have a good deal to say." To-night it is not merely a question of contrasting a narrow arch with a wide arch, but a question of setting against the undoubted advantage of a wide arch the disadvantage of a longer tunnel. From the navigational point of view, I respectfully suggest that that is a matter which ought to be brought before us. The other point of view is that Waterloo Bridge with its present arches is a danger to navigation—not in the sense of danger to life and limb, for, as has been, said, there have been no accidents for three years—and is so formed that it is a check to the economic development of the river higher up. Let any hon. Member look at the statements that have been showered upon him in favour of the Bill. They one and all join in a paean of praise over the immense development of river traffic in recent years, how it has grown by leaps and bounds. Let the House remember that is has grown so by leaps and bounds in recent years with the bridge in its present condition, with the two main arches blocked. If indeed that great increase in river traffic be a fact —there is no cause to deny it—it has taken place not only with the bridge as it will be when reconstructed, but with the bridge with its two chief arches blocked permanently by wooden structures.